text:
To be honest with you I am not your average guy, I consider myself
a very very rare good man because I am educated and i treat people
with a tremendous amount of respect. I was born and raised in a
very small town on the coast and was fortunate enough to have
experienced life's tough lessons which has molded me into the good
man I am now. I spent most of my life living a very blessed life as
a very nice family man taking care of my responsibilities but life
changes very quickly and now I am begining a new chapter of life
where I am on a quest to find a loving soulmate who appreicates
having a good caring man in their life.
Join OkCupid
Find better matches with our advanced matching system
—% Match —% Friend —% Enemy
39 / M / Straight / Single
San Antonio, TX
My Details
- Last Online
- Feb 25
- Ethnicity
- Hispanic / Latin
- Height
- 6′ 0″ (1.83m)
- Body Type
- A little extra
- Diet
- —
- Smokes
- When drinking
- Drinks
- Socially
- Drugs
- Never
- Religion
- —
- Sign
- Aries
- Education
- Graduated from university
- Job
- Education
- Income
- $50,000–$60,000
- Relationship Type
- —
- Offspring
- Has kids
- Pets
- Likes dogs
- Speaks
- English, Spanish
Similar Users
What I'm doing with my life
Currently, I am enjoying my life here in SA and I am happy to say
that I just began a new position where I was recently promoted at
work for my dedication to helping inner city at-rsik students. I am
very proud to say that I have a career that allows me to go to work
everyday and serve the communtiy of SA in a very positive way
impacting many promising students lives graduate from high school
and go on to college. Most days I enjoy working a very nice
schedule that allows me plenty of free time to travel, relax, and
prepare for what may come in the future. I am very thankful to have
my education and a very rewarding career that helps me feel good
about what I do everyday.
I'm really good at
Anything I put my heart and soul into, but to be more specific I
have been told that I am a very sweet gentlemen who is very
entartaining with my interesting conversations. I also enjoy
cooking alot and take pride in the fact that I can cook a variety
of meals from breakfast to all out dinner parties for a group of
friends. But, what makes me the most special is that I am a people
person and I am very good at making new friends and helping others.
I am just an all around great guy to know expecially if you like
very cool laid back men.
The first things people usually notice about me
Is that I am a very strong looking man who takes pride in my
appearance and I enjoy going to the gym to stay in descent shape.
When you do get me to crack a very nice smile I have been told that
it can be very contagious. Also, people will notice that I am at
ease talking about whatever and can talk for hours with strangers
about anything.
Favorite books, movies, shows, music, and food
I would love to say that I am a big reader, although I do enjoy
reading, I dont read many books. I love all types of movies and do
enjoy going to the Draft House, The Palladium, and any movie
theather in general that is a hip happening place. I am a huge
music lover and proud to say I have been to over 100 live shows
from country to rap to metal to regional, everything!!! But I am
most defintitely a music lover and it is a big part of my life in
which I appreciate friends that also enjoy music. Now to the food,
since I do love to cook I enjoy all kids of food from Mexican,
Seafood, Chinese, etc... I am somewhat of a foodie person that
likes to check out cool new places and travel to other cities and
enjoy very nice places to relax, listen to music, drink a few cold
ones and have some great food.
The six things I could never do without
I Phone
I Phone
I spend a lot of time thinking about
How my future is going to be filled with great moments and endless
romantic nights with a very special woman who is going to be
spoiled with much love and joy. I also think about the mistakes I
have made in my life and learing from those to make me a better
man. I often wonder how long it will take to find that right person
that can appreciate a good man like me.
On a typical Friday night I am
Ready to get out for a nice date to the movies or for dinner, maybe
some drinks with a very special lady. I am a man that prefers the
company of a loving female to a group male buddies, so I spend a
lot of my friday time getting out and making myself available to
seek my soul mate.
The most private thing I'm willing to admit
I willing to reveal just about anything as long as you ask me, Im
not shy
I'm looking for
- Girls who like guys
- Ages 26–44
- Near me
- Who are single
- For new friends, long-term dating, short-term dating
You should message me if
You like meeting new male friends that are awesome, educated,
entertaining, funny, and very very sweet!!! Also, I am a man that
does not mind taking a woman out and showing her a very nice time,
i'm not cheap and I always like to make sure my friends or dates
are having a great time while we hang together. Overall, message me
if you see true beauty from whats inside a mans heart on not how
hot I look on the outside!!!


text:
Just 9 days to go! Even if you have guaranteed entry to the 2014 TCS New York City Marathon, you must claim your entry by March 18.
After a disappointing marathon debut back in May, 16-year-old Alana Hadley has proven herself at 26.2 miles. Competing on Saturday, November 2, at the Indianapolis Monumental Marathon, the hotly tipped high schooler from Charlotte, NC, finished in 2:41:56, taking fourth place and erasing memories of the hamstring troubles that plagued her first try and led to a 2:58:22 in Cleveland. More important, by running faster than 2:43:00, Hadley met the qualifying standards for the U.S. Olympic Trials, becoming the youngest person to do so since 1984, when then-16-year-old Cathy Schiro (now O'Brien) posted a 2:34:24. On the other end of the age spectrum, 49-year-old Colleen De Reuck won the race with a time of 2:39:22. The 2004 U.S. Olympic Trials champion and four-time Olympian is the oldest athlete to qualify for the 2016 Trials this year. "I was shocked at first," Hadley told the Charlotte Observer, describing the moment she crossed the finish line and saw the clock. "I just stood there with my hand over my mouth. Then it hit me that I had accomplished my goal....That's when my eyes started to tear up. I am beyond happy and excited." She showed her excitement later, when she posted on Twitter about the race. "Ahhh! I just ran a 2:41:55 marathon @ the beautiful @IndyMonumental this morning & qualified 4 the Olympic trials!" Hadley tweeted, getting her time wrong by one second. "Best weekend ever." Over the summer, Hadley's father and coach, Mark, told Runner's World that he hoped his daughter would meet up with De Reuck during the Indianapolis race, as running alongside someone gunning for a similar time can "give you someone to key off of." According to Runner's World, Hadley kept pace with De Reuck for roughly the first three miles before falling back. From this point on, their paths will probably intersect and then diverge, as Hadley chases dreams of making Olympic teams and De Reuck, whose personal best of 2:26:35 came in 1996, admits that those days are behind her. But the veteran plans to keep the youngster in her sights—and she expects big things. "Alana ran a great race," she said. "She looked so relaxed in the beginning and executed her plan for the race to perfection. She said she felt great the whole way and really enjoyed the race. She sure does have plenty of talent, and [I] look forward to see[ing] her for many years on the racing circuit." |
RT @nyrr: Get the official #NYCHalf app in Google Play and the App store right now for Androids and iPhones! http://t.co/OSd4Jax24O
RT @nyrr: Prepping for #NYCHalf? So is pro @Mo_Farah! Get race-day ready w/ @NYRR #MoNYCHalf Twitter chat, 3.13.14 9-9:30AM EDT http://t.co…
"Our races are to our sport what Wimbledon and the Australian, U.S., and French Opens are to tennis, and what the Masters, U.S., and British Opens and PGA Championship are to golf. Each race has the history, the tradition, the honor roll of legendary champions, and a special place in the eyes of all to make them stand apart from the other events." Mary Wittenberg

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Log Out
Call in to speak with the host
Brother Vignon Omojagun, the former Thomas Gilmore who was able to throw off his slave name earlier this month in Ouidah, Benin, West Africa at his naming ceremony is our guest. Brother Vignon will tell us about his search for this roots which ended in his meeting the family left behind by his African ancestor in what was once Dahomey. He will talk about how he and his family are recreating the link that was broken during the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.
This is an exciting and yet sad story that you do not want to miss!


text:
mumbles cit Forum Posts
Would you rather..
mer, izzie has cancer and that not way i want her to die
Are you cool with Mer-Der encountering a few bumps en route to their inevitable happy ending? Or would you prefer that they stay boring happy?
Would you rather..
izzie does never come back because mer and der broken up for good there be no show
would u rather addie and derek had kids then have kids show up after dirvose and know nothing about it and mer has to deal with them or not?
Would you rather..
osop i forget to write a would u rather. so here one.
would you rather mer be preg. in trailer, her mom's house, or mchouse?
Test Your Grey's IQ! (Site Suggestion)
clear i know nothing about the cast only got 4 right
The Reasons You Love Grey's.
it would be me that brings my family together
PASS THE TISSUE!!! Best tear jerking scenes. (Fan Fiction)
shonda is really good write hands down
Would you rather..
someone needs start number these
would you rather lose merory or have dad be murder?


