I have a confession to make. Please don’t tell child protective services after reading the following. For some reason, my 4-year old son is obsessed with zombies. There’s a plastic figure of a zombie crawling out of the ground which he always wants to look at in the “SkyMall” catalog when we take him on an airplane. Both he and my 6-year old daughter ask me to chase them (slowly) around the house while I pretend to be a “person-eating zombie.” So, in an example of extremely bad parenting, last night I brought them over to the computer and put on a YouTube video clip from the classic horror movie “Night of the Living Dead.” We watched several minutes of zombies chasing and biting people, and people defending themselves with firearms and blowtorches. Then we watched a video — which my kids thought was an actual documentary — of how to identify and kill zombies. (FYI, zombies don’t play basketball, don’t like fire, and to kill one you hit it in the head — not in the knees — with a baseball bat.) I did explain to my kids, who were then getting a little worried, that since zombies don’t wear jackets there are no zombies up the in the Colorado mountains where we live. I explained that jacketless zombies live in warm places like California and Texas and Florida, to which my daughter, always concerned for the welfare of others, asked “are the people OK?” I explained that everyone in California has a baseball bat. My daughter, always thinking, asked whether zombies could get to our house during the summer, when they wouldn’t need jackets. I said that they move too slowly for that, and that they would not be able to get out of the state before winter, so they don’t come to the mountains during any time of the year. I also pointed out that they are not very coordinated, so would not be able to climb the rocks and steep hills to get to our house. She was not entirely convinced. I explained that if either of my kids was bitten by a zombie, I would take them very quickly to the California Zombie Hospital, where a doctor would give the victim two shots, then wrap the bite with magic powder which would keep the victim from turning into a zombie himself or herself. I explained that it takes about 3 days to turn into a zombie, so we’d have plenty of time to get to the hospital. My son nodded and said something that indicated modest relief and complete understanding of the medical implications of a zombie bite. Perhaps you will not be surprised to hear that when I took them to bed, both kids then asked me to leave lights on in their bathrooms (with some of the light coming into their bedrooms) and to close their window shades. An hour later, my 4-year old came up and said he wanted to sleep upstairs on the couch…which I let him do. Although the whole process was quite amusing, I may have to tell the kids that zombies aren’t real, at least if I want them (and my wife and I) to get a decent night’s sleep.
Read the original post:
Bad Parenting
Previously on Tech at Night I linked to a story that suggested there was a split between Darrell Issa and Chuck Grassley on FCC transparency. It turns out the story I relied on, had it wrong. Oversight wasn’t grading transparency itself; the committee was grading the management of FOIA requests , and FCC did relatively well by having established processes for dealing with FOIA. and tracking the requests in a systematic way. The Oversight committee was not saying that the FCC is open. Because, in fact as pointed out by Mario Diaz-Balart, FCC rejects more FOIA requests than CIA , amazingly enough. That’s a serious transparency problem. Speaking of transparency, Eric Cantor is soliciting citizen co-sponsorship of the DATA Act which would try to get more data about government out into the open, where the public can apply oversight. The sides are being drawn in the Verizon-Comcast spectrum deal. Guess what? A similar gang of radicals is finding new excuses to justify the same old story of using government to block progress and prevent the most efficient allocation of spectrum. Art Brodsky of Soros-funded Public Knowledge can’t even see his own biases , as he claims a lack of government action will create a ‘cartel.’ There’s a problem with that thinking, which is that a cartel can only be effective if there’s a shortage of supply. Why is there a shortage of supply? Because government is keeping spectrum from being reallocated to new, more popular uses by more effective license holders. The way we end this spectrum crunch is to transfer spectrum from those using it inefficiently, to those who would make better us of it. In other words, let people sell spectrum. Let Comcast sell its spectrum . Quit creating new “task forces” and other obstacles to getting us the spectrum we need. Simply get out of the way. Don’t take orders from the President’s union donors in the name of some nebulous blank check of a ‘public interest’ standard . Price signals in the marketplace will do a better job of ensuring efficient spectrum use, for the maximum benefit of the public, better than any bureaucrat on a power trip. It’s a wonder They aren’t blocking Dish Network the way they blocked LightSquared. Though they’re starting a lengthy review process, so it could take forever and become and effective regulatory blockade yet. With even Democrats complaining about new FCC power grabs , it’s a good thing that Republicans want to slow down the FCC’s power hungry regulatory scheming . The debate on Cybersecurity bills continues to simmer. New revelations of government security incompetence ought to remind people that the government isn’t even competent to take dictatorial powers over private sector Internet operations , as called for by Joe Lieberman, Susan Collins, and Jay Rockefeller. Remember: the allegedly-removed Internet Kill Switch was only the most egregious power grab in the Lieberman-Collins bill. And John McCain is fighting back , which is great. Because I agree with General Keith Alexander who says that information sharing with the private sector is what is needed. We can do that without regulation. We need to. Pass SECURE IT, pushed by McCain and others in the Senate, and by Marsha Blackburn and Mary Bono Mack in the House. Besides, with DHS nosing in , just how many cabinet-level departments do we want regulating the Internet? Should it get as bad as the mess export controls have become ? Remember SOPA, and its House sponsor Lamar Smith? Richard Morgan , software developer who understands the Internet, is not his only primary challenger this time. Former Graham County, Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack is also in the race . Regulating video games ! Yeah, that’s just what we need. Empowering Obama regulators even more! Come on guys. Seriously? Paul LePage is the latest governor to back the interstate compact to do Internet sales tax collections. It makes sense for states to opt into this program. It’s a way in particular for Republican governors to raise revenue without raising taxes, which just makes life easier and avoids difficult battles. Some would argue it saves political capital for other battles, which could be a reason to back the compact.
Read more from the original source:
Tech at Night: Republicans fight for transparency, FCC taking bipartisan criticism, Securing the Internet
A water flea illuminated using fluorescent dyes and UV light. (Photo: Daniel Stoupin) Some of the world’s tiniest organisms can appear rather bland whether viewed by the naked eye or through a microscope. One biologist and “microphotographer” though is jazzing them up a bit using chemical dyes and turning them into educational art. Using fluorescent dyes and UV light, Daniel Stoupin puts an artistic spin on the micr0-biological world. In his latest blog post, Stoupin explains that he uses the dyes to capture images of things that otherwise would be “very unlikely to catch your attention”: What would you do if you look through a microscope into a Petri dish full of dead stuff and find a rotten, mutilated, and disgusting looking underdeveloped embryo of a water flea being consumed by fungi and ciliates? That’s a weird question! Of course the best thing to do is to put some fluorescent dyes in that ugly mess to make it shine! A worm in the family oligochaeta. (Photo: Daniel Stoupin) The same worm photographed from the side to show its setae moving. (Photo: Daniel Stoupin) The Daily Mail explains that Stoupin , a biologist whose hobby is bringing us his different viewpoint of the microscopic world, has to take several shots at different focuses through the microscope and then layer them together to create a single image. The Daily Mail has more from Stoupin on his work: “The single issue that motivated me into doing this kind of photography was that most images made through the microscope are bad in quality, have poor resolution and are hard to make even though what you see through oculars is very spectacular. “Fluorescence adds more challenges and after many struggles and trials I started practicing on random creatures from the pond, then I got totally absorbed by that activity. “I take pictures of everything that I see, and life through the microscope is amazing as you get to see the most bizarre and peculiar creatures. “All of the creatures are freshwater or invertebrates such as rotifers, water fleas and worms and most of them are completely invisible to the naked eye. “A microscope can be used like a regular photography lens, and you attach a camera, turn on the ultra violet light and press the shutter button. “But, you can get in-focus areas and blurred ones so I use a technique called stacking. “I make many shots of the same object and then combine the pictures in software on the computer.” A plant seed with various fluorescent dyes targetting different structures. The nuclei of each cell are visible. (Photo: Daniel Stoupin) Water fleas (Photo: Daniel Stoupin) This process, Stoupin explains, can take days to weeks. A few months ago, Stoupin released a video explaining the world “we don’t see,” showcasing organisms under high magnification. Watch “Microscopic World: Life That We Don’t See”: Stoupin doesn’t always capture the microscopic world using flurescent dyes. He also takes shots au naturel. Freshwater copepod. (Photo: Daniel Stoupin) Cnidarian (Photo: Daniel Stoupin) Mayfly nymph (Photo: Daniel Stoupin) Check out more of Stoupin’s images here . Read the original post: ‘Make It Shine’: Biologist and Microphotographer Highlights Tiny Creatures With Dye and UV Light
