text:
A Sacramento, CA based portrait studio offering wedding, newborn, family, and maternity photography in the greater Sacramento, Roseville, and Folsom area.
Rachel & Patrick's Engagement Session – Sacramento Wedding Photographer
I first met my dear friend, Rachel, at church when I was a little girl. We have been close friends ever since, and I am so thrilled for her that she will be marrying the man of her dreams in just a few short months. I feel so honored that she chose me to photograph her engagement portraits.
Rachel and Patrick asked me to include their son in these photos. Not only is he adorable, this kid is really funny too. This was such a fun session!
I love incorporating personal details into engagement sessions, well into every session I do! These two LOVE to go camping. They preferred more traditional engagement photos, and didn't want to do an all out camping themed session, but I bought some S'mores fixings on the way to the park so I could do this ring detail shot. I love how it turned out.
I am sooooo happy for you guys! Congratulations again!
Mandi Pol Photography is a Sacramento, CA based studio offering portrait and wedding photography in the greater Sacramento, Roseville, and Folsom area. I specialize in newborn and baby photography, and capturing interesting and unique family portraits. I take a fresh, spontaneous, open, fun and artistic approach in my work and strive to make every one of my shoots out of the box. My signature is colorful and whimsical, yet classic. The ability to find the beauty and emotion of a moment and freeze it forever is my passion.


text:
Try another Star Wars MMOG. Lucas Arts and BioWare (unfortunately a branch of EA now... boooo), have announced a new MMOG titled Star Wars: The Old Republic.
Despite being deeply flawed, I was a big fan of Star Wars Galaxies when it first came out. It's now a completely different game, and one I have little interest in, but I could still get excited about playing in a Star Wars MMOG if done well.
There's not a lot of information out yet, but the Knights of the Old Republic games have been some of the best Star Wars video games ever done, so it's natural that they would choose to revisit that era for the new MMOG. It also has the advantage of being full of jedi, which is something that plagued Galaxies, being set in a post Order 66 galaxy where jedi were supposed to be all but extinct, yet everyone wanted to play one.
I've mostly given up on following games pre-release, but I'll probably keep an eye on this one.
Passion and Business (Tradecraft) - If game store owners could run their businesses on passion, good intentions, and love of games alone, we most certainly would. Believe me, many of us have ...
14 hours ago

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Psychologists assess and diagnose behavioural, emotional and cognitive disorders, counseland provide therapy to clients. Psychologists help clients work toward the maintenance and enhancement of physical, intellectual, emotional, social and interpersonal functioning. The psychologist differs from a psychiatrist in that a psychiatrist has a medical degree and is, therefore, able to prescribe medication.Psychologists work in private practice or in institutions such as clinics, correctional facilities, hospitals, mental health facilities, rehabilitation centres, community service organizations, businesses, schools and universities, and government and private research agencies.
Skills Required
- a genuine interest in helping others
- emotional maturity and stability
- excellent communication skills
- a willingness to keep learning new approaches
- flexibility
- aptitude for synthesizing information and developing innovative solutions to problems
- ability to take methodical approach to reviewing literature and administering psychological tests
Education/Training Required
Masters or Ph.D (Psychology)
Schools Offering Career Program
Average Starting Salary
Growth Rate
Education Required
6 to 8 years


text:
Words is a great short film developed by Will Merchant and Daniel Hoffman, both members of Everynone.
Every time you see this short film, feels like you need to see again, because everything happens so fast.
This post was created by a user and has not been vetted or endorsed by BuzzFeed's editorial staff. BuzzFeed Community is a place where anyone can post awesome lists and creations. Learn more or post your buzz!
Preview Your Response
Hot Buzz
Now Buzzing
Report an Issue
Drag to highlight one or more parts of the screen.
We got your feedback, and we'll follow up with you at
Sadly, an error occured while sending your feedback. Please contact email@example.com to let us know.


text: Clockwise from top: Eclipse Towers, Oriental Theater, Downtown Los Santos skyline at night, Maze Bank Arena, Rancho Towers, Del Perro Pier Clockwise from top to center: Algonquin skyline, Soldiers' Plaza, Cavity Lane, Broker Bridge, Algonquin at night, Star Junction, GetaLife Building, Statue of Happiness From top left: Algonquin, the Civilization Committee building, the Statue of Happiness, Star Junction, the Monoglobe, the Broker Bridge and Lower Algonquin. Clockwise from top - State of Leo, Lombank Twin Towers, Chariot Hotel, Lancaster Square, skyline of Warcrest, Centurion Stadium, 405 Avenue of America. From top to bottom, left to right: skyline of Downtown Los Santos, Sightings restaurant at the Los Santos International Airport, Portola Drive, Los Santos City Hall, Vinewood Sign, Rancho Towers in South Los Santos, and Gentry Manor Hotel at Eclipse Boulevard. Retrieved from "http://areax.wikia.com/wiki/City_Montages?oldid=716" Ad blocker interference detected! Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected. Categories: Add category Cancel Save