text:
Brain fingerprinting
Brain fingerprinting is a controversial forensic science technique that uses electroencephalography (EEG) to determine whether specific information is stored in a subject's brain. It does this by measuring electrical brainwave responses to words, phrases, or pictures that are presented on a computer screen (Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell, Richardson, and Richardson 2012).
Brain fingerprinting was invented by Lawrence Farwell. The theory is that the brain processes known and relevant information differently from the way it processes unknown or irrelevant information (Farwell & Donchin 1991). The brain's processing of known information, such as the details of a crime stored in the brain, is revealed by a specific pattern in the EEG (electroencephalograph) (Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell 1994). Farwell's brain fingerprinting originally used the well-known P300 brain response to detect the brain's recognition of the known information (Farwell & Donchin 1986, 1991; Farwell 1995a). Later Farwell discovered the P300-MERMER ("Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response"), which includes the P300 and additional features and is reported to provide a higher level of accuracy and statistical confidence than the P300 alone (Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell 1994, Farwell 1995b, Farwell et al. 2012). Farwell and colleagues report less than 1% error rate in laboratory research (Farwell & Donchin 1991) and real-life field applications (Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell et al. 2012). In independent research William Iacono and others who followed identical or similar scientific protocols to Farwell's have reported a similar low level of error rate and high statistical confidence (e.g., Allen & Iacono 1997). Farwell's standards for brain fingerprinting tests are specified in Farwell 2012 and Farwell et al. 2012).
Brain fingerprinting has been ruled admissible in court (Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell & Makeig 2005, Farwell 2012), and applied in a number of high-profile criminal cases, including the exoneration of Terry Harrington after he had been convicted of murder (Harrington v. State 2001).
Brain fingerprinting technique has been criticized on a number of fronts (Fox 2006b, Abdollah 2003). Although independent scientists who have used the same or similar methods as Farwell's brain fingerprinting have achieved similar, highly accurate results (Allen & Iacono 1997; see also Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell 2012), different methods have yielded different results. J. Peter Rosenfeld used P300-based tests incorporating fundamentally different methods, resulting in as low as chance accuracy (Rosenfeld et al. 2004) as well as susceptibility to countermeasures, and criticized brain fingerprinting based on the premise that the shortcomings of his alternative technique should generalize to all other techniques in which the P300 is among the brain responses measured, including brain fingerprinting.
The technique uses the well-known fact that an electrical signal known as P300 is emitted from an individual's brain beginning approximately 300 milliseconds after it is confronted with a stimulus of special significance, e.g. a rare vs. a common stimulus or a stimulus the subject is asked to count (see P300, Gaillard and Ritter 1983, and Picton 1988 for a comprehensive discussion of this effect). The application of this in brain fingerprinting is to detect the P300 as a response to stimuli related to the crime or other investigated situation, e.g., a murder weapon, victim's face, or knowledge of the internal workings of a terrorist cell (Farwell 1992a, Farwell & Donchin 1991, Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell 2012, Farwell et al. 2012). Because it is based on EEG signals, the system does not require the subject to issue verbal responses to questions or stimuli.
The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronic sensors that measure the EEG from several locations on the scalp. The subject views stimuli consisting of words, phrases, or pictures presented on a computer screen. Stimuli are of three types: 1) "irrelevant" stimuli that are irrelevant to the investigated situation and to the test subject, 2) "target" stimuli that are relevant to the investigated situation and are known to the subject, and 3) "probe" stimuli that are relevant to the investigated situation and that the subject denies knowing. Probes contain information that is known only to the perpetrator and investigators, and not to the general public or to an innocent suspect who was not at the scene of the crime. Before the test, the scientist identifies the targets to the subject, and makes sure that he/she knows these relevant stimuli. The scientist also makes sure that the subject does not know the probes for any reason unrelated to the crime, and that the subject denies knowing the probes. The subject is told why the probes are significant (e.g., "You will see several items, one of which is the murder weapon"), but is not told which items are the probes and which are irrelevant (Farwell 1994, Farwell 2012, Farwell et al. 2012).
Since brain fingerprinting uses cognitive brain responses, brain fingerprinting does not depend on the emotions of the subject, nor is it affected by emotional responses (Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell 1992a, 1995a, Farwell 2012). Brain fingerprinting is fundamentally different from the polygraph (lie-detector), which measures emotion-based physiological signals such as heart rate, sweating, and blood pressure (Farwell 1994). Also, unlike polygraph testing, it does not attempt to determine whether or not the subject is lying or telling the truth. Rather, it measures the subject's brain response to relevant words, phrases, or pictures to detect whether or not the relevant information is stored in the subject's brain (Farwell & Smith 2001, Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell 2012).
By comparing the responses to the different types of stimuli, the brain fingerprinting system mathematically computes a determination of "information present" (the subject knows the crime-relevant information contained in the probe stimuli) or "information absent" (the subject does not know the information) and a statistical confidence for the determination. This determination is mathematically computed, and does not involve the subjective judgment of the scientist (Farwell et al. 2012).
Background and terminology[edit]
"Brain fingerprinting" is a computer-based test that is designed to discover, document, and provide evidence of guilty knowledge regarding crimes, and to identify individuals with a specific training or expertise such as members of dormant terrorist cells or bomb makers. It has also been used to evaluate brain functioning as a means of early detection of Alzheimer's and other cognitively degenerative diseases, and to evaluate the effectiveness of advertising by measuring brain responses.
The technique is described in Dr. Farwell's paper "Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detect Concealed Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal", published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences in 2001 by Dr. Farwell and FBI Supervisory Special Agent Sharon Smith of the FBI (Farwell & Smith 2001), and in other peer-reviewed publications. For a review, see Farwell 2012; see also Farwell et al. 2012.
These papers describe tests of brain fingerprinting, a technology based on EEG that is purported to be able to detect the existence of prior knowledge or memory in the brain. The P300 occurs when the tested subject is presented with a rarely occurring stimulus that is significant in context (for example, in the context of a crime) (Gaillard & Ritter 1983, Farwell & Donchin 1991). When an irrelevant stimulus is presented, a P300 is not expected to occur (Picton 1988, Farwell & Donchin 1991, Farwell & Smith 2001). The P300 is widely known in the scientific community, and is also known as an oddball-evoked P300 (see Harrington v. State 2001 and P300).
While researching the P300, Dr. Farwell created a more detailed test that not only includes the P300, but also observes the stimulus response up to 1400 milliseconds after the stimulus. He calls this brain response a P300-MERMER, memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response. The P300, an electrically positive component, is maximal at the midline parietal area of the head and has a peak latency of approximately 300 to 800 milliseconds. The P300-MERMER includes the P300 and also includes an electrically negative component, with an onset latency of approximately 800-1200ms (Farwell 1994, Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell 2012, Farwell et al. 2012). According to Dr. Farwell, the P300-MERMER includes additional features involving changes in the frequency of the EEG signal, but for the purposes of signal detection and practical application the P300-MERMER is sufficiently characterized by the P300 and the following negative component in the brain response (Farwell 1994, Farwell 2012, Farwell et al. 2012).
Current uses and research[edit]
Brain Fingerprinting has two primary applications: 1) detecting the record of a specific crime, terrorist act, or incident stored in the brain (Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell et al. 2012), and 2) detecting a specific type of knowledge, expertise, or training, such as knowledge specific to FBI agents, Al-Qaeda -trained terrorists, or bomb makers (Farwell 1992b, Farwell 1993, Farwell et al. 2012). For a review, see Farwell 2012.
The seminal paper by Dr. Farwell and Emmanuel Donchin (Farwell & Donchin 1991) reported successful application of the technique in detecting knowledge of both laboratory mock crimes and real-life events, with no false positives and no false negatives.
In a study with the FBI, Dr. Farwell and FBI scientist Drew Richardson, former chief of the FBI's chem-bio-nuclear counterterrorism unit, used brain fingerprinting to show that test subjects from specific groups could be identified by detecting specific knowledge which would only be known to members of those groups (Farwell et al. 2012). A group of 17 FBI agents and 4 non-agents were exposed to stimuli (words, phrases, and acronyms) that were flashed on a computer screen. The probe (situation-relevant) stimuli contained information that would be common knowledge only to someone with FBI training. Brain fingerprinting correctly distinguished the FBI agents from the non-agents.
The CIA has also funded Farwell's research (Dale 2001). In a study funded by the CIA, Farwell and colleagues (Farwell et al. 2006) used brain fingerprinting to detect which individuals had US Navy military medical training. All 30 subjects were correctly determined to have or not to have the specific information regarding military medicine stored in their brains. In another CIA-funded study, brain fingerprinting correctly detected which individuals had participated in specific real-life events, some of which were crimes, based on the record stored in their brains. Error rate was again 0%; accuracy was 100% (Farwell et al. 2012). Dr. Farwell collaborated with FBI scientist Sharon Smith in a further study in which brain fingerprinting detected real-life events that was published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences (Farwell & Smith 2001).
Dr. Farwell's recent studies, many conducted with former FBI scientist Dr. Drew Richardson, have mostly involved detecting real-life information in field conditions. Farwell and Richardson applied brain fingerprinting in detecting information regarding actual crimes with real-world judicial consequences, including multiple murders (Farwell et al. 2012). In one study they tested brain fingerprinting in detecting information unique to bomb makers (experts in improvised explosive devices, IEDs), for application in national security and counterterrorism. Error rate was 0%; that is, 100% of subjects in these studies were correctly detected (Farwell et al. 2012). Dr. Farwell has also offered a $100,000 reward for beating a brain fingerprinting field test(KOMO News 2008). To date, no one has ever succeeded in doing so (Farwell et al. 2012).
Use in criminal investigation[edit]
Farwell's brain fingerprinting has been ruled admissible in court in the reversal of the murder conviction of Terry Harrington (Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell & Makeig 2005). Following a hearing on post-conviction relief on November 14, 2000, an Iowa District Court stated that the fundamental science involved in Dr. Farwell's brain fingerprinting P300 test was well established in the scientific community. For a range of reasons, however, the court dismissed the defendant's petition for a new trial.
In order to be ruled admissible under the prevailing Daubert standard established by the US Supreme Court, the District Court required proof that brain fingerprinting 1) has been tested and proven, 2) has been peer reviewed and published, 3) produces a known (and low) error rate and is systematically applied, and 4) is well accepted in the relevant scientific community. In ruling the brain fingerprinting test admissible as scientific evidence, the Court stated the following:
"In the spring of 2000, Harrington was given a test by Dr. Lawrence Farwell. The test is based on a 'P300 effect'."
"The P-300 effect has been recognized for nearly twenty years."
"The P-300 effect has been subject to testing and peer review in the scientific community."
"The consensus in the community of psycho-physiologists is that the P300 effect is valid."
"The evidence resulting from Harrington's 'brain fingerprinting' test was discovered after the fact. It is newly discovered."
As the Iowa District Court clearly stated, the results of the brain fingerprinting test on Harrington constituted "evidence" that the court admitted. Dr. Farwell's testimony as an expert witness and the testimony of the other two expert witnesses in the case also were admitted as evidence. The Iowa court admitted the brain fingerprinting evidence and Dr. Farwell's testimony on it under the Daubert standard.
Several authors of law articles have examined the admissibility of brain fingerprinting evidence in the Harrington case in depth and detail, and summarized the outcome as follows.
"The Judge in Harrington ruled Brain Fingerprinting admissible under Daubert after conducting a day-long hearing featuring three expert witnesses, each renowned in his field." (Roberts in Yale Journal of Law and Technology 2007, p. 265)
"In Harrington, the court admitted Dr. Farwell's testimony on brain fingerprinting and stated that it satisfied the Daubert test." (Moenssens in University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review, p. 26)
"[T]he [Harrington] court admitted Brain Fingerprinting evidence based upon the P300 effect…" (Erickson in Drake Law Review, p. 13)
The court noted the distinction, however, between admissibility and weight. In light of the circumstances of a particular case, admissible evidence does not always have sufficient weight to produce a verdict in favor of the side which proffers the evidence. Although the court ruled brain fingerprinting admissible, the court ruled that the weight of the brain fingerprinting evidence and other evidence proffered by Harrington would probably not have been sufficient to change the verdict in the original trial.
"The court determined that Brain Fingerprinting was new evidence not available at the original trial, and that it was sufficiently reliable to merit admission of the evidence; however, the court did not regard its weight as sufficiently compelling in light of the record as a whole as meeting its exacting standard, and thus it denied a new trial on this and the other grounds asserted by Harrington."(Farwell and Makeig in Open Court, p. 9)
The court ruled in Harrington's favor on two major issues, but nevertheless denied him a new trial. The court ruled brain fingerprinting and the testimony of the expert witnesses on it were admissible, and also admitted the recantation testimony of the only alleged witness to the crime, yet nevertheless denied Harrington's petition for a new trial. Regarding this rather complicated ruling, one commentator opined that "[t]he Harrington court avoided a clear ruling on admissibility" (Denno 2002) of the test.
Harrington appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the trial court and granted Harrington a new trial. (Harrington v. State 2003, p. 516) The supreme court did not reach the brain fingerprinting issue, and decided the case on other grounds. "Because the scientific testing evidence is not necessary to a resolution of this appeal, we give it no further consideration." (Harrington v. State 2003, p. 516)
Although the Iowa Supreme Court did not rule on brain fingerprinting, they allowed the law of the case established by the district court to stand, implicitly including the district court's finding regarding the "newly discovered" "evidence" "resulting from Harrington's Brain Fingerprinting test." (Harrington v. State 2003)
Due to a constitutional rights violation, specifically a Brady violation, by the State of Iowa in the original trial, the Iowa Supreme Court awarded Harrington a new trial. The only alleged witness to the crime, Kevin Hughes, recanted when Dr. Farwell confronted him with the "information absent" results of the brain fingerprinting test on Harrington. Without its star witness, the state subsequently dismissed the murder prosecution without prejudice for lack of evidence due to witness recantations and the passage of time.
The State of Iowa had argued unsuccessfully in trial court that the brain fingerprinting results should not be considered admissible "evidence," whether "newly discovered" or not (Harrington v. State 2001). After the Supreme Court reversed Harrington's conviction and granted him a new trial, the Iowa Attorney General's Office issued a press release restating this position, and also restating the fact that the Iowa Supreme Court did not rule on brain fingerprinting.
"With one Justice dissenting, the Supreme Court reversed Harrington's conviction on the ground that the failure to disclose police reports denied defendant a fair trial. The Court ruled that withholding the reports compromised Harrington's defense at trial that he was not the person who shot Mr. Schweer."
"The Court also declined to rule on the admissibility or credibility of the "brain fingerprinting" evidence offered by Harrington. In its brief and argument to the Court, the State argued that brain fingerprinting is "junk science" that has no track record establishing its reliability. The State argued that the technique has been tested in the lab with fewer than 200 persons and has been used in the field in only a handful of cases. The State argued the technique should be treated similarly to lie-detector tests, which are inadmissible in Iowa and most other states. The Iowa Supreme Court did not determine the reliability of brain fingerprinting and did not rule on the admissibility of brain fingerprinting in Iowa courts." (Press release by Iowa Attorney General's Office)
