Test CircleCount PRO now!
Login now

Not your profile? Login and get free access to your reports and analysis.

Tags

Sign in

No tag added here yet.
You can login on CircleCount to add some tags here.

Are you missing a tag in the list of available tags? You can suggest new tags here.

Login now

Do you want to see a more detailed chart? Check your settings and define your favorite chart type.

Or click here to get the detailed chart only once.

Sai (saizai) has been at 2 events

HostFollowersTitleDateGuestsLinks
Sai (saizai)8,754@117472075050913769851 & @103112149634414554669 designing vocabulary for UNLWS (s.ai/nlws), the non-linear written language. We're starting with Herodotus' story of the Egyptians' investigation of who had the most ancient language. Might do more if there's interest. For this one, you can participate w/ comments or q&a; future ones might include others on video or the like. If you're curious as to how we work on UNLWS together, this is it.UNLWS Vocab Creation Hangout #12014-12-06 21:27:563  
Sai (saizai)8,754Sai's ASL tutorial beta test, take 2 (Sun @ 4)2012-11-19 01:00:004  

Shared Circles including Sai (saizai)

Shared Circles are not available on Google+ anymore, but you can find them still here.

The Google+ Collections of Sai (saizai)

New!
Login and checkout your own profile to see the average response per collection.
Or check out how it looks like on the profile page of +CircleCount.

Looks like this is your profile but we haven't loaded your posts yet to show you here the average numbers per collection.
Just open your dashboard and let the server work for you.

Activity

Average numbers for the latest posts (max. 50 posts, posted within the last 4 weeks)

1
comments per post
1
reshares per post
8
+1's per post

1,679
characters per posting

Top posts in the last 50 posts

Most comments: 14

posted image

2016-10-15 02:37:51 (14 comments; 1 reshares; 10 +1s; )Open 

I want to preface this article with a specific note that you are not required to do the work to change someone else's mind, nor are you required to put up with someone being hateful around you.

But if you want to change the minds of those who are being hateful, this article lays out some good approaches for doing so.

Most reshares: 14

posted image

2016-10-20 21:34:31 (12 comments; 14 reshares; 8 +1s; )Open 

This is definitely NSFW and very uncanny-valley creepy (as well as rather cringe-inducing for me in parts, where they have very realistic dolls in parts, with metal skeletons etc sticking out, or sudden changes in realism, like the doll's neck). However, it's also kinda fascinating.

I wonder where this'll be in another decade or two.

Most plusones: 19

posted image

2016-11-30 21:52:10 (5 comments; 3 reshares; 19 +1s; )Open 

Starting tomorrow — unless Congress takes action to stop it — a change to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure rule 41 will allow prosecutors to get a "hack someone's stuff" order from nearly any court in the country, instead of the court where the stuff is. That means forum-shopping — finding judges more willing to allow government hacking and surveillance.

If this concerns you, +Fight for the Future's post explains what you can do to stop it. Namely: call your senator.

See also: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/308049-congress-has-just-one-more-shot-to-delay-government-hacking

Latest 50 posts

posted image

2016-12-01 22:01:43 (0 comments; 1 reshares; 8 +1s; )Open 

Something often neglected in discussions of Galileo and his trial for heresy is that the dispute wasn't about whether the Earth revolves around the Sun; it was about who had the right to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

From the Vatican's perspective, statements about the nature of reality are effectively policy statements, and so may only be made by the organ of policy -- namely, them. Galileo's science argued that anyone could perform experiments and learn things about the factual nature of reality, and communicate these ideas to others, and that this knowledge was not limited or controllable by the Church.

There's an important logic to the Vatican's argument here. Statements of factual reality, while they aren't policy statements in their own right, tend to have very profound policy implications. If I tell you that the roof is on fire, then you are... more »

Something often neglected in discussions of Galileo and his trial for heresy is that the dispute wasn't about whether the Earth revolves around the Sun; it was about who had the right to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

From the Vatican's perspective, statements about the nature of reality are effectively policy statements, and so may only be made by the organ of policy -- namely, them. Galileo's science argued that anyone could perform experiments and learn things about the factual nature of reality, and communicate these ideas to others, and that this knowledge was not limited or controllable by the Church.

There's an important logic to the Vatican's argument here. Statements of factual reality, while they aren't policy statements in their own right, tend to have very profound policy implications. If I tell you that the roof is on fire, then you are likely to place a very high priority on things like leaving the building and calling the fire department.¹ If I tell you that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, this might lend weight to arguments that the experience of the Crucifixion isn't unique and at the center of the universe (this is the heresy that Giordano Bruno was later burned for), and thus that the Church isn't the natural and unique center of political authority.

That is, organs of political power are right to think of scientific statements as having policy implications -- and organs of policy tend to be very jealous of that prerogative, and not appreciate anyone else trying to make policy without them.

Science is particularly dangerous, in this regard, because it provides testable statements about the nature of reality which are in effect available to anybody, and because those statements are sometimes surprises. A surprising change in facts which can't be negotiated away is profoundly dangerous to institutions of power, because those changes might compromise anything from a delicately negotiated balance of power to the significance of the organization itself. Encouraging science is something only done by the most confident of governments and institutions: the ones who believe that, no matter what the nature of reality may be, they will be able to face up to it.

Leaders who are more concerned with their personal survival than the fate of the country as a whole will often not see it this way: public perception, and the resulting political leverage it creates, is ultimately far more important to the exercise of power, even though it is far less important than knowledge of the facts to the protection of the nation.

A good modern example of this dichotomy can be seen in the different ways that the Department of Defense and Congress discuss climate change. To the DoD, this is a practical threat, requiring planning and advance preparation, and thus detailed knowledge whenever possible. To Congress, this is a political threat, requiring changes in policy which may compromise important bargains with people who would lose out from those changes, and thus requiring careful control of public perception independent of the underlying reality.