text:
Let's Forget About All That
Labels: Civil War, Confederate, Monuments, Political Correctness, Statues
We are here to provide an independent, rather skeptical view of events at Marquette University. Comments are enabled on most posts, but extended comments are welcome and can be e-mailed to firstname.lastname@example.com. E-mailed comments will be treated like Letters to the Editor. This site has no official connection with Marquette University. Indeed, when University officials find out about it, they will doubtless want it shut down.
Labels: Civil War, Confederate, Monuments, Political Correctness, Statues
Upon hearing of the passing of Fidel Castro, Cuba's dictator-emeritus, leftist politicians and celebrities wasted no time taking to social media to sing their sweet elegies for the Western Hemisphere's most notorious tyrant.
Yet these tribute tweets, brimming with unwarranted admiration, soon encountered fierce resistance. There were those who quite sensibly pointed out Castro's litany of human rights abuses. To speak approvingly of Castro, to eulogize him through euphemism, is to sanitize the legacy of a man who, in addition to committing egregious human rights violations, also tanked one of Latin America's most historically prosperous economies.
But the Castro enthusiasts were also rebuked by a different sort of argument: the eruption of pure, unbridled celebration on the streets of Miami, the place where many exiled Cubans now call home.
While headlines and hashtags seemed to center mostly on the remarks of Barack Obama, Enrique Peña Nieto, Narendra Modi, and Justin Trudeau, one of the most benighted responses came from the feed of Black Lives Matter.
On Sunday, the organization published an essay, "Lessons from Fidel: Black Lives Matter and the Transition of El Comandante," in which the leaders of the movement encourage their own to "push back against the rhetoric of the right and come to the defense of El Comandante" as they "aspire to build a world rooted in a vision of freedom and the peace that only comes with justice."
Lessons from Fidel: Black Lives Matter and the Transition of El Comandante https://t.co/CYTcy6ReIa— Black Lives Matter (@Blklivesmatter) November 27, 2016
Labels: Barack Obama, Black lives matter, Charlottesville, Fidel Castro, Huffington Post
This week, famous millennial journaler Lena Dunham was strolling through an airport eavesdropping on a couple of flight attendants. There she was, just a right-thinking individual with fluency in approved language and a desire for a kind and compassionate society, when she heard a conversation that violated her sense of an ideal society.The author, Mary Katharine Ham, goes on to observe that:
Then, as any individual principally interested in kindness and empathy would do, she reported the flight attendants' conversation to their bosses at American Airlines.
Then, filled once more with the compassion and humility that are her hallmarks, Dunham broadcast this conversation, and her reporting of it, to her millions of social media followers. American Airlines is reportedly looking into it.
Because how, pray tell, could the world be a good place if middle-class flight attendants are allowed to talk to their friends at work in any way that gives this rich, famous public emoter a sad? What have we become, as a country, if millionaire, private-school progeny of Brooklyn art-scene families can't have their exact conception of acceptable conversation reflected back to them during every minute of a flight delay?
Here's What Lena Dunham Had a Fit About This Time
Hearing this conversation, Dunham wrote, was the "worst part" of her night.
This is the conversation Dunham alleges she heard. They were "talking about how trans kids are a trend they'd never accept a trans child and transness is gross."
This is the sinister side of the liberal "hamburger problem" Josh Barro wrote about. His thesis is Democrats could win a lot more elections if they stop insufferably hectoring everyone about everything— for instance, insisting eating a hamburger is an inherently political act because of the public health consequences and the carbon footprint and the blah, blah, blah. He's probably right about that, but many liberals go far beyond hectoring.This, of course, is the sort of bigotry that thrives in academia. Marquette University, in an online module on "harassment" had a little scenario where two female employees where talking to each other, and expressed their opposition to gay marriage. An employee who overheard it was offended, and it was was made clear that the women were guilty of harassment, simply by expressing an opinion that somebody overheard and disapproved of.
Dunham isn't content to publicly lecture about trans issues. She wants to punish people who disagree with her, going after their jobs without so much as a conversation with them, and she expects to be thanked and honored for her good works.
Labels: American Airlines, Leftist intolerance., Lena Dunham, Liberal Intolerance, Mary Katharine Ham, Political Correctness, Transgenderism
Steve Jobs said in a 1995 interview, "The unions are the worst thing that ever happened in education."Of course, this ignores the fact that some voucher proposals require that voucher schools accept the voucher for the full price of tuition, and the vast majority of kids would get an education at that price level. And the value of the voucher would be set to buy an education easily as good (and likely much better) than the current public school system
Jobs spoke with Computerworld's Daniel Morrow in a 1995 interview, which covered a wide range of topics, but frequently delved into Jobs's views on the American education system. As he said, "I'd like the people teaching my kids to be good enough that they could get a job at the company I work for making $100,000 a year."
But Jobs blamed teachers unions for getting in the way of good teachers getting better pay. "It's not a meritocracy," said Jobs. "It turns into a bureaucracy, which is exactly what's happened. And teachers can't teach, and administrators run the place, and nobody can be fired. It's terrible."
He noted that one solution is school choice: "I've been a very strong believer that what we need to do in education is go to the full voucher system." Jobs explained that education in America had been taken over by a government monopoly, which was providing a poor quality education for children.
He referenced the government-created phone monopoly, broken up in 1982: "I remember seeing a bumper sticker with the Bell logo on it and it said, 'We don't care, we don't have to.' That's certainly what the public school system is. They don't have to care."
Jobs said that the main complaint against school choice is that schools would cater only to rich kids, and the poor kids would be "left to wallow together."
However, he said, "that's like saying, well, all the car manufacturers are going to make BMWs and Mercedes and nobody's going to make a $10,000 car. Well, I think the most hotly competitive market right now is the $10,000 car."
In other words, Jobs said, all students would benefit from more school choice, as the monopoly in education was broken up.Of course, being a billionaire tech genius does not make one an all purpose expert on everything. But it does mean one knows a lot about dynamic, radically innovative and creative markets, and how they serve consumers. That is to say, markets very unlike the current educational market.
"The market competition model seems to indicate that where there is a need, there is a lot of providers willing to tailor their products to fit that need, and a lot of competition which keeps forcing them to get better and better."
Labels: Education, Public Schools, School Choice, Steve Jobs, Vouchers
Labels: Education, Feminism, Math, Political Correctness, Simpsons
Labels: Bullying, Evergreen State College, Leftist Bias, Liberal Bias
"In the aftermath of [Trump's] election, it has become evident that his election poses a grave threat to the principles that lie at the very heart of the AAUP: academic freedom, shared governance, and economic security for those engaged in teaching and research in higher education," AAUP President Rudy Fichtenbaum declared at his organization's 2017 annual meeting.So the simple election of a president you don't like is a threat to academia freedom? Thanks, AAUP, for making your political biases clear.
The same goes for more politically-neutral professors who simply challenge campus orthodoxy, like the Christakis's and, even more recently, Evergreen State College Professor Bret Weinstein, who was forced to hold classes off-campus after campus police were unable to protect him from a mob of students who had angrily confronted him for questioning the legitimacy of an event in which white people were requested to leave campus for a day.The author (Anthony Gockowski) devotes considerable attention to our case. While the AAUP objected to our suspension in December, 2014, it had no problem with Marquette's attempt to fire us, and with the punishment imposed by a faculty panel.
The AAUP did not release a single statement in support of Weinstein's "academic freedom," even after the student protesters held the school's president hostage in his own office to demand, among other things, that Weinstein be summarily suspended without pay.
"My thoughts regarding the AAUP are much like my thoughts about the ACLU," said George Leef, director of research for the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy. "It avoids battles where it doesn't like one of the combatants, principle be damned."
David Randall, director of communication for the National Association of Scholars (NAS), expressed similar sentiments, acknowledging that while the AAUP did play an instrumental role in [conservative Mike] Adams' lawsuit, "it is easy to find cases in which conservatives on campus have suffered significant infringements of their academic freedom in which the AAUP has been mute."
"Their position was that I had received 'due process' from the Faculty Hearing Committee, and that was all I deserved," McAdams told Campus Reform. "They seem to view 'academic freedom' as a collective right the faculty have, not a right that each faculty member has. Thus, views unpopular with the faculty generally will get little support from the AAUP."Worse, however, was the fact that there were several gross violations of due process on Marquette's part. As we told AAUP official Greg Scholtz:
. . . McAdams noted that due process—especially on a "contemporary campus"—offers "scant protection to views unpopular among the faculty," pointing out that "in addition to ideological bias, there is the fact that campus bureaucrats can load committees with people who are keen on currying favor with the administration."
Labels: AAUP, American Association of University Professors, Greg Scholtz, John McAdams, Liberal Bias, Marquette Warrior Blogger, Rudy Fichtenbaum
Labels: Democratic Party, Democrats, Ideas, Stranded
Organized religion's shallowest critics made the mistake of blasting Islam along with Christianity, and the Left crucified them for it.The author (Elliot Kaufman) goes on to dismantle some of the jejune arguments of the New Atheists, and then concludes:
On Friday, it became official: The New Atheists are no longer welcome on the left. Battered, condemned, and disinvited, these godless and once-favored "public intellectuals" are now homeless, spurned by their erstwhile progressive allies.
Richard Dawkins, the famously skeptical evolutionary biologist, was the last shoe to drop. He was disinvited from a speaking engagement at Berkeley because his "comments about Islam" had "offended and hurt . . . so many people," according to the event's organizers.
Dawkins is in good company. His New Atheist compatriots, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, had already been expelled from the party. In both cases, insufficient deference to Islam was the proximate cause. Hitchens remained a committed socialist, but felt a war on Islamic terror and autocracy was needed. For this, he was denounced as a "neocon." Harris is a liberal, straight and true, but drew the ire of Reza Aslan for refusing to except Islam from his broad critique of religion. "Islam is not a religion of peace," Harris often says. In fact, he thinks it's just the opposite. For that, everyone from Glen Greenwald to Ben Affleck has cast him as an Islamophobe and a bigot.
That means that three of the much-acclaimed "Four Horsemen" of New Atheism have been turfed from the left for extending their critique of religion to Islam. The fourth is Daniel Dennett, who also criticizes Islam. The only actual philosopher of the bunch, he is far too boring and ponderous to be noticed, let alone denounced, by anyone. In his place, one can add Bill Maher, a popularizer of New Atheism who has also been barred from Berkeley over criticism of Islam. One by one, these men have been excommunicated from the Left.
Confirmation bias deserves at least a part of the blame. The New Atheists have long harbored an irrational fear of Christianity, but Christophobia doesn't worry the Left. Combating Islamophobia, however, is a progressive priority, and so it is noticed and addressed when it strikes.
However, the argument that the liberal obsession with Islamophobia stems from a healthy regard for the status of minorities only goes so far. As Michael Walzer, the socialist intellectual, has written in Dissent, "I frequently come across leftists who are more concerned with avoiding accusations of Islamophobia than they are with condemning Islamist zealotry." There is a reason, after all, why many Democrats stubbornly and proudly refuse to say the words "Islamic terrorism," preferring to speak of generalized "extremism."
But these same people who insist that evil men have perverted Islam are usually the first to falsely bring up Timothy McVeigh as an example of a "Christian terrorist." They present Christianity as a reflection of the actions of its evildoers (and even those who disclaim the faith). But the actions of orthodox Islamic believers, the Left suddenly maintains, are no reflection on the tenets of the peaceful Islamic faith.
Farther left, the defense of Islam becomes a defense of Islamic radicalism and intolerance. Slavoj Žižek sees in Islamism "the rage of the victims of capitalist globalization." Judith Butler insists that "understanding Hamas [and] Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left, is extremely important."
In short, the New Atheists have won applause from the wrong side: the anti-Muslim, crusading Right. Christopher Hitchens, an endlessly entertaining writer who could give it to Saddam Hussein as good as anyone, was every right-winger's favorite radical. Sam Harris started finding agreement with the likes of Douglas Murray and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Rich Lowry's defense of Harris from Ben Affleck appeared in the New York Post. Bill Maher now delights the Right as much as he infuriates it. And the Left, smelling traitors in its midst, simply cannot tolerate this sort of transgression.
But more attention is needed to the specific nature of the Left's double standard when it comes to Islam. Why must ardent secularists from the Islamic world like Ayaan Hirsi Ali — the type of people the Left looks to for inspiration in the history of Western secularism — be deemed bigots, while Sharia-supporting conspiracy theorists like Linda Sarsour are cherished? Why has criticizing Islam caused the New Atheists to cross a red line in the progressive imagination?
These positions make no sense if one thinks of the Left as seriously secular, convinced of the need to end the reign of superstition. But American liberals profess neither the passionate skepticism of Hume nor the honest, urgent atheism of Nietzsche. They prefer to embrace a shallow, culture-war atheism instead.
This culture-war atheism provides "evidence," quick and easy, to support the proposition that America is split into two camps: the intelligent, sophisticated, urbane, righteous liberals and the idiotic, gullible, backward, bigoted conservatives. The former are atheists and the latter are believers, flattering one side and bludgeoning the other. In fact, it is this type of thinking that made progressives fall in love with the New Atheists in the first place.
New Atheism pleased the Left as long as it stuck to criticizing "God," who was associated with the beliefs of President George W. Bush and his supporters. It was thus fun, rather than offensive, for Bill Maher to call "religion" ridiculous, because he was assumed to be talking about Christianity. Christopher Hitchens could call God a "dictator" and Heaven a "celestial North Korea," and the Left would laugh. Berkeley students would not think to disinvite Richard Dawkins when he was saying "Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion."Why don't we want them? Isn't the enemy of my enemy my friend? While there are some exceptions (Christopher Hitchens comes to mind) most of them are shallow thinkers motivated by an irrational (indeed often bigoted) hostility toward religion. The fact that they don't distinguish between Islam and Christianity in their hatred may be consistent, but it is not laudable.
None of this New Atheist silliness bothered the Left so long as it flattered the right tribes and battered the wrong ones. It was only once the New Atheists extended their critique of religion to Islam that progressives began to turn on them. Muslims, though largely right-wing before the War on Terror, had become a "marginalized group." Seen as the victims of Western colonialism, neoconservative aggression, and day-to-day discrimination, they became a part of the coalition of the oppressed, which is to say, they became virtuous. Islam, consequently, became a faith and tradition deserving of respect, not a "mind virus" like Christiniaty, busy infecting fools.
As such, attacks on Muslims or their faith not only appeared to be "punching down" at the innocent, but also became attacks on the left itself. The New Atheists, merely by being consistent and focusing on the most-egregious religious intolerance, in effect surrendered their sophistication and, in the Left's eyes, joined the ranks of the bigoted, reactionary Right.
There is just one problem: We don't want them either.
Labels: Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, Christophobia, Culture War, Elliot Kaufman, New Atheists, Richard Dawkins
Labels: Andrea Yearwood, Bill Whittle, Transgender, Transgenderism
#RespectMyVote and start issuing Voter IDs. pic.twitter.com/B10ajO40vL— Pamela Moore (@Pamela_Moore13) July 19, 2017
Labels: Ballot Security, Racism, Voter ID Laws, Voter Identification Laws
Labels: Congress, Health Care, Obamacare, Repeal and Replace, Republican Party
Who is she? The FBI tells the story using Shakur's real name (Chesimard):Happy birthday to the revolutionary #AssataShakur! Today's #SignOfResistance, in Assata's honor, is by @Meloniousfunk. pic.twitter.com/V66au1dRnl— Women's March (@womensmarch) July 16, 2017
On May 2, 1973, Chesimard, who was part of a revolutionary extremist organization known as the Black Liberation Army, and two accomplices were stopped for a motor vehicle violation on the New Jersey Turnpike by two troopers with the New Jersey State Police. At the time, Chesimard was wanted for her involvement in several felonies, including bank robbery. Chesimard and her accomplices opened fire on the troopers. One trooper was wounded and the other was shot and killed execution-style at point-blank range. Chesimard fled the scene, but was subsequently apprehended. One of her accomplices was killed in the shoot-out and the other was also apprehended and remains in jail.Of course, Marquette honored Shakur with a mural in the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center.
So did CNN's Mark Lamont Hill:
HAPPY 70TH BIRTHDAY, ASSATA! We are turning up in Brooklyn for you. We celebrate the revolutionary spirit you are. You inspired a movement. pic.twitter.com/MZRwawnmfH— BlackLivesMatterNYC (@BLMNYC) July 16, 2017
Happy 70th Birthday to Assata Shakur!!!! #HandsOffAssata #palenquequeen #bolekaja— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) July 17, 2017
Labels: Assata Shakur, Black lives matter, cop killer, Faculty, Leftists, Marc Lamont Hill, Marquette University, Terrorism, Women's March
One of the hallmarks of the "Ugly American" is the habit of thinking foreigners will understand what you're saying if just shout it louder and louder.But is that really the point? Or worse? Could it be that the "climate change" crowd is so keen on this issue, and so given to hysterics, because deep down they want an excuse to dictate people's lifestyles? Not only could it be, it is.
The Ugly Environmentalist does something similar. He exaggerates the challenge of global warming by using ever more hysterical rhetoric, thinking that if the last doomsday prediction didn't work, this one will.
For instance, Stephen Hawking, the famous astrophysicist, recently said that the consequences of Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Paris climate accord were monumental: "Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees (Celsius), and raining sulfuric acid."
As Nathan Cofnas notes in the Weekly Standard, this is nuts. The share of the atmosphere taken up by that vile gas carbon dioxide (which just happens to sustain all plant life) is 400 parts per million. It's been much higher than that in the past without boiling the oceans or raining acid from the sky. Cofnas also mentions that Venus is nearly 26 million miles closer to the sun, and that the share of carbon dioxide in the Venusian atmosphere is 965,000 parts per million, or about 2,412 times greater than Earth's.
And that's Hawking, a serious scientist (at least in his own field). Journalists, always looking for novelty and drama, can be worse. A recent New York magazine cover story on climate change assured readers that all of the previous climate-change alarmism was too tepid. Basically, by the end of the century, the living will envy the dead and much of the planet will be uninhabitable or a reenactment of a Mad Max movie.
The more you sound like some cowbell-wielding street preacher wearing a sandwich board that says "The End Is Nigh!" the more likely it is that people will ignore you. Particularly if your last few terrifying predictions didn't pan out.
But this focus on how using scare tactics doesn't persuade skeptics overlooks another problem. What about the people it does persuade? If you honestly believe that climate change will end all life on earth (it won't) or lead to some dystopian hell where we use the skulls of our former friends and neighbors to collect water droplets from cacti, what policies wouldn't you endorse to stop it?
There's a rich school of journalistic and academic nonsense out there about how democracy may not be up to the job of fighting climate change, and why people who question climate change must be silenced by the state. It's remarkable how many of the people who rightly recoil in horror at the idea of using, say, the war on terror to justify curtailing civil liberties have no such response when someone floats similar ideas for the war on climate change.
The environment editor for the left-wing British newspaper the Guardian, Damian Carrington, recently wrote a piece fretting about how having kids doesn't help fight climate change. Jill Filipovic, a feminist writer, endorsed the article. "Having children is one of the worst things you can do for the planet," she wrote on Twitter. "Have one less and conserve resources."
I found this interestingly dumb. Filipovic is precisely one of those writers you'd expect to go ballistic if some conservative Christian opined about the reproductive choices women should make. But if it's in the name of the environment? Let's wag those fingers, everybody!
Labels: alarmism, Climate Change, Global Warming, Global Warming Fascism, Hysteria, Jonah Goldberg
Labels: Adidas, Commercials, Donald Trump, Feminism, Political Correctness, Reebok, Sexism
Labels: Bret Weinstein, Evergreen State College, Leftist Intolerance, Liberal Intolerance, Political Correctness, Trustees
Labels: First Amendment, Free Speech, Intolerance, Supreme Court