In his recantation, Hughes stated under oath under questioning by Farwell that the detectives and prosecutors had told him he would go to prison for life if he didn't implicate Harrington. He stated that when he agreed to falsely accuse Harrington of the murder, they coached him in fabricating the story to which he later testified in the trial. He stated that when he said something that contradicted known facts – such as identifying the wrong murder weapon – they corrected him, and he changed his story accordingly. (Harrington v. State 2001)
Harrington sued the prosecutors and the State of Iowa for framing him. The prosecutors and the State of Iowa did not deny the accusations brought by Hughes and Harrington. Their defense was that they enjoyed absolute immunity due to their professional positions. The US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on the issue, as ''TIME magazine'' put it, of "When Is It Legal to Frame a Man for Murder?" (TIME Magazine article on Harrington) (TIME 2009). Before the Supreme Court heard the case, however, the State of Iowa settled with Harrington and another man falsely convicted of the same crime. The state paid them a $12 million settlement (L A Times 2010).
Limitations of brain fingerprinting[edit]
Both the strengths and limitations of brain fingerprinting are documented in detail in the expert witness testimony of Dr. Farwell and two other expert witnesses in the Harrington case (Harrington v. State 2001) as well as in Farwell's publications and patents (e.g., Farwell 1994, Farwell 1995a, b, Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell 2012). The limitations of brain fingerprinting described below are also summarized in PBS 2004, PBS Innovation Series – "Brain Fingerprinting: Ask the Experts".
Brain fingerprinting detects information-processing brain responses that reveal what information is stored in the subject's brain. It does not detect how that information got there. This fact has implications for how and when the technique can be applied. In a case where a suspect claims not to have been at the crime scene and has no legitimate reason for knowing the details of the crime, and investigators have information that has not been released to the public, brain fingerprinting can determine objectively whether or not the subject possesses that information. In such a case, brain fingerprinting could provide useful evidence.
If, however, the suspect knows everything that the investigators know about the crime for some legitimate reason, then the test cannot be applied. There are several circumstances in which this may be the case. If a suspect acknowledges being at the scene of the crime, but claims to be a witness and not a perpetrator, then the fact that he knows details about the crime would not be incriminating. There would be no reason to conduct a test, because the resulting "information present" response would simply show that the suspect knew the details about the crime – knowledge which he already admits and which he gained at the crime scene whether he was a witness or a perpetrator.
Another case where brain fingerprinting is not applicable would be one wherein a suspect and an alleged victim – say, of an alleged sexual assault – agree on the details of what was said and done, but disagree on the intent of the parties. Brain fingerprinting detects only information, and not intent. The fact that the suspect knows the uncontested facts of the circumstance does not tell us which party's version of the intent is correct.
In a case where the suspect knows everything that the investigators know because he has been exposed to all available information in a previous trial, there is no available information with which to construct probe stimuli, so a test cannot be conducted. Even in a case where the suspect knows many of the details about the crime, however, it is sometimes possible to discover salient information that the perpetrator must have encountered in the course of committing the crime, but the suspect claims not to know and would not know if he were innocent. This was the case with Terry Harrington (Harrington v. State 2001). By examining reports, interviewing witnesses, and visiting the crime scene and surrounding areas, Dr. Farwell was able to discover salient features of the crime that Harrington had never been exposed to at his previous trials. The brain fingerprinting test showed that the record in Harrington's brain did not contain these salient features of the crime, but only the details about the crime that he had learned after the fact.
Obviously, in structuring a brain fingerprinting test, a scientist must avoid including information that has been made public. Detecting that a suspect knows information he obtained by reading a newspaper would not be of use in a criminal investigation, and standard brain fingerprinting procedures eliminate all such information from the structuring of a test (Farwell 1995a, Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell 2012). News accounts containing many of the details of a crime do not interfere with the development of a brain fingerprinting test, however; they simply limit the material that can be tested. Even in highly publicized cases, there are almost always many details that are known to the investigators but not released to the public (Farwell 2012), and these can be used as stimuli to test the subject for knowledge that he would have no way to know except by committing the crime.
Another situation where brain fingerprinting is not applicable is one where the authorities have no information about what crime may have taken place. For example, an individual may disappear under circumstances where a specific suspect had a strong motive to murder the individual. Without any evidence, authorities do not know whether a murder took place, or the individual decided to take a trip and tell no one, or some other criminal or non-criminal event happened. If there is no known information on which a suspect could be tested, a brain fingerprinting test cannot be structured.
Similarly, brain fingerprinting is not applicable for general screening, for example, in general pre-employment or employee screening wherein any number of undesirable activities or intentions may be relevant. If the investigators have no idea what crime or undesirable act the individual may have committed, there is no way to structure appropriate stimuli to detect the telltale knowledge that would result from committing the crime. Brain fingerprinting can, however, be used for specific screening or focused screening, when investigators have some idea what they are looking for. For example, brain fingerprinting can be used to detect whether a person has knowledge that would identify him as an FBI agent, an Al-Qaeda-trained terrorist, a member of a criminal organization or terrorist cell, or a bomb maker (Farwell et al. 2006).
Brain fingerprinting does not detect lies. It simply detects information. No questions are asked or answered during a brain fingerprinting test. The subject neither lies nor tells the truth during a brain fingerprinting test, and the outcome of the test is unaffected by whether he has lied or told the truth at any other time. The outcome of "information present" or "information absent" depends on whether the relevant information is stored in the brain, and not on what the subject says about it (Farwell 1994, PBS 2004, Farwell 2012).
Brain fingerprinting does not determine whether a suspect is guilty or innocent of a crime. This is a legal determination to be made by a judge and jury, not a scientific determination to be made by a computer or a scientist (Farwell 1994, PBS 2004, Farwell 2012). Brain fingerprinting can provide scientific evidence that the judge and jury can weigh along with the other evidence in reaching their decisions regarding the crime. To remain within the realm of scientific testimony, however, a brain fingerprinting expert witness must testify only regarding the scientific test and information stored in the brain revealed by the test, as Dr. Farwell did in the Harrington case (Harrington v. State 2001). Like the testimony of other forensic scientists, a brain fingerprinting scientist's testimony does not include interpreting the scientific evidence in terms of guilt or innocence. A DNA expert may testify that two DNA samples match, one from the crime scene and one from the suspect, but he does not conclude "this man is a murderer." Similarly, a brain fingerprinting expert can testify to the outcome of the test that the subject has specific information stored in his brain about the crime (or not), but the interpretation of this evidence in terms of guilt or innocence is solely up to the judge and jury (Harrington v. State 2001, PBS 2004).
Just as all witness testimony depends on the memory of the witness, brain fingerprinting depends on the memory of the subject. Like all witness testimony, brain fingerprinting results must be viewed in light of the limitations on human memory and the factors affecting it (Harrington v. State 2001, PBS 2004). Brain fingerprinting can provide scientific evidence regarding what information is stored in a subject's brain. It does not determine what information should be, could be, or would be stored in the subject's brain if the subject were innocent or guilty. It only measures what actually is stored in the brain (Farwell 2012). How this evidence is interpreted, and what conclusions are drawn based on it, is outside the realm of the science and the scientist. This is up to the judge and jury. It is up to the prosecutor and the defense attorney to argue, and the judge and jury to decide, the significance and weight of the brain fingerprinting evidence in making a determination of whether or not the subject committed the crime.
Like all forensic science techniques, brain fingerprinting depends on the evidence-gathering process which lies outside the realm of science to provide the evidence to be scientifically tested. Before a brain fingerprinting test can be conducted, an investigator must discover relevant information about the crime or investigated situation. This investigative process, in which the investigator gathers the information to be tested from the crime scene or other sources related to the crime, depends on the skill and judgment of the investigator. This process is outside the scientific process; it precedes the scientific process of brain fingerprinting. This investigative process produces the probe stimuli to be tested. Brain fingerprinting science only determines whether the information tested is stored in the brain of the subject or not. It does not provide scientific data on the effectiveness of the investigation that produced the information about the crime that was tested. In this regard, brain fingerprinting is similar to other forensic sciences. A DNA test determines only whether two DNA samples match, it does not determine whether the investigator did an effective job of collecting DNA from the crime scene. Similarly, a brain fingerprinting test determines only whether or not the information stored in the suspect's brain matches the information contained in the probe stimuli. This is information that the investigator provided to the scientist to test scientifically, based on the investigative process that is outside the realm of science. In making their determination about the crime and the suspect's possible role in it, the judge and jury must take into account not only the scientific determination of "information present" or "information absent" provided by the brain fingerprinting test; they must also make common-sense, human, non-scientific judgments regarding the information gathered by the investigator and to what degree knowledge or lack of knowledge of that information sheds light on the suspect's possible role in the crime (Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell1995a, Farwell 2012). Brain fingerprinting is not a substitute for effective investigation on the part of the investigator or for common sense and good judgment on the part of the judge and jury (PBS 2004).
A report by the United States General Accounting Office (now called Government Accountability Office) in 2001 reported that the scientists it interviewed (including Farwell, Iacono, Richardson, Rosenfeld, Smith, Donchin, and others) all had expressed a need for more research to investigate brain fingerprinting's application as forensic science tool. (Initial Pre-911 GAO Report While they were unanimous in their support of more scientific research, scientists and others expressed widely varying views on the social policy question of whether brain fingerprinting should continue to be applied to bring criminals and terrorists to justice and to free innocent suspects while this research continues.
The initial GAO report was completed before the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. At that time, the primary interest of federal agencies in detection methods was for employee screening, rather than detecting terrorists. (As discussed above, brain fingerprinting is not applicable in general employee screening.) The initial, pre-911 GAO report stated that most of the individuals in various federal agencies interviewed at that time did not see brain fingerprinting playing a major role in their then-current operations. The report did not examine the science of brain fingerprinting; the published research at the FBI, the CIA, the US Navy, and elsewhere; the successful application of brain fingerprinting in criminal cases; or the success of brain fingerprinting in being ruled admissible in court. Since it was produced before the attacks of 9/11/2001, this initial report did not examine the application of brain fingerprinting in national security in the post-911 world. It did not discuss the application of brain fingerprinting in present-day criminal investigations and law enforcement.
Consequently, Senator Charles Grassley, who commissioned the initial report, has asked the GAO produce a new report that examines the value of brain fingerprinting in counterterrorism and criminal investigations in the post-911 world in light of published scientific research on the application of the technique in the laboratory and the field (Fox 2006a).
The initial GAO report was entitled "Federal Agency Views on the Potential Application of 'Brain Fingerprinting.'" (Initial Pre-911 GAO Report). It was essentially a sampling of opinions of individuals associated with the polygraph in the federal government prior to 9-11. (It was completed before 9-11-2001 and issued shortly thereafter.) It reported that most such individuals did not see the need for brain fingerprinting in their pre-911 operations over a decade ago.
Individuals interviewed noted that their primary interest was general screening applications such as applicant screening and periodic employee screening, where the interrogator does not know what information he is seeking. Some individuals interviewed noted that they were satisfied with the performance of the polygraph for this purpose. Since brain fingerprinting detects information stored in the brain, not lies or deception, it is only applicable when the investigators have some idea what information they are looking for. For example, brain fingerprinting can detect the details of a specific crime stored in the brain, or the details of knowledge unique to FBI agents, or bomb makers, or Al-Qaeda-trained terrorists, or members of a particular terrorist cell. It is not applicable, however, in general screening situations, where the investigator has no idea what specific activities or crimes a person may have committed or what specific information is being sought. Before 9-11, the primary requirement for federal agencies was a general screening tool. The individuals interviewed by the GAO noted, correctly, that brain fingerprinting is not such a tool. Therefore, most of the individuals interviewed generally did not see brain fingerprinting as being useful for their primary purposes under the prevailing conditions prior to 9/11/2001.
Notable exceptions to this opinion were the only two FBI scientists who had actually conducted scientific research on brain fingerprinting and/or participated in its successful application in solving crimes, Dr. Drew Richardson and Dr. Sharon Smith. They both expressed the opinion that brain fingerprinting was highly valuable in FBI investigations.
Reflecting the views of most of those interviewed over a decade ago, before 9-11, the report stated:
"Officials representing CIA, DOD, Secret Service, and FBI do not foresee using the brain fingerprinting technique for their operations because of its limited application. For example, CIA and DOD officials indicated that their counterintelligence operations and criminal investigations do not usually lend themselves to a technique such as brain fingerprinting because use of the technique requires a unique level of detail and information that would be known only to the perpetrator and the investigators. These officials indicated that they need a tool to screen current and prospective employees, which as indicated above, involves questioning a subject about events unknown to the investigator. Further, a Secret Service official indicated that the agency has had a high success rate with the polygraph as an interrogative and screening tool and therefore saw limited use for brain fingerprinting."
The report noted, however, that the US government scientists interviewed who had conducted research on brain fingerprinting were convinced that it would be useful in FBI investigations.
The report did not include an account of the scientific research on brain fingerprinting or its successful use in court. The report did not discuss the value of brain fingerprinting for other applications other than general screening, for which it does not apply as discussed above. The GAO did not evaluate or opine on the effectiveness, accuracy, or validity of brain fingerprinting. The report stated:
"…we did not independently assess the hardware, software, or other components of the technology nor did we attempt to determine independently whether brain fingerprinting is a valid technique."
The report concluded that in general the federal officials involved with the polygraph who were interviewed did not see an immediate application for brain fingerprinting in their general screening operations before 9-11. Specific quotations to this effect follow.
Federal Agencies - "CIA, DOD, FBI, and Secret Service do not foresee using the Brain Fingerprinting technique for their operations because of its limited application."
DOD - "Overall, DOD officials indicated that Brain Fingerprinting has limited applicability to DOD's operations"
CIA - "From their experiences with the developer's research between 1991 and 1993, CIA officials concluded that Brain Fingerprinting had limited applicability to CIA's operations. Accordingly, CIA decided that it was not worth investing more funds to continue the developer's research." Secret Services - "The Service subsequently concluded that the technique had limited application to Secret Service activities."