¹ Or alternatively, that we don't need no water; let the motherfucker burn.___

posted image

2016-11-30 21:52:10 (5 comments; 3 reshares; 19 +1s; )Open 

Starting tomorrow — unless Congress takes action to stop it — a change to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure rule 41 will allow prosecutors to get a "hack someone's stuff" order from nearly any court in the country, instead of the court where the stuff is. That means forum-shopping — finding judges more willing to allow government hacking and surveillance.

If this concerns you, +Fight for the Future's post explains what you can do to stop it. Namely: call your senator.

See also: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/308049-congress-has-just-one-more-shot-to-delay-government-hacking

Starting tomorrow — unless Congress takes action to stop it — a change to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure rule 41 will allow prosecutors to get a "hack someone's stuff" order from nearly any court in the country, instead of the court where the stuff is. That means forum-shopping — finding judges more willing to allow government hacking and surveillance.

If this concerns you, +Fight for the Future's post explains what you can do to stop it. Namely: call your senator.

See also: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/308049-congress-has-just-one-more-shot-to-delay-government-hacking___

posted image

2016-11-28 20:44:28 (1 comments; 0 reshares; 14 +1s; )Open 

I find this kind of low-harm arson as a tradition pretty funny. Also, there's a certain … appropriate inevitability to how Tom Scott presented this particular video.

I find this kind of low-harm arson as a tradition pretty funny. Also, there's a certain … appropriate inevitability to how Tom Scott presented this particular video.___

posted image

2016-11-26 02:02:04 (0 comments; 1 reshares; 5 +1s; )Open 

___

posted image

2016-11-21 19:55:50 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 4 +1s; )Open 

This is a challenging article. It contrasts three possible positions on physician-assisted suicide:

1. Physician-assisted suicide should be illegal for everyone.
2. Physician-assisted suicide should be legal for only the terminally ill.
3. Physician-assisted suicide should be legal for all competent adults.

The argument is not for or against assisted suicide, but that the second of these positions makes little to no sense, with the boundaries of "terminally ill" and the reasons why we might wish to restrict such a right to the terminally ill being so fuzzy as to end up with moral spaghetti almost immediately.

I think there's a compelling point, here: if we're going to have a discussion about a right to die, then the discussion should be broad and ask about limits which make sense.

I don't know that I have an answer to the question,... more »

This is a challenging article. It contrasts three possible positions on physician-assisted suicide:

1. Physician-assisted suicide should be illegal for everyone.
2. Physician-assisted suicide should be legal for only the terminally ill.
3. Physician-assisted suicide should be legal for all competent adults.

The argument is not for or against assisted suicide, but that the second of these positions makes little to no sense, with the boundaries of "terminally ill" and the reasons why we might wish to restrict such a right to the terminally ill being so fuzzy as to end up with moral spaghetti almost immediately.

I think there's a compelling point, here: if we're going to have a discussion about a right to die, then the discussion should be broad and ask about limits which make sense.

I don't know that I have an answer to the question, but I think that expressed this way, it's a far more meaningful question to discuss.___

posted image

2016-11-20 23:00:57 (1 comments; 1 reshares; 3 +1s; )Open 

I am minded, perhaps because I am preoccupied with issues around getting a service dog, of a parallel with my own blindness. It's gradual and undiagnosable; I can see just fine if I am willing to tolerate the pain; but nevertheless I have planted my face into a tree and a sign when I wasn't careful enough with my cane — or just collapsed half-paralyzed from overstimulation.

There's an old Soviet joke: "Don't think. If you think, don't speak. If you speak, don't write. If you write, don't sign. If you sign, don't be surprised." While it may encode some good advice for keeping out of Siberia, the realities of living in an autocracy are somewhat more subtle. The most important rules aren't about not attracting the notice of the secret police – they're about how to keep track of your sense of reality, when you are subject to a continuous and concerted effort to redefine it.

I was reminded of this just a few days ago by my Peruvian mother-in-law, who described how Fujimori would engage in elaborate public shuffles of his cabinet, making "who's in and who's out" the center of all media attention, whenever he was up to something particularly nefarious behind the scenes. The media is hungry; if you feed it, it will eat.

Behind here is an essay by Masha Gessen, who grew up in Russia under Brezhnev, about what you need in order to survive. She gives six slightly different rules: "1. Believe the autocrat; 2. Do not be taken in by small signs of normality; 3. Institutions will not save you; 4. Be outraged; 5. Don’t make compromises; 6. Remember the future."

There's a great deal of subtlety behind each of these, especially the first three. The art of surviving in an autocracy, whether it be the USSR or a tinpot banana republic, is the art of recognizing when you are being told the simple, unvarnished truth, and when you are being treated to a spectacular song-and-dance designed to distract you from what's really going on.

What's particularly important here, and why you should read Gessen's essay, is that the instincts you have developed for understanding democracies will lead you exactly astray when trying to understand autocracies – the instincts to search for a rationalization when you hear something extreme, or to treat "small signs of normality" like stock market stability or a "normal" news story like a cabinet reshuffle as a sign that things really are normal, for example. In a democracy, this habits are frequently correct; to an autocrat, this tendency of people to assume that everything is normal is a basic part of operations.