text:
Fungal Conditions Can Spread Rapidly When Neglected. Here Are 10 Natural Remedies for Toenail Fungus
5 Tea Tree Oil
Tea tree oil is widely used as an effective fungicidal and antiseptic as well as a proven natural remedy for toe nail fungus. First clean the affected area with rubbing alcohol. Use a different cotton swab to apply the tea tree oil directly on the affected nail allowing the oil to soak in. After 15 minutes, scrub the nail gently with a soft bristle toothbrush. Before applying tea tree oil it is advisable to apply a drop in your skin to check if you aren't sensitive to essential oils. You could also consider mixing tea tree oil with coconut, olive or almond oil. Repeat the treatment twice daily till the fungus is cleared completely.
6 Coconut oil
Coconut oil, besides lauric acid also contains caprylic acid a medium chain fatty acid that attacks the cell walls of candida and related fungi. This dissolves the fungal cells destroying the infection. Using a cotton swab, soak it in coconut oil generously and apply on the affected area and allow it to remain for 15 to 20 minutes. Coconut oil is excellent for skin and there are limitless ways you can use it. However ensure that you aren't allergic to coconut before resorting to this treatment. Studies in Nigeria https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17651080 found that coconut oil was extremely effective in species of drug resistant candida.
7 Clove oil
Clove is highly effective in killing candida. Clove has antibacterial, antiparasitic, antifungal and antimicrobial properties rich in an ingredient called eugenol which increases its medicinal benefits against fungus and yeast infections. Clove oil should be used sparingly as it is abit strong and can cause skin irritation. Use 4-8 drops of clove oil 1% mixed with 2 tsp coconut oil and apply directly on the affected area for best results. Clove can also be taken orally through capsule form or brewing a green tea along with clove.