Signed Letter from John E, Collingwood, Assistant Director, Office of Public and Congressional Affairs, to Mr Paul Jones, Director Justice Issues, Washington. The letter states (as quoted) - " In conclusion, the report fairly reflects the FBI's belief that this technique has limited applicability and usefulness to FBI investigative and personnel security matters. The FBI continues to support the view that this technique has limited utility. We also think it is important to point out that the rest of the federal community shares the FBI's view the Dr. Farwell's "Brain Fingerprinting" has very limited applicability and usefulness."
Signed Letter from Jack L Johnson, Jr, Special Agent in Charge, to Mr Paul Jones, Director Justice Issues, Washington. The letter states (as quoted) - " Dr Cantu has recently briefed me on this technology and the underlying scientific principals [sic], which purportedly support its accuracy and validity. Following this briefing, and a review of the information related to this technique, I must concur completely with the opinion of Dr Cantu. The "Brain Fingerprinting Technique" has very little applicability to the overall Secret Service mission, and is a technology that has not been completely validated as of this time."
The initial GAO report constituted a reasonably accurate opinion poll of federal employees involved with the polygraph over a decade ago, before 9/11, in a much different world. Note, however, that even at that time the FBI scientists who had relevant expertise and had actually conducted research on brain fingerprinting and used it successfully in field cases expressed the opinion that brain fingerprinting was valuable for FBI investigations. In any case, the opinions of non-expert federal employees over a decade ago are not relevant to the current applicability, validity, value, accuracy, or scientific merit of brain fingerprinting, or to its value in present-day national security and law enforcement operations.
Consequently Senator Grassley, who commissioned the original GAO report, has asked the GAO to develop a new report. He asked the GAO to discuss the potential applications of brain fingerprinting in criminal investigations and counterterrorism in the post-911 world. He also asked the GAO to include the views of experts well versed in brain fingerprinting and P300-MERMER technology, and to include the successful brain fingerprinting research at the FBI, CIA, and US Navy.
Future applications and research[edit]
After Dr. Farwell invented Brain Fingerprinting, he withheld it from the public for 15 years while he, his colleagues, and other, independent scientists tested it in the laboratory and in the field (Farwell 2012, ABC Good Morning America 2004). Farwell's decision to apply this science in real-life situations has been controversial (Dale 2001). In the years since Dr. Farwell first began applying the technology in the real world, proponents, including other scientists who have successfully applied the technique such as FBI scientist Drew Richardson, and those who have been freed or otherwise helped by brain fingerprinting, have advocated continuing and expanded application of the technology in the real world (ABC Good Morning America 2004, CBS 60 Minutes 2000). Critics, including some scientists, and those whose criminal activities have been thwarted by brain fingerprinting have advocated further delay in applying the technique (Fox 2006b, Abdollah 2003, Rosenfeld 2005, KTVO-TV 1999).
According to sworn testimony by Dr. William Iacono, an independent expert unaffiliated with Dr. Farwell who has conducted extensive research in the area, the science underlying brain fingerprinting has been published in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles in the scientific literature, and the specific application of this science in detecting information has been published in about 50 studies (Harrington v. State 2001). (For more information on the science and its acceptance in the scientific community, see P300.) Although the science is well established, opinions among scientists and others on the social policy question of how and when this science should be applied vary widely (Fox 2006b, Abdollah 2003). Dr. Farwell's decision to apply this science in bringing criminals to justice and freeing innocent suspects (Harrington v. State 2001) is controversial (Fox 2006b, Abdollah 2003, Dale 2001, ABC Good Morning America 2004, CBS 60 Minutes 2000). Various other attempts to apply this science in the detection of concealed information have varied in accuracy and efficacy, depending on the scientific procedures used (Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell 2012).
Farwell and colleagues (e.g. Farwell & Smith 2001) as well as other, independent scientists who have precisely replicated Farwell's research or used similar methods (e.g., Iacono and colleagues, Allen & Iacono 1997), have consistently obtained error rates of less than 1% in both laboratory and field conditions (Farwell 2012, Farwell et al. 2012).
Different scientific methods, however, have yielded different results. In P300-based tests using different experimental methods, different brain responses, different stimulus types, different data collection methods, different analysis methods, and different statistics from those used in Farwell's brain fingerprinting, Rosenfeld reported accuracy rates close to those obtained by chance, even without countermeasures (Rosenfeld et al. 2004). Moreover, Rosenfeld's alternative technique proved susceptible to countermeasures (Rosenfeld et al. 2004). (For scientific and methodological differences between Farwell's brain fingerprinting and Rosenfeld's alternative technique, see Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell 2012, and Farwell et al. 2012.)
Controversy has arisen over the best explanation for the fact that Farwell and others who use similar scientific methods have consistently achieved less than 1% error rate (or in fact 0% error rate) (Farwell 2012) and high statistical confidences (Farwell et al. 2012), while Rosenfeld's alternative method yielded more than ten times higher error rate, sometimes as low as chance (Rosenfeld et al. 2004), as well as statistical confidences averaging chance (50%) for subjects lacking the relevant knowledge tested.
Farwell, FBI scientists Drew Richardson and Sharon Smith, and other brain fingerprinting experts claim that one cannot necessarily expect to obtain the same accuracy as brain fingerprinting without following standard brain fingerprinting scientific protocols or similar methods, that Rosenfeld's failure to achieve accuracy rates comparable to those of brain fingerprinting is the result of the substantial differences in scientific methodology between his alternative technique and brain fingerprinting, and therefore the fact that Rosenfeld's alternative technique is admittedly inaccurate and susceptible to countermeasures (Rosenfeld et al. 2004) is no reflection on brain fingerprinting (Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell 2012, Farwell et al. 2012).
Proponents advocate continuing the use of brain fingerprinting to bring criminals and terrorists to justice and to free innocent suspects, while at the same time more research is continuing. Dr. Farwell and former FBI scientist Dr. Drew Richardson are among the scientists who advocate continuing the use of brain fingerprinting in criminal investigations and counterterrorism, without delay, as well as ongoing research on the technology (Farwell 2012, Farwell et al. 2012).
Dr. Farwell was interviewed by TIME magazine after he was selected to the TIME 100: The Next Wave, the 100 innovators who may be "the Picassos or Einsteins of the 21st Century." He said, "The fundamental task in law enforcement and espionage and counterespionage is to determine the truth. My philosophy is that there is a tremendous cost in failing to apply the technology." (Dale 2001)
Critics of brain fingerprinting claim that the inaccuracy and susceptibility to countermeasures of Rosenfeld's alternative technique also cast doubt on all P300-based information-detection techniques, including brain fingerprinting (Rosenfeld 2005). Critics agree with proponents that ongoing research on brain fingerprinting is valuable and desirable (Fox 2006b, Abdollah 2003). Unlike proponents, however, critics advocate a discontinuation of the use of brain fingerprinting in criminal and counterterrorism cases while this research is continuing (Fox 2006b, Abdollah 2003).
Proponents of the continued use of brain fingerprinting in criminal and counterterrorism cases cite the peer-reviewed research on the accuracy of brain fingerprinting in the laboratory and the field, the fact that it has been ruled admissible in court, the vital counterterrorism applications, and the benefits of bringing criminals such as serial killer JB Grinder to justice and freeing innocent convicts such as Terry Harrington. They emphasize the established science, the proven accuracy of brain fingerprinting when practiced according to standard brain fingerprinting scientific protocols, and the fact that brain fingerprinting is voluntary and non-invasive Farwell 2012, Farwell et al. 2012. They advocate continuing to use brain fingerprinting in criminal investigations and counterterrorism while research on the technique continues (ABC Good Morning America 2004 ABC-TV Good Morning America: Charles Gibson interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell, CBS 60 Minutes: Mike Wallace interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell, Farwell 2012.
Critics cite the inaccuracy and susceptibility to countermeasures of Rosenfeld's alternative technique, and suggest that this casts doubt on brain fingerprinting as well (Rosenfeld 2005). They emphasize the uncertainty of applying new technology while it is still being researched, and advocate discontinuing the use of brain fingerprinting in criminal and counterterrorism cases until more research has been completed (Fox 2006b "Brain Fingerprinting Skepticism", Abdollah 2003 "Issues: Brain Fingerprinting").
Extensive criticism of brain fingerprinting is contained in Rosenfeld 2005. Dr. Farwell's brief response is contained in a peer-reviewed paper published in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, Farwell 2011a "Brain Fingerprinting: Corrections to Rosenfeld". A more comprehensive version of this paper that contains extensive documentation and references to independent sources where the facts can be verified is "Brain Fingerprinting: Comprehensive Corrections to Rosenfeld in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice" (Farwell 2011b). These issues are reviewed in more detail, with reference to all research published to date in English, in Farwell 2012.
Those personally affected by brain fingerprinting have expressed divergent views as well, particularly on the issue of delaying the application of brain fingerprinting in criminal cases. Terry Harrington, for whom brain fingerprinting provided exculpatory evidence that was ruled admissible in court (Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell & Makeig 2005), and who was subsequently released from prison after serving 24 years for a murder he did not commit, has advocated continuing to apply brain fingerprinting in criminal cases while the research continues (CBS 60 Minutes 2000).
See also[edit]
- Abdollah, T. (2003). "Brain Fingerprinting – Picture-perfect crimes," Berkeley Medical Journal Issues, Spring 2003. Accessed July 20, 2008.
- Allen J.J.B. and Iacono W.G. (1997). "A comparison of methods for the analysis of event-related potentials in deception detection." Psychophysiology 34:234-240.
- Booz Allen Hamilton (2008). "Brain Fingerprinting Technology and Indoor Tracking Solution Win the American-leg of Global Security Challenge." Accessed January 16, 2012.
- CBS 60 Minutes: Mike Wallace interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell, December 10, 2000.
- Dale, S.S. (2001). "THE BRAIN SCIENTIST: Climbing Inside the Criminal Mind." TIME Magazine, Nov. 26, 2001, pp 80-81.
- Denno, Deborah (December 2002). "Crime and Consciousness: Science and Involuntary Acts". Minnesota Law Review 87: 269–389 [332].
- Druckman, D. and Lacey J.I. (1989). Brain and cognition: some new technologies. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
- Erickson, M. J. (2007). Daubert's Bipolar Treatment of Scientific Expert Testimony -- From Frye's Polygraph to Farwell's Brain Fingerprinting.'' Drake Law Review 55'', 763-812.
- Farwell L.A. (1992a). "The brain-wave information detection (BID) system: a new paradigm for psychophysiological detection of information" (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Urbana-Champaign (IL): University of Illinois.
- Farwell, L.A. (1992b). "Two new twists on the truth detector: brain-wave detection of occupational information." Psychophysiology 29(4A):S3.
- Farwell L.A. (1993). "Brain MERMERs: detection of FBI Agents and crime-relevant information with the Farwell MERA system." Proceedings of the International Security Systems Symposium, Washington, D.C.
- Farwell, L.A. (1994) "Method and Apparatus for Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response Analysis (MERA)," U.S. Patent #5,363,858, Nov. 15, 1994
- Farwell, L.A. (1995a) "Method and Apparatus for Truth Detection," U.S. Patent #5,406,956, April 18, 1995.
- Farwell, L.A. (1995b) "Method for Electroencephalographic Information Detection," U.S. Patent #5,467,777, Nov. 21, 1995.
- Farwell L.A. (2011a). Brain fingerprinting: Corrections to Rosenfeld. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 8(2), 56-68. Available at "Brain Fingerprinting: Corrections to Rosenfeld in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice" Accessed May 1, 2013.
- Farwell, L.A. (2011b). Brain fingerprinting: Comprehensive Corrections to Rosenfeld in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. Seattle: Excalibur Scientific Press. Available at Brain Fingerprinting: Comprehensive Corrections to Rosenfeld in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice Accessed May 5, 2013.
- Farwell L.A. (2012). "Brain fingerprinting: a comprehensive tutorial review of detection of concealed information with event-related brain potentials". DOI 10.1007/s11571-012-9192-2 Cognitive Neurodynamics 6: 115–54. Accessed May 1, 2013
- Farwell, L.A. and Donchin E. (1986). "The brain detector: P300 in the detection of deception." Psychophysiology 24:434.
- Farwell, L.A. and Donchin, E. (1991). "The Truth Will Out: Interrogative Polygraphy ("Lie Detection") With Event-Related Brain Potentials." Psychophysiology, 28:531-547.
- Farwell, L.A. and Makeig, T. (2005). "Farwell Brain Fingerprinting in the case of Harrington v. State." Open Court X,3:7-10, Indiana State Bar Assoc. Available at: Farwell and Makeig on Brain Fingerprinting in ''Harrington v. State'' in ''Open Court''.
- Farwell, L.A. and Richardson, D.C. (2006a). "Brain Fingerprinting in Field Conditions," Psychophysiology, 43:5 S37-S38
- Farwell, L.A., Richardson, D.C., & Richardson, G.M. (2012). "Brain fingerprinting field studies comparing P300-MERMER and P300 brainwave responses in the detection of concealed information". DOI 10.1007/s11571-012-9230-0 Cognitive Neurodynamics .
- Farwell, L. A. and Smith, S. S. (2001). "Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detect Concealed Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal." Journal of Forensic Sciences 46,1: 135-143.
- Fox, C. (2006a) "Brain Fingerprinting National Security," American Observer, March 29, 2006.
- Fox, C. (2006b) "Brain Fingerprinting Skepticism" American Observer, March 29, 2006
- Gaillard A.K.W. and Ritter W. (1983). Tutorials in event-related potential research: endogenous components. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
- The Guardian, November 16, 2009, "A Dragons' Den for James Bonds".
- Harrington v. State, Case No. PCCV 073247. Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, March 5, 2001.
- Harrington v. State. 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2003).
- [www.iowa.gov/government/ag/latest_news/releases/feb_2003/Harrington_SupCt.html "Statement of the Iowa Attorney General's Office on Supreme Court Decision re Terry Harrington"].
- KOMO TV News, October 10, 2008. Brain Fingerprinting could be breakthrough in law enforcement. Accessed January 16, 2012.
- Los Angeles Times, January 5, 2010. Savage, D. G. Prosecutor conduct case before Supreme Court is settled. Accessed January 16, 2012.
- Moenssens, A.A., (2002) Brain Fingerprinting—Can It Be Used to Detect the Innocence of Persons Charged with a Crime? UMKC L. Rev. 70, 891-920..
- PBS Innovation Series – "Brain Fingerprinting", May 4, 2004. "Brain Fingerprinting: Ask the Experts" Accessed July 20, 2008.
- Picton T.W. (1988). Handbook of electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology: human event-related potentials, Vol. 3, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
- Roberts, A.J. (2007). "Everything New Is Old Again: Brain Fingerprinting and Evidentiary Analogy." Yale J L & Tech 9. 234-270.
- Rosenfeld, J.P., Soskins, M., Bosh, G. and Ryan, A. (2004) "Simple, Effective Countermeasures to P300-based Tests of Detection of Concealed Information" Psychophysiology, 41 pp 205–219 (PDF)
- Rosenfeld, J.P. (2005) "'Brain Fingerprinting:' A Critical Analysis," The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 2005) pp 20-37. (Available at http://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/rosenfeld/NewFiles/BFcritiquerevsub3-6.pdf, last visited Jan 08, 2011).
- Slaughter v. State, No. PCD-2004-277 (Okla. Ct. of Crim. App., April 16, 2004)
- Time, November 5, 2009. Suddath, C. "When Is It Legal to Frame a Man for Murder?"
- United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Charles E. Grassley, U.S. Senate. INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES: Federal Agency Views on the Potential Application of 'Brain Fingerprinting,' October 2001.
- Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities, 2nd Ed.. Chichester, England: Wiley.
- (See in particular Table 12.2, Table 12.3 and Table 12.5 for GKT accuracy rates, and Box 12.3 starting page 361 for a discussion of Brain Fingerprinting).
External links[edit]
- Dr. Farwell's Brain Fingerprinting website Accessed April 24, 2013.
- "Truth and Justice, by the Blip of a Brainwave", The New York Times, October 9, 2001, by Barnaby J. Feder.
- ABC-TV Good Morning America: Charles Gibson interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell "Mind-Reading Technology Tests Subject's Guilt -- Brain-Reading Technology Becomes New Tool in Courts," March 9, 2004.
- "Brain fingerprinting: a comprehensive tutorial review of detection of concealed information with event-related brain potentials." Peer-reviewed article by Dr. Larry Farwell in Cognitive Neurodynamics. Accessed May 1, 2013.
- "Brain fingerprinting field studies comparing P300-MERMER and P300 brainwave responses in the detection of concealed information." Peer-reviewed article by Farwell, Richardson, and Richardson on brain fingerprinting research at the FBI and the CIA, and in detecting real crimes and bomb makers,published in Cognitive Neurodynamics. Accessed May 1, 2013.
- PBS Innovation Series Special on Brain Fingerprinting – "Brain Fingerprinting: Ask the Experts" Accessed July 20, 2008.
- "BRAIN FINGERPRINTING: IS THE SCIENCE THERE?", Neurology Today, November 2004, by Mark Moran.
- Discussion of legal and scientific critiques of Dr. Farwell's theories Accessed July 21, 2008.
- "It's the thought that counts for the guilty", The Observer, April 25, 2004.