There are many good books on the theory of propaganda, but Gessen's essay is perhaps one of the most concise and useful introductions. You will likely find it very useful when understanding anything you see or hear from a dictatorship anywhere in the world.___I am minded, perhaps because I am preoccupied with issues around getting a service dog, of a parallel with my own blindness. It's gradual and undiagnosable; I can see just fine if I am willing to tolerate the pain; but nevertheless I have planted my face into a tree and a sign when I wasn't careful enough with my cane — or just collapsed half-paralyzed from overstimulation.

posted image

2016-11-18 23:47:17 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 15 +1s; )Open 

___

2016-11-09 21:35:13 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 3 +1s; )Open 

I don't have time to write much today, but I want to remind you all of this:

Right and wrong have not changed since yesterday. An "accommodation" which goes in the face of that is not an accommodation, it is collusion in a moral wrong which does not gain any innocence by the defense of "I had to" or "those were the orders."

We will all be sorely tried in the months and years which are to come; we will see our fellow citizens and neighbors harmed and harassed, fired and fired upon. To stand up for them will not be easy, nor will it come without a price. We will pay the price, because the price of refusing is measured in lives and in souls.

But I will also tell you this: we will survive. We will, now and always, use every tool at our disposal, to fight and to shelter, to speak and to listen, to think and to act. This country is not, and has... more »

I don't have time to write much today, but I want to remind you all of this:

Right and wrong have not changed since yesterday. An "accommodation" which goes in the face of that is not an accommodation, it is collusion in a moral wrong which does not gain any innocence by the defense of "I had to" or "those were the orders."

We will all be sorely tried in the months and years which are to come; we will see our fellow citizens and neighbors harmed and harassed, fired and fired upon. To stand up for them will not be easy, nor will it come without a price. We will pay the price, because the price of refusing is measured in lives and in souls.

But I will also tell you this: we will survive. We will, now and always, use every tool at our disposal, to fight and to shelter, to speak and to listen, to think and to act. This country is not, and has never been, the Promised Land; there was never a promise, only what we chose to build out of it. That choice is undiminished today.

I want you to remember, today, the words of Tarfon: "it is not yours to finish the task, but neither are you free to set it aside." We do not stop, we shall not stop, and we shall never surrender our morals.___

posted image

2016-11-08 13:29:35 (0 comments; 1 reshares; 9 +1s; )Open 

Comments on OP please.

Why you should vote No on Prop. 60

I haven't taken a position on many issues in this year's election, but there's one that's bad enough that it merits more detail – I'm talking about California's Proposition 60, a shakedown racket masquerading as a public health initiative. +A.V. Flox's article, linked below, has all sorts of details, interviews, and links explaining why you shouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole, and I want to amplify this as much as possible: this is one of the worst laws I've ever seen on the ballot.

I mean, it takes some real effort to create a "worker safety" measure whose most vocal opponents are the workers it claims to protect, which is also a measure to create a whole new cottage industry of nuisance lawsuits against small businesses and individuals, which is also set up to target minority groups more than anyone else. That's sort of a trifecta of going against liberal, conservative, and progressive principles that isn't too easy to achieve.

It's also a really good reason to vote against it.

Here's my own little FAQ, to help you navigate.

Q: What does the law say?
A: That anyone who shoots porn in California needs to use condoms. And that if you see any porn that violates this, you (personally) have the right to sue the makers, and get 25% of the take.

Q: But aren't condoms a good thing?
A: When you have sex, you're using a condom for 15 minutes or less. (That number is, shall we say, extremely generous) Porn shoots last for eight hours. Rubber isn't designed for that; the lubricants and the material degrade, causing chafing and various injuries that open up blood vessels and increase the risk of disease transmission. Then they fail, because condoms weren't designed to be used that way. Condoms actually increase the risk of disease transmission if you use them for such a length.

Q: So how do porn performers keep safe? Does everyone have horrible diseases?
A: No! There's a very thorough testing protocol which the industry has worked out over decades, which has done a great job of protecting everyone. There hasn't been a case of on-set transmission of HIV in over a decade. The industry is very serious about this, for obvious reasons.

Q: What happens if someone fails a test? Don't they fake passing?
A: No, because the protocol wasn't designed by idiots. You need a passing certificate that's fresher than the contagion period for STI's from one of the recognized databases to be allowed to shoot.

Q: But don't the studios use the lack of laws to bully performers into doing things they don't want?
A: Thanks in no small part to the Internet, there hasn't been a "the studios" and "the performers" in decades. Most producers are performers. It's a fairly close-knit industry, believe it or not.

Q: How do you know that?
A: I know lots of people in it. They're pretty nice people.

Q: So what do the people in the industry think?
A: Everyone in the industry, producers, performers, and distributors alike, has come out fervently against it, speaking, campaigning, and so on. You can find lots of links in the article below. Or if you have any favorite performers or studios, seek them out on Twitter: you'll probably see their avatar is a "No on 60" badge.

Q: If it's that bad, then why would anyone want it?
A: Part I has to do with that "25% cut" mentioned above: it's a shakedown racket. Part II has to do with a complicated history of a certain charity (the AIDS Healthcare Foundation) descending into a really bizarre mass of corruption over the past decade or so. If it helps give you a sense of what's going on, the AHF's other major issue this year is preventing investment in AIDS prophylaxis and vaccines.

Q: Wait, what?
A: The AHF decided a few decades ago that condoms prevent AIDS, and therefore condoms are the only thing which prevents AIDS, and anything else which might prevent AIDS would therefore encourage people not to use condoms, and so would actually cause AIDS. So they're furious about things like the recent development of Truvada, the first in a family of drugs shown (and FDA-approved) to prevent transmission of HIV. They're actively fighting LA county's efforts to make this drug widely available.

Q: Wait, what?
A: Don't ask. This group has gotten really bizarre. I'm hoping that its leader is just in it for the money at this point, because if he actually believes what he says that's scarier.