text:
CFIF Applauds FCC Vote to Advance NPRM to Restore Internet Freedom
In today's Wall Street Journal, former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commissioner Robert McDowell offers a timely and instructive commentary entitled "The FCC Gets Set to Free Wireless," in which he explains the important work by new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai:
The Federal Communications Commission this month is launching initiatives that will shape the fate of America's wireless industry. Last week it started to examine competition in the market, and this week it will propose taking Depression-era utility regulations off mobile broadband while protecting an open internet. This is only the beginning. The FCC is acting on a rare opportunity to correct its recent mistakes and restore the Clinton-era light-touch regulatory framework that will drive economic growth and job creation."
As we at CFIF have detailed, the internet flourished over two decades like no other innovation in human history, precisely because of the light-touch regulatory approach started under Clinton as McDowell notes, and continued through the Bush Administration. But in 2015, Obama's FCC under former Chairman Tom Wheeler decided to "fix" an internet that wasn't broken by regulating it as a "public service" under the 1930s copper-wire telephone laws that McDowell references. As Chairman Pai recently noted, domestic broadband capital expenditures fell for the first time ever outside of a recession.
McDowell notes how the mobile industry experienced "an explosion of entrepreneurial brilliance," incredible innovation in just a few short years, massive investment, falling consumer prices (25% in the past decade) and arrival of the app economy. Importantly, he highlights that, "Three quarters of the companies in the global app economy are American." Unfortunately, the Obama FCC's rush to commandeer yet another sector of the U.S. economy imposed an unnecessary threat to that innovation:
Yet since 2009, the FCC has ignored its own studies and refused to determine that the market is competitive. That would have contradicted the rationale for its regulation binge, but new political and market realities make a fresh start possible."
Fortunately, new leadership under Chairman Pai offers the opportunity to correct that mistake before the harm intensifies:
The FCC should begin by liberating wireless from the heavy-handed rules of a 1934 law called Title II, which was created when phones were held in two hands. This antiquated law imposes powerful economic regulations on the internet, chilling investment in broadband. On Thursday the FCC will propose to unshackle the net from this millstone of a law. This would restore the bipartisan light-touch policies that nurtured the burgeoning internet Americans enjoy today."
It's unfortunate that a federal bureaucracy decided in its wisdom that regulating the thriving internet as a "public utility" under a 1934 law was a good idea in the first instance. But as McDowell cheerfully notes, the opportunity to prevent further harm and restore the innovation and investment that characterized internet service for over two decades is here. For that we should thank Chairman Pai and support his common-sense restoration of regulatory sanity at the FCC.
Activists advocating heavy-handed internet regulation of the type pushed by the Obama-era Federal Communications Commission (FCC) pretend that they're the ones crusading on behalf of everyday consumers. The reality is that the internet flourished as no innovation in human history precisely because both the Clinton Administration and Bush Administration maintained a "light touch" regulatory stance from the FCC.
But then in 2015, the Obama Administration decided that it must "fix" an internet that wasn't broken, through a narrow party-line FCC vote to regulate internet service as a "public utility" under 1930s laws enacted for copper-wire telephones.
The result: internet infrastructure investment fell for the first time ever outside of an economic recession.
Fortunately, new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is restoring common sense by returning internet regulation to the "light touch" approach that worked for two decades and under Clinton and Bush.
Now there's more good news, highlighted by the good folks over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI). According to a new Morning Consult survey, Americans overwhelmingly favor a light-touch FCC regulatory approach toward internet service:
- By an overwhelming 78% to 12% margin, voters support the government having little or no regulation of the internet, with 53% supporting a 'light touch' and 25% asserting that the government should not regulate the internet at all.
- By an 18-point margin (51% versus 33%), voters say the internet should not be regulated as a public utility.
- By a two-to-one margin, voters believe regulating the internet as a utility would slow innovation and decrease private tech investment.
- Support for light-touch regulation is bipartisan, including 55% of Democrats, 52% of Republicans, and 52% of Independents. Perhaps surprisingly, 21% of Democrats favor NO government regulation of the internet, along with 27% of Republicans and 26% of Independents."
Chairman Pai is demonstrating admirable courage and leadership in restoring regulatory sanity at the FCC, and it's always encouraging to confirm that the American electorate agrees with him.
Among the myriad missteps and abuses of the Obama Administration, its habit of rogue lawmaking through unelected administrative agencies rather than the deliberative democratic process was perhaps the worst. Even the most liberal Supreme Court justices on several occasions agreed, striking down Obama Administration regulatory impositions by unanimous votes.
And perhaps no federal agency represented that lawlessness and impropriety better than the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Last year as the clock began to expire on the Obama era, the FCC moved to impose new "privacy" regulations upon private Internet Service Providers (ISPs), upon which Americans rely to access the internet. Those regulations actually did nothing on behalf of consumer privacy, or to prevent online data collection practices used profusely by other entities throughout the Internet economy that the Obama Administration favored. Instead, the regulations served to constrict development of new business practices and distort the robust digital marketplace, while picking winners and losers.
Additionally, those FCC regulations circumvented the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) superior expertise in this field by encroaching upon its existing regulations upon which the Internet economy had relied for years. The FTC's proven framework protected consumers for decades, while obviously allowing the Internet to flourish as it did. But the FCC went rogue, insisting on inserting itself into more areas of American consumers' daily lives, and disrupting a robust marketplace with a "solution" where no problem existed.
Fortunately, Congress is set to act by rescinding the Obama FCC's ill-advised regulation. The Congressional Review Act (CRA), which was enacted as part of the Contract with America reforms, allows Congress to rein in rogue administrative agency regulations and prevent future agencies from reimposing them in the future. It remained an ineffective tool when the threat of an Obama veto loomed, but with Donald Trump now in the White House, Congress has begun using the CRA to rescind costly and improper regulations.
Now, the Senate stands ready to eliminate the Obama FCC's destructive last-hour "privacy" regulation this week.
And they can use your help.
Contact your Senators and tell them to put the CRA to use and rescind the FCC's rule. The best way to protect privacy and strengthen the internet economy is to build from the successful and established framework established by the FTC, not the Obama FCC's scheme.
Next month's arrival of a new Trump Administration, alongside a Congress ready to hit the ground running, promises a flurry of corrective activity after eight years of Barack Obama.
However, Americans should remain vigilant against regulatory mischief that some are trying to push through unnoticed at the outset of the new Administration and Congress.
Exhibit A: An effort by broadcasters to convince Obama's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to approve an entirely new broadcast television standard known as ATSC 3.0.
In a nutshell, the ATSC 3.0 standard amounts to yet another new federal action upon a private marketplace and a handout to a favored industry that could inflict significant and unnecessary costs, ultimately to be paid by consumers.
Under current law, cable and satellite television providers must carry local television stations, so the regulatory scales are already tipped in broadcasters' favor. The proposed new mandate could extend the scope of providers' obligations requiring them to transmit broadcast signals in the new standard to the public.
As a result, consumers who currently receive local stations over the air or via cable or satellite providers suddenly would face the possibility of incurring the cost of new equipment in order to receive the new signal, as current equipment does not support the new standard. Obviously, millions of consumers who are already struggling to make ends meet could thus be forced to pay – whether through higher monthly subscription fees or direct charge – for new equipment for a "benefit" that may not be needed or even desired.
Satellite and cable providers could also face technological hurdles to accommodate the new standard, which could inevitably lead to additional costs and quality assurance issues. Ultimately, subscribers could have to pay those costs and endure those potential technological glitches as well.
Keep in mind that all of these costs and changes could be imposed without a sober cost/benefit analysis from the FCC. It's precisely the sort of hasty, top-down, crony capitalist federal regulatory action that has tested the limits of American tolerance over the past decade.
Technological advance is a good thing, whether in the TV market or elsewhere. But that's something that should occur as the result of market forces, not through fast-tracked federal regulatory action riddled by too many uncertainties.
Good news within the federal regulatory leviathan has been depressingly rare, perhaps most of all at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This week, however, brought a remarkably welcome development worthy of celebration.
Specifically, the FCC delayed its vote on a toxic and entirely unwarranted new proposal to regulate cable television set-top boxes before the Obama presidency's clock expires, in what The Wall Street Journal labeled "a major blow to the proposal" and "a setback to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler on one of his top priorities for the year."
Even Democrats have attacked the scheme as a "massive new federal regulation," and CFIF stands alongside a broad coalition of conservative and libertarian organizations in opposition. The initiative from the overactive FCC seeks to impose a one-size-fits all mandate to make cable TV set-top boxes artificially compatible with third-party entertainment devices. So even while cable companies themselves progressively and voluntarily move toward abandoning traditional cable boxes in favor of devices owned and maintained by individual customers as they prefer, Chairman Wheeler hopes to impose a 1990s-style regulation upon the industry. That would essentially freeze in place the increasingly outdated model of set-top cable boxes that is already becoming an anachronism due to market forces. Exacerbating matters, the proposal reeks of crony capitalism, as CFIF has highlighted. The proposal is a confluence of regulatory overreach, technological sclerosis and crony capitalism.
Fortunately, this week's decision within the FCC to delay a vote due to Wheeler's apparent inability to persuade fellow Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel to his side provides a rare victory against years of FCC regulatory onslaught. Although the bipartisan consensus among consumer groups, Congress, the innovation community and market participants must remain vigilant because the battle isn't over, it's welcome news worthy of note and celebration.
In this week's Liberty Update, we highlight a humiliating new legal defeat for the Obama Administration in its continuing effort to evade legal reckoning for political persecution by the IRS. Now, there's yet another major court loss to report, this time against Obama's overactive Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Specifically, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals this week rejected FCC attempts to preempt individual state laws aimed at fostering private broadband innovation and growth. For years, the Obama Administration has sought to encourage cities across the country to enter the broadband marketplace, thereby undermining private enterprises in the same business. As CFIF has explained in our ongoing efforts to fight that effort, municipal broadband networks (otherwise known as government-owned networks or "GONs") end up costing much more to build out and maintain than government officials expect or admit. Moreover, consumers often pay 20% to 50% higher monthly bills than they would with private broadband providers. It's therefore no surprise that approximately 75% of GONs fail to realize a profit, causing many cities to fall even deeper into debt and end up selling their GONs at enormous losses. The unfortunate experience in Provo, Utah provides a textbook illustration. Municipalities across America have better ways to spend taxpayer dollars than entering into competition against private broadband providers, not least because those private enterprises have invested $1.5 trillion in broadband infrastructure and continue to do so.
In order to shoehorn publicly-owned broadband through, Obama's FCC resorted to infringing on individual state sovereignty by attempting to preempt state and local laws prohibiting these municipal boondoggles. In other words, it attempted to govern how states could legislate within their own borders. But the Sixth Circuit was having none of it. The FCC order, it held, "essentially serves to reallocate decisionmaking power between the states and their municipalities."
So mark down another embarrassing court defeat for the Obama Administration as it attempts to occupy as many sectors of the private economy as it can before time runs out in five months.
CFIF and other conservative and libertarian groups strongly oppose a new proposal from Obama's overactive Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate cable television set-top boxes, and that opposition is widely shared among a bipartisan Congressional coalition and even the political left.
Now, even the U.S. Copyright Office has joined the voices criticizing the FCC's misguided proposal:
The U.S. Copyright Office criticized a federal agency's plan to open up the market for pay-TV set-top boxes in a letter to lawmakers on Wednesday. The letter adds political pressure on Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, who has been pushing since the beginning of the year for new FCC rules to open up the market for the costly set-top boxes… 'As currently proposed, the [FCC] rule could interfere with copyright owners' rights to license their works as provided by copyright law.' That is because those who create programming, and hold the copyright on it, have negotiated specific deals with cable companies, and those deals could be upended if other companies also obtain access to the programming through their own set-top boxes. The letter adds that the Copyright Office is 'hopeful that the FCC will refine its approach as necessary to avoid conflicts with copyright law and authors' interests under that law.'"
It's pretty damning and humiliating that even a counterpart executive branch agency raps the highly-politicized FCC across the knuckles in such an open manner.
Nevertheless, it's a welcome rebuke against the FCC's proposal, which constitutes a 1990s-vintage, one-size-fits all mandate to make cable TV set-top boxes artificially compatible with third-party devices. It additionally constitutes transparent crony capitalism, threatens consumer privacy, undermines the creative community and damages property rights by facilitating piracy of creative content. And technologically speaking, the set-top box proposal freezes in place an outdated set-top box business model that private innovation and technological advance are already leaving in the dust, with cable companies and other entertainment industry entrepreneurs already abandoning traditional cable boxes in favor of apps and other devices owned and guided by individual consumers.
Hopefully, the Copyright Office's welcome input helps drive a well-deserved nail into the proposal's metaphorical coffin.
Like most Americans, you probably had no idea that the Internet was somehow broken and in need of an Obama Administration "fix" via a Depression-era federal statute enacted for copper wire telephone technology.
And with good reason. For two decades, America's tech and Internet sectors have remained among the depressingly few areas of our economy that continued to flourish amid an era characterized by stagnating growth, employment and incomes.
Throughout the Obama tenure, however, his Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has attempted over and over to upend the "light touch" regulatory approach of both Democratic (Clinton) and Republican (Bush) administrations that allowed the Internet to flourish as it has. Today, unfortunately, a sharply divided D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals finally affirmed the FCC's most recent attempt to impose so-called "Net Neutrality" regulations that essentially equate to ObamaCare for the Internet.
As aptly summarized by Senior Circuit Judge Williams's dissent, today's decision allows FCC "use of an Act intended to 'reduce regulation' to instead increase regulation."
Judge Williams cogently captured not only the legal illogic of the majority's holding, but its real-world unintended consequences as well:
"The ultimate irony of the Commission's unreasoned patchwork is that, refusing to inquire into competitive conditions, it shuns broadband service onto the legal track suited to natural monopolies. Because that track provides little economic space for new firms seeking market entry or relatively small firms seeking expansion through innovations in business models or in technology, the Commission's decision has a decent chance of bringing about the conditions under which some (but by no means all) of its actions could be grounded – the prevalence of incurable monopoly."
Fortunately, this doesn't end the question. The ruling will likely be appealed, and the FCC's mismanagement can be corrected via Congressional action or new FCC leadership in a future presidential administration.
But beyond the specific issue in question, today's unfortunate ruling illustrates again the importance of judicial branch appointments and composition as we approach the election of a president who will make those appointments.
Alongside nearly every other conservative and libertarian organization of which we're aware, CFIF opposes a toxic and wholly unnecessary new proposal from the Obama Administration's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate cable television set-top boxes before the clock runs out on the Obama presidency.
But opposition extends across the political spectrum. In today's Wall Street Journal, former Clinton Administration Undersecretary of Commerce Ev Ehrlich excoriates the FCC's proposed set-top box regulation for what it is — a crony capitalist, purloining, invasive, already-obsolete, anti-competitive, "massive new federal regulation":
The Federal Communications Commission wants you, the consumer, to allow a new set-top box into your home that rearranges the programs you buy and inserts new advertising while tracking what you watch. Movie studios, labor unions and civil rights groups all oppose it. Why? Because this 'All-Vid' proposal isn't about the box fees the senators-turned-lobbyists decry. Instead, it's all about appropriating content. Google and Amazon want to capture, repackage and profit from TV programming in their own competing services without having to pay for it…
If Google, Amazon or anyone else wants to build a better set-top box, they can do so the way these services have – in a way that respects federal privacy laws and negotiated licensing agreements with program producers. Or they can actually license the content from creators, the way everybody else does, as opposed to demanding a gift from a captive FCC."
Mr. Ehrlich gets it exactly right.
As we have stated, there is simply no realm of American life today that manifests badly-needed innovation, consumer choice, quality, affordability and sheer enjoyment than the video entertainment sector. The variety and excellence of today's video choices continues to expand at breakneck speed on (literally) a daily basis. We therefore ask officials at all levels of government, as well as our 250,000 supporters and activists across the country, to oppose what Mr. Ehrlich rightly describes as a looming federal atrocity.
We are fortunate to live in what many have called the "Golden Age of Television," a time when an explosion of creativity and innovation have collided to create more audience choice than ever before.
In light of that, the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) recent decision to "Unlock the Box" with their "AllVid" proposal seems especially puzzling. Upon further reflection and considering the bigger picture, however, the misguided AllVid proposal regarding technology that is already antiquated and will soon be entirely irrelevant is merely the most recent in a string of illogical and counterproductive proposals from the current FCC.
From the so called AllVid proposal to the FCC's Privacy proposal, it is evident that we live not only in the "Golden Age of Television," but also in the "Age of Asymmetrical Regulation." Current regulations impose one set of rules upon incumbents in the telecommunications industry and another set of rules entirely for so-called "edge" providers like Google. In fact, regulation under this FCC seems to deliberately create a crony capitalist environment where incumbents can't compete and the edge providers alone can thrive.