text:
2003 Audi A8
2 reviews
Audi has usually done things its own way, a strategy thats been intermittently successful. For 2003, Audi will continue with that line of...
Read More
Audi has usually done things its own way, a strategy thats been intermittently successful. For 2003, Audi will continue with that line of thought, although in the case of the new A8, its focus will include the phrase lead, never follow. One look at its new flagship and it becomes apparent Audi is hell-bent on pushing BMW and Mercedes aside and leading the pack in the luxury sedan market. In terms of its exterior design, the new A8 is far more aggressive than its predecessor. The flat front end has a strikingly short overhang, the tail is high and imposing and an overall pronounced wedge shape gives it a sporty stance. From a distance the new car looks surprisingly compact; however, at 199 in. long and nearly 79 in. wide, it is one magnificent beast. Compared to the previous generation A8, the number of body components has been significantly reduced by using larger castings and extruded sections that surround the fully enclosed aluminum space frame. The new A8 is some 60% stronger than before, a none too easy
Product Review Summary
2 Reviews from Epinions.com
Overall Rating: | |
Reliability: | |
Build Quality | |
Roominess: | |
Seat Comfort: |
Superb Luxury
Author's Rating: |
Pros: Superb luxury, incredible comfort and power.
Cons: Can be a little pricey when compared with competitors.
Bottom Line:
The 2003 Audi A8 is a superior automobile. For anyone whose money is no object, a test drive will convince you.
Read More at Epinions.com
An incredible car... if you can afford it
Author's Rating: |
Pros: Looks (exterior, interior), Special features, space, horsepower, speed.
Cons: stereo system, price
Bottom Line:
A wonderful car. If you can afford it it is well worth it. Really beautiful. Cool.
Read More at Epinions.com