Q: Tell me about the money.
A: It's pretty simple. Under this law, if you see porn that was made in California and doesn't use condoms, you can personally sue the creators for violating the law. In fact, everyone in the state is allowed to sue them. 75% goes to various named organizations, and 25% goes into your pocket.

Q: So everyone would just stop making this kind of porn, right?
A: No, everyone would move to Nevada and make it there, which would uproot a lot of people and move a multi-billion dollar industry to another state. But that's not the worst problem.

Q: What is?
A: The law is, shall we say, very wide in its definitions. For example, say you and your spouse made a sex tape—

Q: I would never do that!
A: Bear with me. Lots of people do. Private ones.

Q: Private ones! I'm not distributing those!
A: What happens if your phone gets hacked?

Q: What? That's not distributing porn!
A: No, but under this law, you made porn. And you didn't use a condom, because you were at home with your spouse.

Q: So? Nobody would prosecute me for that!
A: Who said anything about prosecute? Someone will sue you for that.

Q: No court would allow it!
A: They would under this law. This law explicitly gives them the right to do that.

Q: Gives who?
A: Everyone in the state of California has the right to sue you for a few thousand dollars. And will be paid for doing so.

Q: But people don't know how to do that...
A: Wanna take some bets on how long until you see billboards on 101 saying "Seen porn without a condom? Call 1-800-SUE-PORN and find out how you could be taking home $1,000 tomorrow!"

Q: That's a horrible idea! Don't I have a legal defense?
A: Sure! Get ready to raise it in court. Against everyone who sues you. Know any good lawyers?

Q: OK, I get the point about private suits. What about porn studios, though?
A: They don't have any more money than you do. Porn is not, to be honest, a very lucrative business.

Q: OK, so will they all have to move?
A: Well, that's the tricky part. Big studios like Vivid can just pack up and move to Vegas. But up in the Bay Area, you have a lot of people who are parts of "marginalized groups" – people of color, trans people, people supporting families, and so on – who also have this as their primary source of income. They can't afford to just pack up and move to another state. And neither can all the individuals using cam shows and so on to feed their kids.

Q: They're dirty, nasty people anyway, and I don't want them in my state!
A: They're also just trying to feed their kids, pay the rent, and do the same things you're trying to do. You would literally be passing a law that lets anyone sue them and take money out of their kids' mouths.

Q: That's horribly depressing.
A: This is a terrible law. Don't vote for it.___Comments on OP please.

posted image

2016-11-05 04:07:34 (2 comments; 0 reshares; 4 +1s; )Open 

___

posted image

2016-11-05 00:09:10 (1 comments; 0 reshares; 2 +1s; )Open 

I have to admit: lawyer ads that are informational songs are amusing. See also:
pot brownies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbfa8Wp20q0 don't eat your weed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQZRA7wft1I
miranda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEt2Eit1w6Q

I have to admit: lawyer ads that are informational songs are amusing. See also:
pot brownies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbfa8Wp20q0 don't eat your weed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQZRA7wft1I
miranda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEt2Eit1w6Q___

posted image

2016-11-04 02:47:37 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 0 +1s; )Open 

___

2016-11-01 05:33:57 (3 comments; 3 reshares; 1 +1s; )Open 

Do you happen to know someone in DC who could host me Nov. 2-10 — or in Williamsburg Nov 6-8?

My main host seems likely to not be able to host me after all, and my emergency backup also can't. I need to figure out plans today, since I need a place to sleep tomorrow before I go testify. :-/ Please LMK any suggestions.

Do you happen to know someone in DC who could host me Nov. 2-10 — or in Williamsburg Nov 6-8?

My main host seems likely to not be able to host me after all, and my emergency backup also can't. I need to figure out plans today, since I need a place to sleep tomorrow before I go testify. :-/ Please LMK any suggestions.___

posted image

2016-10-30 20:41:12 (1 comments; 1 reshares; 7 +1s; )Open 

See also: a) Detroit Free Press Inc. v. DoJ, No. 14-1670 (6th Cir. July 14, 2016) (en banc) (holding that privacy interest in booking photos trumps public disclosure interest)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16799185496226679874
b) https://www.perpetuallineup.org (booking photos being used for virtual lineups, subjecting people who've ever been arrested — even those found not guilty — to increased likelihood of being charged in the future)

See also: a) Detroit Free Press Inc. v. DoJ, No. 14-1670 (6th Cir. July 14, 2016) (en banc) (holding that privacy interest in booking photos trumps public disclosure interest)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16799185496226679874
b) https://www.perpetuallineup.org (booking photos being used for virtual lineups, subjecting people who've ever been arrested — even those found not guilty — to increased likelihood of being charged in the future)___

posted image

2016-10-30 17:44:23 (10 comments; 0 reshares; 9 +1s; )Open 

Tsk on +Washington Post for failing to ID the suit. Lisa J. McCombs v American Airlines et al, No. 1:16-cv-00386-HSO-JCG (S.D. MS. filed Oct. 24, 2016). Complaint: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzmetJxi-p0VYXFCVGVaaXZaTDQ/view

h/t +Andres Soolo 

+American Airlines​​ abuses the majority of their customers. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that they barred a vet from boarding several flights, over 48 hours, preventing her from getting home, without offering any temporary accommodation, because they weren't convinced she was disabled enough to need a service dog. In spite of complete documentation.