Equally troubling is the abnormally notoriously close relationship between Google and the White House, a partnership that was extensively detailed in a recent piece in The Intercept. Not only did Google's top lobbyist visit the White House 128 times, but during the company's annual State of the Union YouTube interviews with the President, Google is reported to have planted questions on policy issues important to Google on at least 3 occasions. That conspicuous degree of access and flagrant favoritism suggests that it has contributed to the severely asymmetrical regulation that we continue to witness from this FCC.
Again and again we have seen examples of this type of successful rent-seeking behavior from Google, and their ilk, and the remedy is clear: the FCC must stop its transparent favoritism and heavy-handed regulation of the telecommunication incumbents. Instead, it should focus on maintaining a level playing field. Regulating based on crony capitalist bias and personal friendship is not only wildly inappropriate, but also a recipe for interventionist disaster. Continuing to disproportionately impose destructive regulations on the telecommunications for the benefit of other favored sectors not only violates the rights of disfavored enterprises, it ultimately serves to stifle competition and innovation for years to come in same the way that all government interventions into the free market tend to do.
Throughout the Obama Era, his Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has destructively imposed regulation after regulation upon a tech and telecommunications market that was not broken. Indeed, that sector has thrived like no other in the modern American economy.
An announcement today from Comcast provided just the latest evidence of that thriving market.
Specifically, Executive Vice President of Consumer Services Marcien Jenckes announced an Internet data trial that will introduce a terabyte data plan to its offerings. Beginning June 1, data plans in trial markets will upgrade from 300 gigabytes to one terabyte, regardless of speed.
To place that in perspective, their average customer reportedly uses only 60 gigabytes per month – 940 gigabytes short of a terabyte. A terabyte allows streaming of 700 hours of high-definition video, 12,000 hours of online gaming and 60,000 high-resolution photo downloads in a month. Fewer than 1% of its customers even approach a terabyte in monthly usage, and even they will be free under the new plan to receive unlimited data for merely $50 more per month or individual increments of 50 gigabytes for $10.
In other words, the market is working without FCC "solutions" to non-existent problems. This announcement offers merely the latest proof.
Alongside other free market organizations, CFIF adamantly opposes a new proposal by the Obama Administration's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate cable television set-top boxes.
More specifically, Obama's FCC seeks to impose a 1990s-vintage, one-size-fits-all mandate to make cable TV set-top boxes artificially compatible with third-party devices. As we have detailed, the proposed regulation constitutes crony capitalism in its worst form, it poses a threat to consumer privacy, it undermines the creative community and jeopardizes intellectual property protections by potentially facilitating piracy. In addition to those problems, it also constitutes an anachronism in the sense that it freezes in place an outdated set-top box model that is already being left behind by technological advance and private sector innovation. Cable companies and other entertainment industry players are already abandoning traditional cable boxes in favor of devices owned and maintained by individual consumers as they choose.
Today's announcement of the new joint Xfinity TV Partner Program between Comcast, Samsung and Roku provides just the latest example illustrating that dynamic. Stated simply, consumers can access their cable subscription via the Xfinity TV Partner app that will be compatible with RokuTV and Roku devices. Thus, without the need for a set-top box at all, customers can now access live, on-demand, cloud, DVR and other televised content on smart TVs and other IP-enabled technology.
What this shows is that the video entertainment and app markets continue to evolve alongside consumer demand, rendering the FCC's set-top box proposal obsolete before it can even be imposed. The new regulation would disrupt market innovation of this sort while threatening the privacy and piracy perils noted above. Simply put, the marketplace is working, and this latest FCC "solution" to a non-existent problem will only create more problems.
As we have emphasized, and as any American who watches television well knows, there is no realm of contemporary life that manifests innovation, consumer choice, quality, affordability and sheer enjoyment than the video entertainment sector. The variety and excellence of today's video choices continues to expand at breakneck speed and literally on a daily basis.
Today's news serves to confirm that reality, and demonstrates why leaders in Congress, the innovation community, consumer groups and everyday American consumers should stand together and oppose this latest FCC overreach.
This is an amazing time for the film and TV industry, as audiences have never possessed more entertainment choices on more platforms.
To illustrate, FX Networks recently conducted a study demonstrating that the total number of scripted series (think dramas and comedies, not reality-TV) across cable, satellite and online increased to 409 in 2015. That represents a 94% increase from 2009, with a 174% growth in scripted series on basic cable (181 vs. 66). What's more, all this great content is widely available online. SNL Kagan recently released a report finding that "98% of premium films and 94% of premium TV series were digitally available on at least one of the online services that were reviewed."
Given this explosion of creativity and innovation, a sense of growing and justifiable bewilderment in the creative community exists over a recent FCC proposal, commonly referred to as "AllVid," that would force creators, networks, and pay-TV providers to give away their products and services for tech giants like Google to exploit for their own commercial purposes. The beneficiaries of this government handout would be free to repackage video content as they see fit, drop programming or bury it on the channel guide, add their own advertising and strip out existing ads, and mine viewer data – all without negotiating with cable programmers or distributors or adhering to privacy laws and regulations that apply to traditional providers.
Further, there is nothing in the proposed rule to stop tech companies from combining legitimate content with video from piracy sources. "Walking Dead" producer Gale Ann Hurd articulated these concerns well in a recent USA Today op-ed stating:
[The proposal] would also allow Google — and for that matter set-top box manufacturers from all over the world, including China (where rogue boxes are being built by the millions) — to create and market applications or boxes with software that will treat legitimate and stolen material exactly the same, and may in many cases help to steer consumers to piracy."
Her concern regarding piracy-laden devices is legitimate. As just one recent example, the UK's Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit arrested six people for selling Android set-top boxes modified to deliver illegal movies and TV shows. And Hurd's concerns about boxes manufactured in China are made plain in this Forbes article.
Proponents of AllVid claim they merely want to show consumers "all their video," meaning they want to mix and match content from YouTube and other online sources with pay-TV. Setting aside the fact that existing technologies like Roku and Apple TV already provide that capability, the creative community is understandably nervous about stolen content appearing alongside legitimate video if Google gets its way with the set top box proposal. As Hurd points out, "Google's search engine does this today. Here's what happens when I search "www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=watch+Fear+the+Walking+Dead">watch www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=watch+Fear+the+Walking+Dead">Fear the Walking Dead."
The role search plays in facilitating piracy is significant, so those concerns about the mixing of stolen online video with legal pay-TV content are well founded. According to one survey, 74% of consumers say they used a search engine when they first viewed pirated content. And researches at Carnegie Mellon University conducted an experiment conclusively demonstrating that search rankings drive consumer behavior. The more prominently pirated content appears in search results, the more likely consumers are to choose it.
Worse, TorrentFreak recently reported that Google Now is pushing links to piracy sites, even when consumers don't engage in any search at all. As TorrentFreak explains:
Google can't read people's minds but it does harvest data from Google accounts in order to provide its Now services. That includes your search and location history, sites you've visited and the content of Gmail messages. It can also access your phone contacts, calendar entries and even certain apps."
In this instance, after Google Now determined that user Ryan Raab had "shown an interest" in the movie "Deadpool," it proactively delivered a link to one of the largest torrent sites in the world, 1337x (see the screenshot below). The troubling nature of this behavior can't be understated. Based on data collected across multiple services, Google's algorithm unilaterally suggested Raab access stolen content – without any action on his part. The FCC's proposal would only increase the likelihood that Google continues to engage in such irresponsible conduct.
Creators like Hurd have fought hard to keep the pay-TV environment piracy-free. But the FCC – in its eagerness to foment "innovation" – seems determined to compromise the integrity of the creative ecosystem that has produced an explosion of creativity and innovation. AllVid supporters see content merely as bait – a digital lure to attract their ultimate prize: data. If Google and the FCC succeed, creative content could be taken without negotiation or compensation and used by large tech companies to collect consumer viewing data – thereby undermining the economics of creation and consumer trust in one fell swoop.
Or as Hurd puts it, "I'm afraid that all of us who create, market and broadcast legitimate content will be like the zombies on my show: the walking dead."
We at CFIF recently highlighted a dangerous new regulatory proposal from the Obama Administration's rogue Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Its set-top box proposal that simultaneously embodies crony capitalism, regulatory overreach and technological sclerosis:
The latest manifestation is a new initiative from Obama's overactive FCC to impose a one-size-fits-all mandate to make cable television set-top boxes artificially compatible with third-party entertainment devices. In other words, even as cable companies themselves voluntarily move in the direction of abandoning traditional cable boxes and toward devices owned and maintained by individual customers as they so choose, the FCC wants to impose 1990s-style regulation on the industry. That would essentially freeze in place the increasingly outdated model of set-top cable boxes even as it becomes increasingly anachronistic on its own."
Fortunately, there's good news to report.
Specifically, a bipartisan House Communications and Technology Subcommittee coalition led by Chairman Greg Walden (R – Oregon) and committee member Yvette Clarke (D – New York) sent a letter on Friday asking the nonpartisan federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the FCC's set-top box proposal. For those unfamiliar with the GAO, it is popularly known as the "Congressional Watchdog," and is more officially the agency that provides investigatory and auditing services to Congress of various institutions within the federal government. The joint letter highlights their concerns and requests a formal GAO examination:
We are concerned that the agency's efforts do not include a meaningful assessment of the effects on independent and diverse networks, whose business models may be greatly threatened and undermined by the FCC's proposed rules. The FCC must proceed with a better understanding of how their proposed rules could limit diversity and inclusion on our nations shared media platforms. We are requesting that the U.S. Government Accountability Office examine the impact of the FCC's proposal to change the rules regarding cable set top boxes on small, independent, and multicultural media programmers and content providers."
This constitutes great news.
It shows a bipartisan Congressional concern over the broad array of potential damage that the FCC's proposed set-top box regulation would inflict. And Congress isn't alone. A diverse group of consumer groups, innovators, employers and businesses join in opposing the proposal, which offers optimism that it will be rightfully stopped before further damage occurs.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today voted to move forward with consideration of proposed new "privacy" regulations targeted at Internet Service Providers (ISPs). What follows is a statement by Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) President Jeffrey Mazzella:
This latest effort by the FCC is nothing more than the Commission once again picking winners and losers in the marketplace. These regulations on ISPs do nothing to prevent the online data collection practices used profusely by others throughout the Internet economy, while constricting the development of new business practices and distorting the robust digital marketplace.
The prescriptive regulations voted on today also circumvent the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) expertise in this area. The FTC's proven framework on privacy has worked to protect consumers for decades while encouraging the growth of the Internet we have today.
Rather than finding ways to cement the presence of FCC bureaucracy in our daily lives, the Commission should reconsider its regulations on so-called 'privacy' and instead focus on pro-growth solutions for a robust mobile marketplace.
In recent weeks we've highlighted a destructive new initiative by the Obama Administration's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to impose a one-size-fits-all regulation forcing cable TV set-top boxes to become artificially compatible with third-party devices. Translation: in the ever-evolving home entertainment market, where cable companies themselves are already moving from traditional cable boxes toward devices owned by individual consumers, the FCC remains mired in a 1990s mindset and wants to regulate accordingly. The FCC's inexplicable proposal would freeze in place a technological state that is already outdated.
Check that. Perhaps the FCC's behavior isn't so inexplicable at all.
This morning, The Wall Street Journal editorial board highlights many of the concerns that we and others address, but notes in "Government by Google" that crony capitalism constitutes the underlying foundation of the initiative:
The Federal Communications Commission has proposed rules that would force television providers to create a universal cable-box adapter. This would hand over shows to companies – TiVo, Google – that would peddle programming as their own…
The new rule amounts to government-sponsored piracy in allowing TiVo and Google to broadcast programs that providers pay to distribute. Google wouldn't have to abide by carriage agreements or pay licensing fees, which is one reason content creators are pushing back. The stealing would no doubt violate copyright. Some 30 members of the Congressional Black Caucus sent a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler saying the rule would relegate minority programming to channels rarely visited by viewers. Google prodded the supposedly independent FCC in 2014 to bust open cable boxes, and Chairman Wheeler followed orders. The tech giant wants to sell ads against poached content, mowing over cable commercials and crushing advertising competitors."
The federal government can't be trusted to control our healthcare industry, our free speech rights, our children's educational options, our Second Amendment rights and so on. Why would control over our home entertainment choices or the constantly-advancing telecommunications industry somehow be any different?
The Journal concludes by noting another ominous element: the Obama Administration's mad rush to impose the remainder of its to-do list as the sun sets on its tenure:
The FCC rejected a similar proposal in 2010, but now the Democratic majority seems committed to ramming it through before President Obama leaves office. Mr. Wheeler has already done great harm to his reputation by taking direction from the White House to regulate the Internet. He'll do even more damage if he does the cable-box bidding of Google."
Well said. Fortunately, a bipartisan Congressional consensus, the creative community, consumer groups and other elements stand ready to stop the FCC's scheme at the legislative, judicial and regulatory levels. Its up to the American electorate justifiably disgusted by crony capitalism and stifling federal overregulation to support them.
On this day in 1876, twenty-nine-year-old Alexander Graham Bell received a patent for inventing the telephone.
Now 140 years later, the Obama Administration continues its counterproductive and legally dubious effort to regulate the Internet as if it were little more than an old-fashioned telephone service of the Bell variety. CFIF and other free-market groups have consistently opposed that effort, and courts have repeatedly rebuked the Obama's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) various schemes to impose it.
Today, The Wall Street Journal's "Information Age" columnist Gordon Crovitz details how a Senate committee has discovered evidence that the Obama Administration's behavior in attempting to regulate the Internet as an old-fashioned utility violated the law. In fact, even FCC regulators expressed shock at the degree to which their administrative independence was disregarded:
FCC staffers cited nine areas in which the last-minute change violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires advance public notice of significant regulatory changes. Agency staffers noted 'substantial litigation risk.' A media aide warned: 'Need more on why we no longer think record is thin in some places.' These emails are a step-by-step display of the destruction of the independence of a regulatory agency… Mr. Obama's edict resulted in 400 pages of slapdash regulations the agency's own chief economist dismissed as an 'economics-free zone.'"
Here's why it matters in the real world, in terms of economics and innovation: Crovitz notes that in just one year since Obama's edict was imposed, "regulatory uncertainty has led to a collapse in investment in broadband." As CFIF has also detailed, he is correct in that unfortunate observation.
On a more encouraging note, however, Obama's latest attempt to regulate the Internet in ObamaCare fashion is back before the same appellate court that has twice rebuked it on this issue. As Crovitz wryly observes, "The Senate report should make fascinating reading for the federal appellate judges considering whether to invalidate the regulations… The appeals court has plenty of evidence proving White House meddling with a supposedly independent agency."
For the good of American consumers and continuing Internet innovation, we certainly hope so.
In an interview with CFIF, Seth Cooper, Senior Fellow at The Free State Foundation, discusses what is wrong with the Federal Communications Commission's proposed rule to "unlock set top boxes," how it is going to impact programming and why the government should not be allowed to pick winners and losers.
CFIF has long advocated auction of over-the-air television stations' airwaves – or spectrum – by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which offers a critical free-market opportunity for the wireless telecommunications industry to avoid looming network congestion issues. It's one of those rare potential win/win opportunities as Americans increasingly rely on mobile devices, and it constitutes the core mission of what the FCC should rightfully be doing with its resources.
While strongly favoring spectrum auction, however, we've also consistently opposed crony capitalist efforts to game the system and corrupt this promising opportunity. Just last week, for example, we highlighted our distaste for Dish Network's scheme to exploit "small business" discounts for its own benefit.
Unfortunately, we may be witnessing another attempt at exploitation of the spectrum auction process. Namely, television broadcasters offering spectrum in the upcoming incentive auction may possess the ability to sell it twice, as reported by Broadcasting & Cable's Washington Bureau Chief John Eggerton:
According to a source familiar with their thinking, some 'major' broadcasters are looking at putting spectrum in the pot and, if they win, taking advantage of tax laws to keep that money in escrow and use more cash, or a loan, to bid on some of that reclaimed broadcast spectrum in the forward auction – they would need to use other money since reverse payments won't be available until both sides of the auction close. They could then sell or lease the spectrum to wireless carriers hungry for it."
What would make such attempts particularly galling is that the broadcasters originally received that spectrum free of charge, so they'd be selling twice something they didn't pay for even once.
FCC auction of spectrum for more productive use is to be applauded, and was a long time in coming. But please, let's keep it free of attempts at unjust enrichment via exploitation of byzantine regulatory mechanisms.