text:
This place doesn't have any photos yet.
Congratulations! Palm beach, Aruba has been added to your passport.
Review Palm beach, Aruba
One of the best beaches ever! Glistening white sand. You can engage just about any watersport as you walk along the beach.
Great crystal blue beaches, doesn't matter where you go on the island.


text:
This Spacious Vogue Style Villa is Located on the Edge of the Quiet Village of Umalas. Nestled Amidst Lush Rice Fields and Situated Alongside a River, the Villa Offers Both Serenity and Seclusion in
You sent a message to this manager.
- Minimum stay:3-7 nights
- Internet:No
- Pets considered:Ask Manager
- Wheel chair accessible:No
Payangan villa description
This spacious vogue style villa is located on the edge of the quiet village of Umalas. Nestled amidst lush rice fields and situated alongside a river, The Villa offers both serenity and seclusion in a uniquely luxurious tropical garden setting. Incorporating the best of both traditional and modern Balinese style, the living and dining areas open onto lush gardens surrounding an elegant 18m pool. Five large guest suites accommodate up to 10 guests (with extra beds, they are able to accommodate up to 14), and feature exquisite Balinese furnishings as well as state of the art entertainment equipment.Virtually every room in this stunning villa offers breathtaking views of the surrounding landscape, from the verdant rice terraces to palm-fringed river views and spectacular tropical sunsets. This Villa is primarily a private family house, used very regularly by the owners, however it is available for short-term rental for exclusive holidays.The Villa is suitable for visitors with or without children and whilst the property is designed with a central living area for all to enjoy, there are sufficient additional living spaces to allow privacy whenever needed.
The Villa is situated on the edge of the village of Umalas in a plot that extends to 2850 sq m. The gardens enjoy a 60m palm-fringed river-frontage and overlook the rice fields.
Umalas is a peaceful and quiet village, containing a number of villas as well as the famous riding stables. A pleasant 15 minute walk across the rice paddies brings you to Batu Belig beach, and some of Bali's best-known beachside restaurants. The Villa is located only a few minutes drive to the fashionable Seminyak area featuring a fine selection of boutiques, antique shops and some of the highest-quality delicatessan shops and bakeries in Bali. Bali Villa 328, completed in January 2003, was designed and constructed by the well-known company, DG Jones, builders of the Four Seasons Hotel in Bali as well as a number of other villas which are of the highest standard on the island.
The property is designed around a traditional Balinese-style open-sided living room that leads to the pool deck and 18m pool. There is a master suite consisting of bedroom, bathroom and sitting room (air-conditioned) and two verandahs, a principal guest suite, and three further bedrooms, all with private, outdoor-garden bathrooms.We also have an upper-floor verandah-style living room overlooking the whole property as well as benefiting from panoramic views of the river and rice-fields. There is a separate formal dining room overlooking the pool and the rice-paddies as well as an informal outdoor dining-deck next to the pool.The gardens are extensive and provide space, serenity and views that complement the atmosphere of this traditionally-styled and private compound.
The spacious Villa contains 5 air-conditioned bedrooms, with comfortable sleeping arrangements for 14 guests. 3 of the rooms contain king-sized, antique 4-poster beds. The remaining 2 rooms each contain 2 oversized twin beds and 2 roll-away beds. The bathrooms are all open air in the Balinese style with outdoor showers and delightful enclosed gardens.We have 3 TV / DVD / sound-systems together with satellite tv connections to 40 stations as well as extension speakers in the dining room. The systems are located in the master suite's sitting room, the main living room and the upper verandah. All are of the highest quality and most up-to-date standards, including the latest Bose-lifestyle models and Philips Pixel-plus TV's. All rooms feature the highest quality furnishings and curtains, extremely comfortable mattresses, and views across the compound.The formal dining room accommodates up to 12 people, and an additional informal dining table seats 8-10.The pool deck has 6 sun-loungers and umbrellas to suit. Additional loungers are also available. Last but not least, we have a championship tennis court (hard-court surface).
Our staff prepares a full range of breakfast including plenty of fresh fruit, some of which is home-grown!We have a state-of-the-art coffee machine so all requirements can be catered for. We have an excellent cook who is capable of preparing a wide variety of Asian and Western dishes. A menu selection is provided but we would recommend discussing the options with the cook for a more personal touch. The sources of fresh food in Bali are wide and extensive in terms of locally grown as well as imported varieties.
We have an in-house villa manager who oversees the work of all the staff as well as arranging all other services such as restaurant bookings, trips, tours, any shopping that is needed etc. 2 additional ladies reside at the villa and are available at all times. Laundry is done in-house and dry-cleaning is sent out. Additional staff are made available at the villa to complement the number of people staying at any one time such that rooms are maintained in perfect condition at all times. 3 security staff attend the house and grounds at night.
The Villa is located only a few minutes drive from the fashionable Seminyak area, featuring a fine selection of boutiques, antique shops and some of the highest-quality delicatessan shops and bakeries in Bali.
* Rates are subject to a further 10% government and 5% service tax per night.
Property Type
- Villa
Accommodation Type
- Vacation Rental
Onsite Services
- Daily Maid Service
- Private Chef
Bedrooms: 5 Bedrooms, Sleeps 10
Bathrooms: 5 Bathrooms
building type
- Villa
Pool / Spa
- Private Pool
Write a reviewThis property does not have any reviews yet.
Currency ConversionDates | Nightly | Weekend Night | Weekly | Monthly * | Event |
Low Jan 9 - Jun 15, 2014 3 night min stay |
$760 | ||||
High Jun 16 - Aug 31, 2014 5 night min stay |
$1,050 | ||||
Low Sep 1 - Dec 18, 2014 3 night min stay |
$760 | ||||
Peak Dec 19 - Jan 8, 2015 7 night min stay |
$1,250 | ||||
Payment is usually accepted in the quoted currency ($) unless the currency and the amount is specifically agreed in advance with the manager / advertiser.
Always make sure to call the number on the listing to confirm payment details.
Only pay using credit card, PayPal, check or direct bank transfer. NEVER pay by cash or instant money transfer services such as Western Union or MoneyGram. Learn more
Don't forget your vacation protection! Get protected now
Adding our Vacation Protection services can make sure your getaway goes smoothly, no matter what. We offer Cancellation Protection, Carefree Rental Guarantee, and Damage Protection so you can truly relax.
Manager info
Three services to protect your trip:
Protect your payments in case you need to cancel.
Guarantee the rental meets your expectations.
Ensure you're prepared in case of accidental damage.