They were very sorry afterwards. After the incident became public.___Tsk on +Washington Post for failing to ID the suit. Lisa J. McCombs v American Airlines et al, No. 1:16-cv-00386-HSO-JCG (S.D. MS. filed Oct. 24, 2016). Complaint: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzmetJxi-p0VYXFCVGVaaXZaTDQ/view

h/t +Andres Soolo 

2016-10-30 17:36:37 (1 comments; 0 reshares; 5 +1s; )Open 

With my consent, the government asked for another 30 days to respond to my petition for certiorari in Sai v TSA, No. 16-287, __ US __ (re immediate appealability of orders denying appointment of counsel to poor people, https://s.ai/tsa/legal/ifp). Their response is now due Dec. 2. Should be interesting to see how they choose to respond…

With my consent, the government asked for another 30 days to respond to my petition for certiorari in Sai v TSA, No. 16-287, __ US __ (re immediate appealability of orders denying appointment of counsel to poor people, https://s.ai/tsa/legal/ifp). Their response is now due Dec. 2. Should be interesting to see how they choose to respond…___

posted image

2016-10-29 17:38:36 (3 comments; 0 reshares; 3 +1s; )Open 

___

2016-10-27 17:20:02 (2 comments; 0 reshares; 3 +1s; )Open 

US v Turner, No. 15-50788 (5th Cir. Oct. 13, 2016) just joined two other courts in ruling a gift card magstripe swipe to not be a 4th amendment "search" when police had independently lawful possession of the physical card.

My summary:

Henderson (driver) and Turner (passenger) were stopped for a broken plate light. Turner "voluntarily" gave police his ID, and warrant check came back positive for a pot possession charge. He was arrested for that.

Police spotted a bag under Turner's seat; Henderson voluntarily gave it to the police, saying it had gift cards that the two had bought from a third party, but lacking receipt. Cards were seized as evidence, magstripes were scanned by police and then handed over to secret service.

Some of the magstripes turned out to not match the printed card numbers. Turner was charged with "aiding and... more »

US v Turner, No. 15-50788 (5th Cir. Oct. 13, 2016) just joined two other courts in ruling a gift card magstripe swipe to not be a 4th amendment "search" when police had independently lawful possession of the physical card.

My summary:

Henderson (driver) and Turner (passenger) were stopped for a broken plate light. Turner "voluntarily" gave police his ID, and warrant check came back positive for a pot possession charge. He was arrested for that.

Police spotted a bag under Turner's seat; Henderson voluntarily gave it to the police, saying it had gift cards that the two had bought from a third party, but lacking receipt. Cards were seized as evidence, magstripes were scanned by police and then handed over to secret service.

Some of the magstripes turned out to not match the printed card numbers. Turner was charged with "aiding and abetting the possession of unauthorized access devices", and moved to suppress.

CA5 found that Henderson's consent to jointly owned cards gave lawful possession to police. It then found that the magstripes swipe was not a separate search, because cards are not commonly writeable, have limited data on them specifically meant for third party access, Truner had no reasonable expectation to privacy to the content of the magstripe.

The opinion is limited to current gift cards (i.e. low information magstripe only, not commonly writeable), and explicitly does not extend to future cards, e.g. if they have a smartchip or are commonly writeable.

US v. Turner:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2778350748494981589

Previous opinions, similar holdings:

United States v. DE L'Isle, 825 F.3d 426, 432-33 (8th Cir. 2016)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9367862597220917553#p432

United States v. Bah, 794 F.3d 617, 630-36 (6th Cir. 2015)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9367862597220917553#p630


My opinion:

The CA5 decision fails to adequately address the question that arises in e.g. cases about thermal imaging of pot growing houses, i.e. whether the information is commonly accessible by others with ordinary tech.

It's commonly used by merchants, but even merchants don't typically actually have access to the data on the card's magstripe, which is just transmitted to the card processor. Merchants, like people who own thermal goggles, are not really ordinary members of the public. Nor is it IMO plain see, because even in a merchant transaction, people have to voluntarily have their card swiped.

Henderson's consent to the initial search is probably not dispositve, given that it was within Turner's reach. The cards could have been searched incident to arrest anyway (at least for the physical cards).

Consent was not a factor in CA5's second-step-search analysis — though as IMO the swipe is a second-step search, I think it would have been dispositive, and that Henderson's consent didn't extend to magstripe search.

Of course, if they'd just shut up and not consented to any search more than Henderson handing over license/insurance/registration — e.g. if Turner hadn't handed over his ID — that probably would have avoided the situation. AFAICT, there's nothing justifying getting ID for him in the first place.

/via +Robert Hansen @ https://plus.google.com/+RobertHansen75/posts/f5VM4xeBxbE___

posted image

2016-10-27 15:22:04 (0 comments; 2 reshares; 1 +1s; )Open 

___

posted image

2016-10-27 04:02:59 (0 comments; 1 reshares; 5 +1s; )Open 

See previously +ERB on Obama v Romney: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc
Also Trump v Scrooge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP6VqB4klpQ

See previously +ERB on Obama v Romney: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc
Also Trump v Scrooge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP6VqB4klpQ___

posted image

2016-10-26 21:10:13 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 4 +1s; )Open 

Comments on OP please.

+Steven Flaeck shared this article, together with an apt critique: "Liberty University is a good example of a problem with institutions on the right: they were built largely as a response to classically liberal institutions but the model wasn't those institutions themselves, it was the conservative caricature of them. So it's unsurprising to find that Liberty University runs like a communist country, since the people who founded it and run it sincerely believed that's how mainstream universities operate."

The article is well worth reading, but with an understanding that it isn't about Trump in particular so much as it is about the profound disconnect between the "religious right" and the "populist right." While these groups have been forced into an uneasy marriage within the Republican party, they have profound and fundamental differences. This is especially true in the younger (Millennial) generation, for whom there is no automatic relationship between religion and segregation, and many of the whispered truisms which kept that marriage going in previous generations start to sound more like what they are -- anathema to the Christian tradition.