See more here:
‘Make It Shine’: Biologist and Microphotographer Highlights Tiny Creatures With Dye and UV Light
They’re tighter than a tied turkey. Did you know that? Arianna Huffington. AOL. The Reverend Al Sharpton. The first two partner with a third. Radio One, which owns NewsOne. NewsOne, being home base for the Reverend Al’s radio show. Which in turn… ahhhh, patience. Safe to say between the three — AOL, Arianna, and Al — there’s enough hypocrisy to choke the entire field of horses in the next Kentucky Derby. You saw all this foo-foo, right? The haughty statement on Rush Limbaugh issued by AOL and published by its partner in the AOL Huffington Post Media Group? This statement:
Lee Stranahan touched on this point , citing Derrick Bell’s book as evidence. But I think it’s worth elaboration, in light of a 2004 article I stumbled across today (and I’m sure I’m not the first). Derrick Bell explicitly believed that Brown v. Board of Education was decided incorrectly — and that the U.S. Supreme Court should have upheld Plessy v. Ferguson ‘s “separate but equal” standard . . . and given more teeth to the “equal” part. “From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners’ arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson,” Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a “separate but equal” standard for blacks and whites. While acknowledging the deep injustices done to black children in segregated schools, Bell argued the court should have determined to enforce the generally ignored “equal” part of the “separate but equal” doctrine. I went back and forth with Tommy Christopher about this tonight on Twitter. Christopher has not only maintained that Bell was not “radical” — he also maintains that no conservative can honestly believe that, and that anyone who pretends to is engaged in a cynical racist-based “smear” of a dead man who can’t defend himself. I tried and tried to get Christopher to acknowledge that Bell believed the High Court should have rejected Brown and adopted the Plessy standard, while giving teeth to the “equal” part of “separate but equal.” Time and time again, I closely paraphrased or even quoted Bell’s opinions on the case, and Christopher continually refused to acknowledge that Bell (admittedly in the light of the aftermath of Brown ) actually said that the High Court should have upheld Plessy . (He would acknowledge that Bell believed it would have led to better results, but when I would directly put the question to him whether Bell believed the Court should have maintained the separate but equal doctrine, he would refuse to give a straight answer.) (I am almost certain that Tommy will say I am mischaracterizing the exchange, since he constantly accuses me of mischaracterizing everything he says. My response is: read the tweets for yourself and decide for yourself.) Granted, I understand why Tommy was seemingly reluctant to admit Bell’s views. Because to do so is to admit that they are radical — and Tommy has very self-righteously mocked the notion that anyone could consider Bell’s views radical. But they are . It is radical to say we should have “separate but equal” in this country. It is radical to say Plessy v. Ferguson should have been upheld. And when we call it “radical” we are not lying or being cynical or racist. We are speaking the truth. I call on Tommy Christopher to acknowledge Bell’s views on this issue are radical. And here is what I’m really getting at: when he doesn’t, I call on you guys to notice . . . and to remember. UPDATE: Here is one example from my exchange with Tommy: I asked: Can we agree Bell said the court should have determined to enforce the generally ignored “equal” part of “separate but equal”? My source: While acknowledging the deep injustices done to black children in segregated schools, Bell argued the court should have determined to enforce the generally ignored “equal” part of the “separate but equal” doctrine. And Tommy’s response: @Patterico 2. No , he believed that “true sep. but equal” might have been *better than* the results of Brown. So, I took a quote straight from the article, asked Tommy if he would agree it was true, and he would not. See what I mean?
Excerpt from:
Bell Supported “Separate but Equal”