text:
Jump to complete document
Date: circa 1982
Author: unknown
Biographical/Historical abstract:
Additional contributor:
Description: This list names those supporting the civil law suit, Waller vs. Butokovich, stemming from the murder of five protestors at the Death to the Klan rally held in Greensboro on November 3, 1979. The list includes a wide range of supporters from local school teachers to national civil rights organizations.
Format of original: Other
Collection: Edward Burrows Papers
Repository: The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Item#: 1.5.325
Rights: It is responsibility of the user to follow the copyright law of the United States (Title 17, U.S. Code). Materials are not to be reproduced in published works without written consent, and any use should credit Civil Rights Greensboro and the appropriate repository.


text:
This is my take on dress 5D from Burda easy Herbst/Winter 2012. I followed the new trend 'material blocking' and used jersey and voile. the original dress in the magazin was made of jersey and leather. I did some little alterations you can read on my brand-new blog .
jersey, voile
Oct 3, 2012, 06.15 PMby barmaglot
Lovely dress!
Oct 2, 2012, 11.19 AMby melongrowergirl
WoW, its looks so great! The combination is a highlight! I wohld definitly wear it! :-)
Oct 1, 2012, 09.06 PMby nocjestciemna
It's lovely! I like your fabric choice and it looks so comfy.
Backstage Report
Get all 11 of these retro inspired patterns for one low price!
Pattern of the Week
Hippie meets grunge in this plaid top with flared sleeves and a round neckline.
Editors' Pick
Leopard and snakeskin are the new neutrals.
Member Project of the Week
Peneloping's hand beaded frock is a real stunner.
Editors' Pick
Make these brand new blouses and dresses in candy colored silk.


text:
Talk about a triple threat of actors for one film.
Back in October we reported a story about Michael Shannon, James Franco and Benicio Del Toro signing on for a biopic about Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski, one of the more infamous mob hitmen of the past fifty years. At the time it was (and probably still is) in competition with another planned film about the man, set to star Mickey Rourke. That movie, based on The Ice Man: Confessions of a Mafia Contract Killer by Philip Carlo, truly has some competition now, because Deadline tells us that all three aforementioned actors are now attached to the project, with Ariel Vroman set to direct.
Shannon would be taking on the lead part, and is said to be based on The Iceman: The True Story of a Cold-Blooded Killer by Anthony Brunowith, as well as Jim Thebaut's documentary The Iceman Tapes: Conversations with a Killer. There's even a test film even being online that gives you an idea of what to expect from his performance, makeup work included. Del Toro is reported as playing Kuklinski's employer, mobster Roy Demeo, and Franco is his "mentor assassin", Mr. Softee. Shannon already has a look down for the character, and it also seems like Vroman can actually direct a scene, and can do so well. While he doesn't look exactly like the man himself, I think the fact that we've gotten this much from him this early on says a bit about his dedication to the role. Below, you can see a comparison between the two:
No dates have been set for shooting, and while Millennium is funding the project, with their sister company Nu Image handling worldwide distribution, I'm not entirely sure it has an American distributor at this time. But with Sundance currently underway, it wouldn't serve as a huge shock if someone picked it up there. I know I would, at least.
What do you think of this casting, and do you have a general preference among either project?
Amidst a glut of low-budget horror films, Haunt separates itself with its character-driven approach. With the horror title, which follows a teenager and neighbor exploring a nearby haunted house, now in theaters and on VOD, we had a conversation with film's director, Mac Carter. The amount he speaks of working with his actors should give you [...]
With a seemingly endless amount of streaming options — not only the titles at our disposal, but services themselves — we believe it's our duty to highlight the recent, recommended titles that have recently hit the interwebs. Every week, one will be able to see the cream of the crop (or perhaps some simply interesting picks) of [...]
Since any New York City cinephile has a nearly suffocating wealth of theatrical options, we figured it'd be best to compile some of the more worthwhile repertory showings into one handy list. Displayed below are a few of the city's most reliable theaters and links to screenings of their weekend offerings — films you're not [...]
© 2008-2011 The Film Stage. All rights reserved. | About | Privacy | Terms of Use | Advertising | Staff | Contact | RSS Feed
Follow us on: Twitter | Facebook
Latest posts from Beats Per Minute


text:
Displaying results 1 - 25 of 418 for lobbying in the united states. Subscribe to this search
Calling them a federal "dictate," Sen. Al Melvin convinced Republican colleagues in the Senate to vote Tuesday to scrap the Common Core education standards the state and schools adopted just four years earlier.
As the veto of SB 1062 proved, not everything that the Center for Arizona policy wants gets enacted. But the organization also has sometimes – though not often – found itself railing unsuccessfully against legislative support for changes in law.
Rejecting last minute pleas from supporters, Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed late Wednesday controversial legislation billed as protecting religious freedom.
WASHINGTON — Even the scoreboards in high school gyms eventually will have to promote good health.
It was with great interest that we read the coalition of Gilbert leaders' open letter to Town residents and businesses last week. We were encouraged that our community leaders had finally spoken out on the raging storm that threatens our Gilbert Public Schools.
Two years ago the Republican-controlled Legislature sought to get voters to kill the Citizens Clean Elections Act, claiming it's wrong for politicians to get public money. Now some of those same GOP lawmakers want to belly up to the bar and get handouts of public dollars for everything from sending out communications to constituents to buying tickets for special events.
Unable to block expansion of Medicaid in Arizona, Republican legislators are now seeking to impose new restrictions on who can get care, and for how long.
NEW YORK - Philip Seymour Hoffman, who won the Oscar for his portrayal of writer Truman Capote and created a gallery of slackers, charlatans and other characters so vivid that he was regarded as one of the world's finest actors, was found dead in his apartment Sunday with what officials said was a needle in his arm. He was 46.
Olympia, Wash. - Former Arizona U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who survived a 2011 shooting, testified Tuesday before a Washington state House panel considering an initiative to expand firearm background checks in the state, telling lawmakers that "the nation is counting on you."
NEW YORK — The price to board an airliner in the United States has risen for the fourth straight year, making it increasingly expensive to fly almost anywhere.
The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected arguments from the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission and allowed new, higher campaign contribution limits passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature to go into effect.
The state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that political candidates can accept much larger sums of money from donors.
What's with all the political posturing and saber-rattling by our "desk jockey admirals and generals" in the House and Senate? We see them rabidly calling for everything short of "carpet bombing" Tehran and turning it into another Dresden. Of course, none (or almost none) of the military-aged sons (or daughters for that matter) of these politicians have ever been in or ever will be in the U.S. military and have to fight in the wars that their mommies and daddies vote for.
PHOENIX — Reversing his earlier stance, Secretary of State Ken Bennett now wants to keep caps in place on what candidates can take from individuals and special interests, at least for the time being.
"The cupboard is bare", said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recently in reference to the federal budget crisis. "There's [sic] no more cuts to make. It's really important that people understand that."
"If you've got the money honey, I've got the time; we'll go honky tonkin' and we'll have a time."
NEW YORK — Each night, people in apartments all over New York City are cleaning up, putting out fresh towels and clearing out — to rent their private space to strangers from around the world.
The state Court of Appeals on Tuesday blocked enactment of a new state law allowing candidates to take a lot more money from donors.
ATLANTA (AP) — Sunlight is free, but if you use it to make electricity your power company wants you to pay.
NINE MILE, Jamaica — Napa and Sonoma have their wine tours, and travelers flock to Scotland to sample the fine single malt whiskies. But in Jamaica, farmers are offering a different kind of trip for a different type of connoisseur.
A judge late Thursday cleared the way for politicians to immediately start taking much more money from private donors and political action committee for their campaigns.
Before we reach our final opinions regarding the administration's proposal to degrade Syria's potential for using chemical weapons, we all need to read Dwight D. Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex Speech (1961):
NEW YORK — Hotels want you to stay a while — in their lobbies.
Arizona lawmakers slashed the state's corporate tax rate in 2011, sliced other business and capital gains taxes in 2012 and just completed a major overhaul of the state's sales tax collection system.
Riddled with high compliance costs and excessive audits, move would severely hurt smaller online retailers
© Copyright 2014, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications


text:
Things to see and do - Gloucester
Leaving for USA
Hammond Castle Museum :
Nearby tourist sites
Hammond Castle Museum
Hammond Castle Museum : Michelin's recommendations
Inspired by castles built in the Middle Ages, this stone castle was completed in 1929 by the eccentric inventor John Hays Hammond, Jr. On one side, twin towers rise 80ft above terraced gardens, a drawbridge and an enclosed exercise yard that Hammond built for his 18 cats. Below the opposite towers lie the treacherous rocks of Norman's Woe, the setting for Longfellow's poem The Wreck of the Hesperus. The interior contains Hammond's collection of medieval furnishings, paintings and sculpture. The Great Hall houses an 8,200-pipe organ that Hammond constructed over a period of 20 years.
Useful Information
- Address : 80 Hesperus Ave. USA - Gloucester MA 0193001930Gloucester
- Phone : (978) 283-2080
- Website : http://www.hammondcastle.org
- Prices : 10 $ (-12 years old 6 $)


text:
Series | Countries | Live Scores | Fixtures | Results | News |
Photos | Video & Audio | Blogs | Statistics | Archive | Fantasy | Mobile |
It was a season that will be remembered for all the wrong reasons, but Lawrence Booth, in the Wisden Cricketer, has come up with a list of ten positives from England's home summer.
It all felt a bit pumped up, but there was no escaping the visceral pleasure England derived from their win that night. Six series wins out of six for the summer and a team united. That, more than victory over a side they had grown to despise, should be the season's defining moment.