There was a similar shotgun marriage between the religious right and the "business right," forged between the late 1940's and the late 1960's on a basis of shared anti-Communism. This relationship started out no less strained, as Brad Hicks' famous essay "Christians in the Hands of an Angry God" (http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/118585.html) details, because many of the core ideas of the business right are fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.

If that last sentence makes you immediately want to interject that this isn't true, and that Christianity can (for good or for ill) accommodate ideas such as the positivity of the accumulation of wealth, or the evil of providing social services, then what you're responding to is the profound shift in American Christian teaching in the decades since this marriage -- for example, a profound shift in emphasis from the "red letter" (the personal word of Jesus) to the Pauline epistles, with their focus on ideas like grace and resurrection, and on the organization of the Church. A reading of the Gospels (especially the earlier ones) with a focus on Jesus' own preaching would suggest that placing him in a room with most modern business leaders would lead to overturned tables at the best and a riot at the worst.

This marriage was far harder to accomplish than the one with the populist right, and for several decades church and party were extremely wary partners. What changed it was the observed public reaction to Roe v. Wade, which was really the sum of a built-up reaction among what would become the religious right to the social (especially sexual) changes of the 1960's and 1970's. The focus of both Republican party and Evangelical political discourse on "social issues" like abortion and homosexuality (as opposed to "social issues" like poverty or war) ever since is not a coincidence: it was something which the religious right could be passionate about, and which the business right was compatible with, which could thus energize the base without splitting the party.

In fact, it's fair to say that the "religious right" didn't exist as a group prior to this. The original deal chronicles in Hicks' essay wasn't between existing political ideologies; it was between a coalition of business-friendly and anti-Communist groups in control of the Republican party and a number of churches and theological institutes (like DTS) about cooperation during elections. But these churches didn't see themselves as a unified "cultural ideology" so much as Christian institutions, in the world but not of it. The post-Roe world saw the creation of a group which referred to itself as the "religious right" (and formal groups like the "Moral Majority"), largely defining itself as an antithesis to the "social left" which emerged during the 1960's.

The religious right, however, became increasingly associated with both a regressive-seeming intolerance (around sex and gender, for example) and with the racism of the populist movement it had involved itself with. (There was a profound mixing of the two, not just because of their alliance within the Republican party, but because of things like the "segregation academies;" it was in fact this early mixing which made the fusion of the populist right into the Republican coalition such a workable strategy in the late 1960's) This has led to a real shrinkage of its political clout in recent years, as a younger generation sees it as increasingly hostile and outdated.

If the "social issues" which it has used to unify itself cease to hold, we may end up seeing a schism between the religious and business wings of the Republican party comparable to the schism currently seen between the pair of those wings and the populists, as Trump has made clear that his followers support Republicanism only insofar as it supports him.

This has all the ingredients of another "great reshuffling" of American politics, much like the breakdown of the Democratic coalition after FDR's famous swing towards economic populism in 1932. ___Comments on OP please.

posted image

2016-10-26 03:15:35 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 5 +1s; )Open 

I don't care who you are, this is funny. :)

(A little background: earlier this year, Jonah endorsed the Sweet Meteor of Death for President, believing nothing less than an extinction-level meteor impact could possibly cleanse us of our political stain.)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441113/smod-v-mcmullin

I don't care who you are, this is funny. :)

(A little background: earlier this year, Jonah endorsed the Sweet Meteor of Death for President, believing nothing less than an extinction-level meteor impact could possibly cleanse us of our political stain.)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441113/smod-v-mcmullin___

posted image

2016-10-25 14:53:04 (0 comments; 3 reshares; 5 +1s; )Open 

___

posted image

2016-10-24 21:50:03 (2 comments; 0 reshares; 2 +1s; )Open 

___

posted image

2016-10-22 03:22:21 (0 comments; 5 reshares; 4 +1s; )Open 

via +NPR Politics podcast, a song about the 17 propositions on CA's ballot this year. Previously:
2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08OqezyhzsY
2012 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WtKsohJeV4
2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mhfp0uvUGI

via +NPR Politics podcast, a song about the 17 propositions on CA's ballot this year. Previously:
2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08OqezyhzsY
2012 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WtKsohJeV4
2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mhfp0uvUGI___

posted image

2016-10-21 22:50:03 (0 comments; 1 reshares; 10 +1s; )Open 

CBP / DHS want to collect "social media identifiers" from people entering the US [1] — but disclosing their own, even official capacity accounts [2], would be an "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" [3]. Funny how that works.

[1] https://theintercept.com/2016/10/21/the-u-s-government-wants-to-read-travelers-tweets-before-letting-them-in/
[2] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzmetJxi-p0VclVVem9qRkY0YTQ/view (FOIA request, see part at the end of item 1)
[3] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzmetJxi-p0VdGdxSzJvM3l0U00/view (FOIA response, attached)

CBP / DHS want to collect "social media identifiers" from people entering the US [1] — but disclosing their own, even official capacity accounts [2], would be an "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" [3]. Funny how that works.

[1] https://theintercept.com/2016/10/21/the-u-s-government-wants-to-read-travelers-tweets-before-letting-them-in/
[2] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzmetJxi-p0VclVVem9qRkY0YTQ/view (FOIA request, see part at the end of item 1)
[3] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzmetJxi-p0VdGdxSzJvM3l0U00/view (FOIA response, attached)___

posted image

2016-10-20 21:34:31 (12 comments; 14 reshares; 8 +1s; )Open 

This is definitely NSFW and very uncanny-valley creepy (as well as rather cringe-inducing for me in parts, where they have very realistic dolls in parts, with metal skeletons etc sticking out, or sudden changes in realism, like the doll's neck). However, it's also kinda fascinating.

I wonder where this'll be in another decade or two.