text:
The New York Mets today agreed to a three-year, $37 million deal with closer Francisco "K-Rod" Rodriguez.
K-Rod, who set an MLB record with 62 saves last season for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim could serve as a much needed remedy for a Mets bullpen that blew 29 saves last season.
With this move, the Mets bullpen is seemingly destined to not suck in 2009. However, they are the Mets, so we believe they will still find ways to blow games.
That being said, here are the five most likely ways the Mets will blow games, and probably a spot in the playoffs, in 2009:
1. The starting pitching rotation, now feeling as though the weight of the world hs been lifted from their shoulders, will have an ERA higher than K-Rod's new annual salary, not even giving K-Rod and the 'pen a chance to save the game.
2. The new Citi Field will be cursed by a construction worker burying a Hanley Ramirez jersey in the conrete structure of the stadium.
3. The MLB's new instant replay policy will backfire against the Mets during key games, showing that shots they thought to be homeruns are actually ground-rule doubles or foul balls.
4. Their starting lineup will fall victim to a series of unfortunate, and rather strange events like in The Simpsons episode, "Homer at the Bat." We can see it happening now: Carlos Delgado will overdose on nerve tonic, resulting in gigantism; David Wright will disappear into the "Springfield Mystery Spot"; Jose Reyes will be knocked out by a drunk at a bar and Johan Santana will think he is a chicken, as a result of a bad hypnotist. And in an ironic turn of events, Pedro Martinez will take Santana back to Martinez's home in the Dominican Republic and use him in cockfights.
5. They're the Mets, they'll find ways to blow games that we can't even fathom at the moment.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Mets Bullpen Destined to NOT Blow (Saves) in '09
Posted by el Tomas Verde at 7:33 PM
Labels: Baseball, Free Agent Signings
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
If You Want To Make NATO Great Again, Kick Out Turkey
President Trump insisted throughout the presidential campaign (and even after being elected) that NATO was "obsolete", mainly focusing on the fact that many of our European allies don't put forward the appropriate proportion of their GDP toward their defense budgets and on the claim that the transatlantic organization doesn't do enough to combat terrorism (the latter a far less fair criticism than the former, especially given the fact that the only time the group has invoked its Article 5 mutual defense provision was to assist the United States in the wake of the September 11th attacks). President Trump recently abruptly reversed course, now saying that NATO was no longer obsolete. But Donald Trump actually was right about NATO obsolescence, although right for the wrong reasons. It's not because we no longer need NATO as a bulwark against Russia (we do) and not because NATO is no longer useful in the age of international terrorism (it is), but it is "obsolete" because an increasingly authoritarian Turkey has become an… Keep Reading