text:
Houzz is the new way to design your home.
Super-Efficient ADU
This high-performance, detached Accessory Dwelling Unit in Portland's Concordia neighborhood is a model of both financial and environmental sustainability. Built using Passive House principles and modeling, the home delivers big energy savings at a low cost. The design, by Departure Design, incorporates smart use of windows to create a spacious, naturally-lit environment on a small footprint.
What Houzzers are commenting on:
wood stairs white wall, molding nice


text:
Euro Style Flooring Solutions
Serving Hopkinton, MA
Interior Design Consultancy for project development
We will walk with you in every step of the way; providing ideas and presenting the best products.
Interior Design Concept for Interior arrangement
In today's market you have a lot of options we will help you develop ideas utilizing the newest pro...
Exclusive Tile
Serving Hopkinton, MA
At Exclusive Tile, we have been in business for 25 years proudly serving the Boston metro area with top quality tile services. We specialize in custom showers and backsplashes but can handle all of your residential and commercial tile needs. So when you need someone you can count on for all your til...
Act One Marble & Tile
Serving Hopkinton, MA
One is a local Boston area marble and granite cleaning and restoration contractor. We do polishing of marble walls, counters, vanity tops, showers, tile floors and any tile surface that needs appearance care and maintenance.
We also do tile repair for cracked or broken tiles, regrouting, recaulking...


text:
Joining in on the night's festivities, Alberta Ferretti chose to show her Philosophy di Alberta Ferretti line for the first time in America as a cocktail-laced presentation co-hosted by Paz de la Huerta, Byrdie Bell, Alexis Bryan, Olivia Palermo and Sylvana Soto-Ward. Actress Becki Newton of "Ugly Betty" fame hungrily eyed the looks being modeled on the snake-like stage, but wasn't shopping for herself.
"I keep looking at these clothes, thinking they'd be great on Amanda," said Newton of her TV alter ego.
Later, on the Lower East Side, Luella Bartley and Teen Vogue's Amy Astley hosted cocktails in the Hotel on Rivington's penthouse. As guests like Victoria and Vanessa Traina and Camilla Belle took in the panoramic views, DJ Tom Travis spun tunes while a pregnant Bartley lamented her wardrobe. "I have suitcases of clothes and I can't fit into anything," she laughed, sporting a silver and black striped Marc Jacobs, "so I had to run out and buy something."
The evening ended in the wee hours at avant-garde glossy Purple Magazine's party at the Beatrice Inn. Among those seen gadding about were Helmut Lang, Juergen Teller, Mary-Kate Olsen (with boyfriend Max Snow) and Cynthia Rowley, who was on a short break from putting together her Thursday show. "Do I look like I don't have a care in the world?" she laughed. "But my studio's only two blocks away. What's one glass of wine?"


text:
An end-to-end solution to securely encode, manage, deliver and play media.
A robust solution to integrate advanced media capabilities.
The Helix Universal Server works with any mobile network and supports the broadest set of formats, codecs and protocols.
*Not supported in Helix Proxy.
** Solaris on x86 is not supported.
Contact your local Helix sales representative or reseller today.


text:
Mar 72013 |
Citrix Partner Accelerator 2013 - LondonJoin us in London on 7th March |
Find out how Citrix technology is enabling customers to embrace the mobile world at Citrix Partner Accelerator 2013. Registration is NOW OPEN. Many customers have embraced Citrix technology to help them reduce costs and simplify IT infrastructure and management, but we now have the ability to go further than windows desktops and apps and offer users a true always-on mobile experience that allows them to work exactly how they need to. This year's event will provide an invaluable opportunity for all Citrix Solution Advisors, Distributors, CSPs and SI Architects to both network with our team and:
We look forward to seeing you at the event and don't forget to add 7 March 2013 to your diary. Citrix Partner Accelerator 2013 London is free to attend, but numbers are strictly limited so register today! |


text: Rainer Joswig wrote: > Brian, to be part of the beta program one had to explain what one is > working on and only few developers were accepted. > So I'd guess that Apple is aware that this is a Smalltalk implementation. You have more faith than I that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing at Apple... but I hope you're right. -- Brian Mastenbrook brian at mastenbrook.net http://brian.mastenbrook.net/


text:
The Departed - Mark Eaton - 08-03-10
"The Departed" series on EN is a set of "eulogies" for former Penguins who have passed away... to other teams. Essentially, we look back on their time as a Penguin, examine their contributions to the franchise and as real eulogies occasionally do, exaggerate a bit. Today's eulogy is dedicated to Mark Eaton.
In the summer of 2005, the Penguins, under general manager Craig Patrick, emerged from the lockout by signing several big-name stars such as Sergei Gonchar, Zigmund Palffy and John LeClair. The results were less than impressive as the Penguins finished next to last in the overall league standings.
In stepped Ray Shero as Patrick's replacement. Shero had helped build the Predators into a stable franchise on the ice by making modest but not flashy moves. In Pittsburgh, he had had a solid young nucleus in place with the likes of Sidney Crosby, Marc-Andre Fleury and some Russian named Evgeni Malkin who would be making his way to North America soon. Surely with a lot of salary cap space, he would go about finding an all-star to compliment those players. A 40-goal winger or an all-star Norris Trophy-candidate defenseman, right?
He ended up signing Mark Eaton.
Mark Eaton, the former Utah Jazz center with the lumberjack beard?
No. Mark Eaton, the steady, reliable but hardly highlight-worthy defenseman from Delaware.
Ohhh. That Mark Eaton.
Wait... who?
When Shero's time is up as the Penguins' general manager, scoring champions like Crosby or Malkin will surely be the first thing most folks think from this era of the franchise's history. But the very first personnel move Shero made with the organization under his control was to bring in a player he was familiar with from their days in Nashville.
Eaton's arrival in Pittsburgh was hardly greeted with plans of a parade. He wasn't going to knock anyone through the boards like Ulf Samuelsson. He wasn't going to fly up and down the ice like Paul Coffey. He wasn't even going to completely shut down opposing forwards the way Dave Burrows did. All he was going to do was block shots and be a prototypical stay-at-home defenseman.
His first game in a Penguins uniform was typical of Eaton's style of play in that it was completely unmemorable. In 19:57 of total ice time, he had 7:53 of shorthanded ice time and blocked two shots in a 4-0 shutout of the rival Flyers. Injuries limited Eaton to only 35 games that season. He had all of three assists and was a minus-6 in 2006-07. But check out the team's numbers:
Without Eaton | With Eaton | |
Games | 47 | 35 |
Record | 22-16-9 | 25-8-2 |
Points | 53 | 52 |
Winning percentage | .564 | .743 |
Shutouts | 2 | 4 |
Goals For | 156 | 121 |
Goals Against | 154 | 89 |
Goal For Per Game | 3.32 | 3.46 |
Goals Against Per Game | 3.28 | 2.54 |
And Eaton proved to be far and away the team's best shot-blocker:
Player | Games Played |
Shots Blocked |
Shots Blocked Per Game |
Sergei Gonchar | 82 | 138 | 1.68 |
Josef Melichar | 70 | 131 | 1.87 |
Ryan Whitney | 81 | 118 | 1.45 |
Brooks Oprik | 70 | 114 | 1.63 |
Rob Scuderi | 78 | 109 | 1.39 |
Mark Eaton | 35 | 83 | 2.37 |
Alain Nasreddine | 44 | 74 | 1.68 |
So despite some significant injuries which caused him to miss more than half the season, Eaton proved his worth his first season in Pittsburgh. Eaton's chance to show his value on the ice was derailed once again in 2007-08 when he was slew-footed two days before Christmas by Bruins forward Marco Sturm along the boards. Eaton's season would be over due to a knee injury and he would miss out on the team's run to the Stanley Cup final that spring. In all, he appeared in 36 games that campaign, recorded three assists and blocked 89 shots.
Shero faced a difficult offseason in 2008 with high-profile wingers such as Marian Hossa, Ryan Malone, Gary Roberts and Georges Laraque all scheduled to become unrestricted free agents. One way or another, all four were let go in moves which were less than popular. And just as unpopular was the re-signing of Eaton to a two-year contract at $2 million a season. Why re-sign a defenseman coming off a significant injury when the team already had so many other NHL-caliber defensemen on the roster and a few holes to plug up front on the wings?
Ultimately, Eaton once again proved his value. With the team's top two offensive defensemen - Sergei Gonchar and Ryan Whitney - each missing time due to significant injuries of their own, Eaton was a safe, conservative option to pick up those minutes. He would appear in 68 games - almost as many as his previous two seasons combined - contributed nine points and blocked 148 shots. And under interim coach Dan Bylsma, Eaton would discover an offensive element to his game by scoring the first seven points of his NHL postseason career (including four goals) in 24 games as the team won its third Stanley Cup title.
{youtube width="480" height="295"}nsX7YkCsAd0{/youtube}
Eaton's final season with the Penguins would prove to be the best of Eaton's career. He led the team's defensemen with a career-high 79 games and reached a career-high in points with 16. But defense was always Eaton's bread and butter as he was second on the squad with 135 blocked shots. In the postseason, Eaton appeared in all 13 games, recorded three assists and blocked 20 shots.
Last month, he joined the New York Islanders as a free agent. In 218 regular season games with the Penguins, he scored 31 points.
The Penguins never needed Eaton to be a flashy player or a big name. Just safe and dependable. And that's exactly what he was.
(Photos: First-Jamie Sabau/Getty Images; Second-Peter Diana-Post-Gazette; Third-Getty Images)