This is definitely NSFW and very uncanny-valley creepy (as well as rather cringe-inducing for me in parts, where they have very realistic dolls in parts, with metal skeletons etc sticking out, or sudden changes in realism, like the doll's neck). However, it's also kinda fascinating.

I wonder where this'll be in another decade or two.___

posted image

2016-10-20 20:36:37 (0 comments; 7 reshares; 10 +1s; )Open 

If you're voting in CA, take a look at this re Prop 60.

If you're voting in CA, take a look at this re Prop 60.___

posted image

2016-10-20 03:23:50 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 1 +1s; )Open 

___

posted image

2016-10-20 00:22:46 (0 comments; 2 reshares; 13 +1s; )Open 

___

2016-10-19 05:47:52 (1 comments; 1 reshares; 7 +1s; )Open 

TW: stalking, reporting procedures

For a shorter, heartwarming counterpoint: https://medium.com/@SaraJBenincasa/the-bar-that-saved-me-70bde3547186

/via +Alex Fink /via MeFi of https://talesofthecocktail.com/in-depth/7-ways-bartenders-can-prevent-sexual-harassment-and-assault

TW: stalking, reporting procedures

For a shorter, heartwarming counterpoint: https://medium.com/@SaraJBenincasa/the-bar-that-saved-me-70bde3547186

/via +Alex Fink /via MeFi of https://talesofthecocktail.com/in-depth/7-ways-bartenders-can-prevent-sexual-harassment-and-assault___

posted image

2016-10-19 03:30:29 (13 comments; 0 reshares; 0 +1s; )Open 

___

2016-10-18 19:16:48 (2 comments; 0 reshares; 4 +1s; )Open 

Further question: given that Trump believes the election was "rigged" by (a) negative media coverage of him and (b) internal machinations within the opposition party, how would he, as president, act to prevent such "rigging"?

Thought for the day: Trump is trying to preemptively discredit the election as "rigged," giving him a natural out (and way to rally his troops to a TV station) if he loses. But if he wins, what does this mean he'll say about the 2020 election? And if he loses that, and says it's "rigged," does that mean he would refuse to step down, and claim the election was invalid?___Further question: given that Trump believes the election was "rigged" by (a) negative media coverage of him and (b) internal machinations within the opposition party, how would he, as president, act to prevent such "rigging"?

posted image

2016-10-18 01:00:26 (0 comments; 1 reshares; 6 +1s; )Open 

___

2016-10-15 23:10:59 (9 comments; 0 reshares; 6 +1s; )Open 

Which of the following is the strongest motivating factor in your choice for the US presidential election? If you're not allowed to vote in the US, e.g. because you're not a US citizen, pretend you are. This is not asking whom you'll vote for, but why.

Which of the following is the strongest motivating factor in your choice for the US presidential election? If you're not allowed to vote in the US, e.g. because you're not a US citizen, pretend you are. This is not asking whom you'll vote for, but why.___

2016-10-15 15:34:29 (2 comments; 0 reshares; 2 +1s; )Open 

This is a satirical "transcription" of the second debate, mocking both Trump and Hillary. It's interesting to see straight satire, not just hitting one side or the other.

h/t +Christof Harper

This is a satirical "transcription" of the second debate, mocking both Trump and Hillary. It's interesting to see straight satire, not just hitting one side or the other.

h/t +Christof Harper___

posted image

2016-10-15 02:37:51 (14 comments; 1 reshares; 10 +1s; )Open 

On this, I agree with +Amber Yust and the author.

I note, however, a somber point. Suppose that Trump does, as the author hopes, lose by "historic margins". The largest margin in US history is 26% (Harding 60% v Cox 34%, 1920); let's suppose Trump loses by 30%, an implausibly large number.

That would still leave 25% of the country having voted for him What is the proportion of that that is, at its root, truly hateful? What proportion of such views can the country sustain?

I would like to believe that most of his supporters support him for reasons not fundamentally attributable to hatred or bigotry — things like distrust of Hillary, belief that Trump would be economically better, party loyalty, Supreme Court balance, interventionism, etc. Reasonable people can disagree on such things.

What is the portion of unreasonable people?

To me itse... more »

I want to preface this article with a specific note that you are not required to do the work to change someone else's mind, nor are you required to put up with someone being hateful around you.

But if you want to change the minds of those who are being hateful, this article lays out some good approaches for doing so.___On this, I agree with +Amber Yust and the author.

I note, however, a somber point. Suppose that Trump does, as the author hopes, lose by "historic margins". The largest margin in US history is 26% (Harding 60% v Cox 34%, 1920); let's suppose Trump loses by 30%, an implausibly large number.

That would still leave 25% of the country having voted for him What is the proportion of that that is, at its root, truly hateful? What proportion of such views can the country sustain?

I would like to believe that most of his supporters support him for reasons not fundamentally attributable to hatred or bigotry — things like distrust of Hillary, belief that Trump would be economically better, party loyalty, Supreme Court balance, interventionism, etc. Reasonable people can disagree on such things.

What is the portion of unreasonable people?

To me it seems that even 10% of the country being overtly fascist, à la BNP, Jobbik, Golden Dawn, etc, is a terrible thing.

And let's be honest, Trump will get more than 25%. A more plausible, still very high margin of 10% (Roosevelt 1940, Reagan 1980), and 3rd party votes of ~5%, would have Trump at 42.5% of the vote.

Are at least a quarter of his supporters simply fascist, white supremacist, or nationalist (things I would consider outside the ambit of 'reasonable people can disagree')?

posted image

2016-10-14 14:52:21 (6 comments; 0 reshares; 10 +1s; )Open 

___

posted image

2016-10-14 03:04:03 (2 comments; 1 reshares; 13 +1s; )Open 

___

posted image

2016-10-14 02:30:11 (0 comments; 1 reshares; 6 +1s; )Open 

This is a bit on the nose for my act of having read it. Minus the level up, that is.