text:
One of the many blog entries featured this short edit with Ash providing a great insight into how we were getting along on the way to Russia through Ukraine.
HMS Decadence
On the morning after the Oha Beach party in Romania, we built a raft much to the disapproval of the locals. In true Mongol Rally spirit, it was all captured lovingly on one of our very kindly donated JVC Adixxion prototypes. I made this little edit whilst being held up at a Ukrainian boarder control office.
Mongol Rally Start
We're featured right at the start with this one. I'm caught commenting on how we should just go home.


text:
We promise you high superb documents as we are sure of the superb our writers will offer. It really is critical for learners to seek affordable legitimate essay writing assistance from specialists. Students writing legitimate literature documents need to be acquainted with the content which will be utilised in the conclusion of the educational documents. This can be the finest place to purchase documents. Now several sites are hiring individuals to stock articles on their respective web sites. To help you to marijuana throughout the poor composing businesses identifying a legitimate custom paper writing service must be the initial spot prospective clients whether college or corporation, should start. It really is a site that's left area for a number of progress as it pertains to customer help, but nevertheless, it definitely contains the possibility of getting among the most famous article writing providers on line. The aforementioned isn't an actual present website incidentally merely an example. If it's the situation that they do, they may be legitimate websites to contemplate on your web business training.
Bloggers and little web site owners that are searching for improved search engine rankings and obtaining prospects from these sorts of content creation sites publish their posts as well as links for their own site getting pages. There are a few more revenue sharing websites. This web site http://tlv2011.140conf.com/student-recommendation-letter-sample-2 is, in inclusion, associated with quite a few additional websites which supply income sharing. It's potential to do so by means of one many articles mills on the web or through freelance writing websites. The web is extremely so much bigger than all of the freelance websites combined. Also, you can find the sweepstakes writing competitions. They purchase composition on line aid. Don't seek support from disadvantages who'll give a poorly written essay. Once you locate the suitable essay writing service for your demands you'll understand the huge difference.
You are able to really be assured which you're at the best article writing support. A good deal of preparation ought to go into your article before beginning writing it. The first factor you must realize is to contemplate what you're going to execute in your composition. Last evening I've finished an order for $7, which is an individual site article! Creative writing is often times called the inventive and legitimate kind of authorship. You too can keep connected with your designated author through the article writing process. By comparison, low – academic composing or as it's called the Private composing has a tendency to express the authors own opinion on individual issues, including youth, family, or individual experiences.
Writing design is among the most crucial facets on paper. Your audience was engaged in your body sentences, along with your authorship still should to be pointing them straight back for your own thesis declaration. Anyhow, you aren't composing straightforward article here, you're much severe than that! One technique to break right into writing may be to understand how to compose articles. This really is a typical dream for a lot of valid authors who write fan fiction. For all these writers which are also photographers, in addition, there are writing contests utilizing a pictures element to to them. There really are a lot of folks systems to breakin the freelance writing profession.
This really does not mean that one cannot earn cash composing. Entirely Free lance writing is an excellent chance for individuals to create this vision comes true.
} else {


text:
fun wedding favors
Fun Wedding Favor – Personalized Hot Apple Cider Mix
I need to admit something. I'm tired of summertime weather and really want it to be fall. Right now.
And in celebration of all things fall, I'm thinking about fun wedding favors for fall weddings. Like today's featured item – hot apple cider packets with caramels! Read More
Fun Wedding Favor – Chalkboard Notebooks
It's back-to-school time so my brain is filled with school supply lists and thoughts of the classroom.
Which might seem odd on a wedding cake blog, but I managed to find a fun wedding favor that reminds me what I love most about school shopping – the supplies!
Today's fun favor is a cute mini notebook and pen that you can personalize to fit your wedding theme or colors! Read More
Fun Wedding Favors – Personalized Milk Jars
I love the idea of sending guests home with a sweet treat at the end of the night, and these personalized milk jars are the perfect vehicle for candy!
If you're thinking of having a candy "bar" at your reception these jars would be a fun addition. Guests could fill them with their choice of candy and then take it home for a late-night snack. Read More
Fun Wedding Favors – Personalized Silk Fans
If you're planning an outdoor wedding ceremony (and maybe even an outdoor reception) you'll want to think about ways to keep your guests cool.
Whether you're having a summertime wedding or you happen to live somewhere that boasts year-round warmth, keeping guests cool and comfortable at an outdoor wedding can be challenging. Read More
Fun Wedding Favor – Plantable Seed Cards
I love the idea of a wedding favor with purpose – not just something that your guests will toss in a drawer in their kitchen.
Which is why I'm loving these plantable seed cards!
Your guests will leave your celebration and have something they can actually plant in their yard (or a flower pot, depending on the seeds). Read More
Fun Wedding Favor: Personalized Cork Coasters
If you're hosting an outdoor reception this summer today's fun wedding favor is exactly what you and your guests need!
We're talking about personalized cork coasters! These super fun coasters are available in a variety of shapes including wine corks, pineapples, globes, wine barrels, anchors, and many more. Read More
Fun Wedding Favor – Personalized Jelly Belly Tins
If you're looking for a delicious way to satisfy your guests' sweet tooth, these fun Jelly Belly tins are the perfect parting gift.
You can fill the tins (available in white or silver) with your favorite flavors of Jelly Belly jellybeans (you can choose one, two, or even an assortment of flavors). Read More
Fun Wedding Favor: Sand and Seashell Bottle Stopper
Summer is officially here and my thoughts are all beach-themed. What I wouldn't give for another week at the beach right now.
If you're planning a beach-themed wedding or reception – or even just a destination wedding in a tropical setting – today's featured wedding favor is the perfect parting gift for your guests! Read More
Fun Wedding Favor: Anchor Soap
While I'm not a "boat person" (unless you count vacationing on cruise ships), there's just something about anchors that I love.
They're fun and nautical and remind me of the beach.
And if you're hosting a destination or beach wedding this summer, today's fun wedding favor might be a great addition to a welcome bag. Read More
Fun Wedding Favor: Summertime Paper Fans
Summer means warm temps and humidity and if you're planning an outdoor wedding you want to make sure your guests keep cool.
The easiest (and most fun) way to ensure cool guests is to provide them with some stylish hand fans. Read More


text:
Confessions of Faith
Facebook Groups
Professional Societies
Reformation Texts
- Calvin's Opera Omnia (Geneva)
- Calvin's Opera Omnia – (PRDL)
- Calvin, Calvini Opera
- Controversia et Confessio
- Heinrich Bullinger's Diarium
- Heinrich Bullinger's Letters (HBBW)
- Heinrich Bullinger's Works (E-Rara)
- Heinrich Bullinger's Works – (PRDL)
- Johannes Oecolampadius (E-Rara)
- Johannes Oecolampadius – (PRDL)
- Konrad Pellikan (PRDL)
- Luther's Works (Weimar Ausgabe)
- Luthers Works – (PRDL)
- Philipp Melanchthon (E-Rara)
- Philipp Melanchthon – (PRDL)
- Philipp Melanchthon's Letters (Heidelberg)
- Philipp Melanchthon's Opera Omnia
- Philipp Melanchthon's Works (Bretten)
- Philipp Melanchthon's Works (CR)
- Philipp Melanchthon, Melanchthoni Opera
- Zwingli's Works (BSB)
- Zwingli's Works (E-Rara)
- Zwingli's Works – (PRDL)
- Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke – Letters
- Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke – Theological Treatises
Useful Sites
Your Host
- Follow Zwinglius Redivivus on WordPress.com
Daily Archives: 15 May 2017
Quote of the Day
"Some of these [athletics] programs might just as naturally be attached to meat-packing plants as to universities." Cornelius Plantinga
It's A Shame This Isn't Real…
Because it should be. Popular Reformed blogger James K. Earle published a scathing critique of the book of Psalms Monday, slamming the collection of ancient, inspired songs for their emotional nature and tendency to repeat refrains, "often more than once." … Continue reading
Posted in Humor
The Magdala Stone Goes on Display
Described as one of the most significant archaeological finds in modern Israel, the Magdala Stone, unearthed in 2009 near the shores of the Sea of Galilee, has been unveiled to the public for first time as part of a joint … Continue reading
Posted in Archaeology
You Don't Get Gold Stars For this Course…
You get something even better! Luther badges!!!! Hooray! You wish you had these treasures! (You should take the course- it's genuinely informative).
Posted in Luther
Family's Piety Lasts 12 Seconds After Leaving Church Parking Lot…
Yup. Pretty much. The Granger family's piety lasted for just 12 seconds after leaving the parking lot of 1st North Baptist Church Sunday, sources reported. Having enjoyed a sermon on 1 Peter 1:14-16 titled "Holiness In Our Lives" and having engaged in … Continue reading
Posted in mockery, Modern Culture, pseudo-christianity
Ministry Summarized
What people want from parsons – hospital hand holding – funeralizing – weddings (for$25) – sermons (to be ignored)(attended irregularly) That's it. Discipleship- real authentic self sacrificing discipleship is an utterly foreign concept to most Western Christians. And if they … Continue reading
Every Single Day #PlowingTheSea
Thanks, MJ, for the picture-
Zwingli for Zurich
«Huldrych Zwingli soll die Kirche wieder zu den Menschen bringen» Die evangelisch-reformierte Kirche des Kantons Zürich hat offiziell die Feierlichkeiten für das 500-Jahr-Jubiläum der Reformation eingeläutet. Schirmherr der Festivitäten ist Kirchenratspräsident Michel Müller. Der 53-jährige sieht das Jubiläum auch als … Continue reading
Posted in Zwingli
Calvin on the Schismatics and their Insulting Words About Zwingli and Oecolampadius
Melanchthon showed Calvin an anti-Zwingli anti-Oecolampadius pamphlet written by a schismatic and Calvin remarked What good purpose could it serve to assault the Zwinglians every third line, and to attack Zwingli himself in such an unmannerly style? And not … Continue reading
Posted in Calvin, Church History, Oecolampadius, Zwingli 3 Comments


text:
Sold Out
A distinct honeydew flavor enriched with a unique quince undertone.
The products sold on the eJuices.com website are intended for adults ONLY! By entering eJuices.com, you certify that you are of legal smoking age, at least 21 years old.I am under 21 years old Wholesale Customers Click Here


text:
For best results you'll probably want to try these in order, they're arranged in order of simplicity to slightly more complex. Major crash & reboot: drag & drop files to CD burner Drag & Drop files to CD Windows Explorer drag and drop bug? I think this is happening in a few other apps too. I can select (single click) an icon (file or folder) in the Finder, however I cannot drag it. his comment is here
Reports: · Posted 6 years ago Top raphoenix Posts: 14920 This post has been reported. On the right you should see (Default) of type REG_SZ, but may not be having the data {00021401-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}. Quit Terminal. Create a New Restore Point.After all of that is done. http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-files/suddenly-cant-drag-or-drop-files-anymore-in/10278f8c-08bb-4630-8a79-15e4a1ac0701
by AzDayton / June 19, 2009 2:54 AM PDT In reply to: Lost drag and drop ability I've been trying to get Drag-and-Drop fixed in the Start Menu on this POS Avis 1,29295 2 Thanks. If that fails, then do a System Restore to a time before this. David BelgardApr 17, 2013, 6:40 PM Was this ever resolved?
was it ok before, have you had any updates,or added any new software? on top the choices that they are sorted by are Name, Type and Data 10-20-2011, 04:57 PM #10 frenchie04 Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 12 OS: Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community. Can't Click And Drag Windows 10 Are you the system admin for your computer ont he Admin account or are you on a guest or other account?
How does the unaspirated /t/ differ from /d/? Cannot Drag And Drop Windows 10 FOLLOW US Twitter Facebook Google+ RSS Feed Disclaimer: Most of the pages on the internet include affiliate links, including some on this site. Reports: · Posted 6 years ago Top raphoenix Posts: 14920 This post has been reported. http://www.tenforums.com/general-support/13960-cant-drag-drop-files-windows-10-a-3.html The only drag and drop you can do is from one folder to a different folder.
Can't drag and drop to my cdrw Can't drag and drop or copy and paste!! Can't Drag Files Windows 10 Apparently the mouse was sending a signal as though a button was being held down constantly. Here is microsoft's support, with regard to that utility. This is just a finder problem.
Reports: · Posted 6 years ago Top techgranny Posts: 1443 This post has been reported. @whs, Toolbars and a Surprise, nice :) Keep me up to speed on your http://www.sevenforums.com/general-discussion/15038-i-cant-drag-drop.html WARNING: Editing the registry can be dangerous. Can't Drag And Drop Windows 10 hay,whs do you use to do paint net? Can't Drag And Drop Windows 8 I cannot move anything out of the dock.I have reset permissions, zapped the PRAM, booted into safe boot mode, logged in as a different user, deleted the User finder prefs.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. http://brrian.net/drag-and/unable-to-drag-and-drop-files-into-folders.html On the right you should see (Default) of type REG_SZ, but may not be having the data {86C86720-42A0-1069-A2E8-08002B30309D}. This is particularly true if you're one of us who basically never reboots their Mac. by fauxarbres / January 8, 2006 11:39 AM PST In reply to: Lost drag and drop ability It's fixed, thanks for the help Flag Permalink This was helpful (0) Collapse - Mouse Won't Drag And Drop
Before we get started with any of the software based troubleshooting tips, check to see if there is any material, gunk, or grime buildup on the surface of the trackpad, or NOT good !! :( :( Even after UN-install, Jing leaves about 100 references in Registry which have to be DUG OUT MANUALLY. In my estimation if Windows was written to run on a PowerPC architecture then maybe things might work a lot better. weblink This will indicate whether or not it's a Finder-specific issue.
I can't have Leopard if I can't have my eye candy such as my haxies and APE. I Can't Drag Anything On My Desktop Mac The location makes no difference. Reply Rachel says: August 8, 2016 at 11:39 am I had trouble with the drag and drop not working and it ended up being gunk on the track pad, so definitely
NADA. What is it supposed to send? and by the way, I didn't have to restart explorer.exe (or logout) for that to start working. Can't Drag And Drop Mac On the right you should see (Default) of type REG_SZ having the data exefile.
I would like you to check some registry data manually first. Reply Mari says: March 6, 2016 at 12:14 am Thanks so much! but i am set as the administrator. 10-20-2011, 06:03 PM #12 MPR TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,232 OS: Win 8.1 Did you check the registry check over here Flag Permalink This was helpful (0) Collapse - It worxxx by hungluff / March 30, 2009 3:48 AM PDT In reply to: Understanding "Restore" YehhaaaaIt worx again!Although I already tried various
Free tools.... Then also navigate to HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.lnk. Then Reboot. In start menu type System Restore ,and then click on the utility.
Does this apply to 64-bit Windows 7 as well? –Withheld Mar 15 '13 at 11:40 1 well 'de'-registering will probably destroy your system if its even possible. When I have the problem, I find it will sometimes go away if I close finder windows and re-open. Reports: · Posted 6 years ago Top whs Posts: 17584 This post has been reported. All postings and use of the content on this site are subject to the Apple Support Communities Terms of Use. Apple Support Communities More ways to shop: Visit an Apple
But I find the handling of Jing easier - e.g. First, fire up Registry Editor (run regedit.exe from the start menu search box). Try using another Apple mouse that you know works and see if it works. Free tools....
Make sure that your escape key is not stuck. In particular, I think this lies under HKCR. Disable the "Drag-drop" in Context menu options, apply it then enabled it again. Articles & News Forum Graphics & Displays CPU Components Motherboards Games Storage Overclocking Tutorials All categories Chart For IT Pros Get IT Center Brands Tutorials Other sites Tom's Guide Tom's IT
Rick, I don't know what your problem is. Reply Dino says: October 24, 2016 at 2:08 am ps I have a wireless apple mouse - no idea how do you call it yet it's Mac's original mouse.


text:
The Captain Gosnold Village is located in the Hyannis area.
If you require five or more rooms, find group rates with HotelPlanner.com.
|230 Gosnold Street
Hyannis, MA 02601 | vCard |
|Rate Range:
|From $45 to $160 per night *
|Nearest Airport:
|Barnstable Municipal (HYA)
|In Rooms:
|Cable TV. Coffee Maker.
|Special Amenities:
|Pool, Outdoor.
|Other Info:
|Self Parking.
|Area Dining:
|Barolo Italian Steakhouse
D'Angelo Grilled Sandwiches
The Roadhouse Cafe
Alberto's Ristorante
|Area Hotels:
|(Profiles of 6 additional hotel options in the area of the Captain Gosnold Village)
Four Points Hotel by Sheraton Hyannis
Heritage House Hotel
Radisson Inn
Cape Codder Hotel
Hyannis Harborview Resort Hotel
International Inn
|Credit Cards:
|Navigation Links:
|Report Closed. Is this property still open? Please let us know.
*Because rates may vary outside of the range, please confirm applicable rates online or via telephone.
© 1996-2017, MetroGuide.com All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions
To List Your Hotel with the Cape Cod HotelGuide Service: Click Here.
To Contact HotelGuide: Click Here.
HotelGuide and HotelGuide Hyannis are service marks of MetroGuide.com, Inc. HotelGuide Network is a registered service mark of MetroGuide.com, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. MetroGuide.com, Inc. does not own or operate hotel properties.