This is a bit on the nose for my act of having read it. Minus the level up, that is.___

posted image

2016-10-13 18:11:47 (2 comments; 1 reshares; 7 +1s; )Open 

I look forward to seeing the results of the US Presidential election on Nov. 9, Dec. 19, and/or Jan. 6, and a 4-4 Supreme Court attempting to resolve any of it.

I look forward to seeing the results of the US Presidential election on Nov. 9, Dec. 19, and/or Jan. 6, and a 4-4 Supreme Court attempting to resolve any of it.___

posted image

2016-10-13 16:27:26 (0 comments; 1 reshares; 12 +1s; )Open 

Imagine what would happen if Trump were the same person, minus the crass/vulgar aspect. Pretty good chance he'd win.

Imagine what would happen if Trump were the same person, minus the crass/vulgar aspect. Pretty good chance he'd win.___

posted image

2016-10-12 15:37:41 (0 comments; 7 reshares; 15 +1s; )Open 

Here's how and why to delete your Yahoo account — and advertise that you've done so, as a warning to other companies that feel like capitulating to mass surveillance. #dumpyahoo

Here's how and why to delete your Yahoo account — and advertise that you've done so, as a warning to other companies that feel like capitulating to mass surveillance. #dumpyahoo___

2016-10-12 08:06:04 (12 comments; 0 reshares; 1 +1s; )Open 

Will the Republican Party have a "super delegate" type rule for presidential nominations by 2020?

Will the Republican Party have a "super delegate" type rule for presidential nominations by 2020?___

2016-10-12 05:18:00 (0 comments; 1 reshares; 9 +1s; )Open 

My petition for certiorari about whether one can immediately appeal orders denying appointment of counsel is SCOTUSblog's Petition of the Day.

More info: https://s.ai/tsa/legal/ifp & http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sai-v-transportation-safety-administration/

My petition for certiorari about whether one can immediately appeal orders denying appointment of counsel is SCOTUSblog's Petition of the Day.

More info: https://s.ai/tsa/legal/ifp & http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sai-v-transportation-safety-administration/___

posted image

2016-10-11 22:22:12 (2 comments; 2 reshares; 6 +1s; )Open 

___

posted image

2016-10-11 17:46:44 (0 comments; 2 reshares; 3 +1s; )Open 

___

posted image

2016-10-11 05:11:58 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 1 +1s; )Open 

___

posted image

2016-10-11 04:36:41 (6 comments; 2 reshares; 8 +1s; )Open 

"Setting the standard for military understatement" is itself a spectacular understatement. o.o

Over on Twitter, nuclear anthropologist @NuclearAnthro has found a wonderful 1980 DoD study on ways to base ICBM's to protect them from Soviet attack, and excerpted the best parts. Among the ideas we considered: a fleet of Zeppelins, flying continuously over the oceans, each carrying a Minuteman or M-X missile.

I shit you not.

Another thing we considered was launching ICBM's out of wide-body jets like C5's or 747's. Note that I didn't say "dropping nuclear bombs" out of them, or "launching cruise missiles." I mean taking an entire ICBM, designed to be fired out of a missile silo, and... well. Check out the video of the flight test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It7SQ546xRk

But what's most disturbing is that the method we actually ended up using was the one this list called "launch under attack," but is more commonly known as "launch on warning." The idea was that the moment you see enemy ICBM's incoming, you fire everything, before any of your bases might be hit.

This was certainly the lowest-cost option, requiring essentially no changes to launch facilities or methods, but as this document points out it has a few minor cons:

* Vulnerable to attacks on warning and C3 systems.
* Requires warning.
* No endurance.
* Extremely short decision time.
* Catastrophic false alarm problem.

The last of these perhaps setting the standard for military understatement. For a better idea of what a "catastrophic false alarm problem" looks like, I recommend you read the story of Soviet LCOL Stanislav Petrov, who (only two years after this study) saved humanity from complete annihilation by sunlight reflected off clouds. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov)

You can read the whole wacky DoD study at http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a956443.pdf .
___"Setting the standard for military understatement" is itself a spectacular understatement. o.o

posted image

2016-10-11 03:15:58 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 3 +1s; )Open 

Because the district court denied an abeyance ("put everything on hold") pending my appeal of its denial of appointment of counsel, I've had to ask the 9th Circuit itself to do so.

The case law seems to be in my favor — the district court cited something that just doesn't apply — but we'll see how it goes.

See https://s.ai/tsa/legal/ifp for the issue on appeal, https://s.ai/tsa/legal/sfo for the case itself. I'm pro se on this appeal because my appellate counsel doesn't have the resources to do it. (I'm already 2 of their 8 cases.)

Because the district court denied an abeyance ("put everything on hold") pending my appeal of its denial of appointment of counsel, I've had to ask the 9th Circuit itself to do so.

The case law seems to be in my favor — the district court cited something that just doesn't apply — but we'll see how it goes.

See https://s.ai/tsa/legal/ifp for the issue on appeal, https://s.ai/tsa/legal/sfo for the case itself. I'm pro se on this appeal because my appellate counsel doesn't have the resources to do it. (I'm already 2 of their 8 cases.)___

Buttons

A special service of CircleCount.com is the following button.

The button shows the number of followers you have directly on a small button. You can add this button to your website, like the +1-Button of Google or the Like-Button of Facebook.






You can add this button directly in your website. For more information about the CircleCount Buttons and the description how to add them to another page click here.

Sai (saizai)Circloscope