Jon Schwarz, a former Moore staffer, reviews Michael Moore's first movie in six years, "Where to Invade Next," which Schwarz calls Moore's "most subversive movie."
(more…)
Not all ATM attacks need an elaborate skimmer. There’s a new kind of crime doing the rounds, which involves hijacking the ethernet cable of an ATM to gather your card information.
the alligator was between three and four feet long;
the suspect is accused of throwing it into the drive-through window at Wendy’s; and
the suspect was wearing a baseball hat backward.
I guess that last one would probably be relevant only at the sentencing phase.
Several readers sent links to this news item (e.g. WPTV, Washington Post), but only Florida lawyer and former volunteer zookeeper Christopher Bussard seems to have been facing a work project so unpleasant he devoted otherwise billable time (.2 hours) to researching a ridiculous legal issue. Because I want to encourage that kind of conduct, and need the .2 hours myself, I am going to take full advantage of his research here as quoted below. Please consider the relevant parts of my disclaimer to extend to him for these purposes.
The 24-year-old accused gator-flinger has been charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a third-degree felony. (Had the gator hit someone, this would have been aggravated battery, but it didn’t.) Regular assault is a misdemeanor, so whether a weapon is “deadly” makes a big difference. And so, as you might expect, the legislature hasn’t defined that term:
The Florida statutes don’t define “deadly weapon” [Christopher writes]. They do define “weapon” (Fla. Stat. § 790.001(13)), but that definition is uselessly circular because it includes “or other deadly weapon.”
Totally useless. The definition is “any dirk, knife, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon except a firearm or a common pocketknife, plastic knife, or blunt-bladed table knife.” The word “other” suggests all the listed “weapons” are also “deadly weapons,” except that a firearm isn’t a “weapon” at all? Nope, this statute sucks.
So the courts have stepped in and defined “deadly weapon.” The best definition I could find was: “An instrument that will likely cause death or great bodily harm when used in the ordinary and usual manner contemplated by its design is a deadly weapon. However, an object can also be found to be a deadly weapon if used or threatened to be used in a way likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Whether an object is a deadly weapon is generally a question of fact to be determined by the jury.” Michaud v. State, 47 So. 3d 374, 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citations and examples omitted). See also Brown v. State, 86 So. 3d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (flimsy hollow plastic broomstick not a “deadly weapon”); Lee v. State, 100 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (lengthy discussion of whether a shoe is a “deadly weapon”; ultimate conclusion: depends on the shoe).
So something is a “deadly weapon” if it’s designed as one, or if it isn’t but you could use it that way. But flimsy hollow plastic broomsticks aside, there would seem to be few objects that could be used as a weapon but could not be used in some way to produce great bodily harm, so this definition (which is common) tends to be applied broadly. In fact, I once made fun (respectfully) of the Ninth Circuit because it took the court 14 pages to explain why bare hands don’t qualify as “dangerous weapons.” (Chuck Norris aside.) But okay, this is the definition, so:
Let’s apply that definition to our infenestrated alligator.
Absolutely, but first let’s talk about “infenestrated.” This is a great word, even though it isn’t a word. As Christopher obviously knows, the word “defenestrated” does exist; “defenestration” is the act of throwing somebody out of a window. And we absolutely need a word for that. This one is almost always associated with the “Defenestration of Prague” in 1618, when some Protestants threw three Catholic lords out of a window and thus kicked off the Thirty Years’ War. Fenestra is Latin for “window.” My first reaction was that the word should be “exfenestrate,” not “defenestrate,” because the prefix de- usually means to remove, reverse, or turn away (like “defend” or “delegate”), whereas I think of ex- for expelling something (like Catholic lords out of a window). But de- can also mean “down,” as in “descend” or “depress,” and I suppose the downward sense is the most important one here. It would then make sense that there is no word for throwing somebody back up into a window. (“Fenestrate” is a word, but that means “to create windows in” something.) Here the alligator didn’t change elevation (materially), and the important issue is that it went in the window. So although “infenestrate” is not in the OED, it should be.
Okay, back to the legal issue:
First, was the alligator “likely [to] cause death or great bodily harm when used in the ordinary and usual manner contemplated by its design”? That question seems to have religious overtones. Cf. William Blake, The Tyger, in Songs of Experience (1794) (“Tyger Tyger, burning bright, / In the forests of the night; / What immortal hand or eye, / Could frame thy fearful symmetry?”) Assuming the courts mean a human designer, then we may conclude that this prong of the definition is simply inapplicable to alligators.
My only problem with that paragraph is that the poem doesn’t rhyme. But that’s not Christopher’s fault.
Second, was the alligator “used or threatened to be used in a way likely to produce death or great bodily harm”? [The suspect made no threats, which] leaves us with the main question: Is an alligator thrown through a drive-through window “likely to produce death or great bodily harm”? I honestly have no idea. I can say from personal experience that it’s safe to walk within a few feet of a sunbathing alligator—the only thing it’s likely to do is lie there. [See my disclaimer, supra.] But I’m not sure how the alligator’s recent experience of being thrown changes that equation. I can equally imagine the alligator becoming more surly, more cowardly, or just confused from the experience. My knowledge of alligator psychology just isn’t up to the task of resolving this question.
This is why God made expert witnesses.
And that’s why it’s a jury question. Florida courts expect the prosecution to put on evidence to prove the deadliness of the weapon, and to admit it into evidence so that the jury may examine it. Compare MJ v. State, 100 So. 3d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding prosecution failed to prove BB gun was a “deadly weapon” because it hadn’t been introduced for jury inspection) with Dale v. State, 703 So. 2d 1045, 1047 (Fla. 1997) (upholding jury finding that BB gun was a deadly weapon because “[o]f key importance is the fact that the jury had an opportunity to view the weapon first-hand.”). I would really like to see how the court would handle the admission of a live alligator into evidence and the jury’s inspection. Unfortunately for me—and for the prosecution—the report says the alligator was released back into the wild. That means (a) the prosecution probably can’t carry its burden to prove the deadliness of this particular alligator when thrown through a drive-through window, and, more importantly, (b) I’m not going to get to see a trial with a live alligator in evidence.
So the short answer to the question is: it depends on the alligator. This alligator is gone, so the charge won’t stick. As Christopher also points out, it doesn’t look like this particular alligator was very deadly, if this guy was able to possess and transport it without being eaten. Obviously that’s good news for the defendant.
The bad news is that it’s illegal to possess or transport an alligator in Florida because it’s a protected species, and he’s also charged with that. For that crime, deadliness is irrelevant.
In this video, employees at the Carrier Air Conditioner factory in Indianapolis are gathered together by a manager who explains that the company’s profit-margins dictate that all 1400 of them will lose their jobs as their factory is moved to Mexico.
The manager’s prepared remarks are fantastically tone-deaf, almost unbelievably so. Although there’s not really any good way to spin the news that a company is moving a factory to a place where workers are paid less and enjoy fewer employment and industrial safety rights, there are surely bad and worse ways, and the manager here chose virtually the worst way imaginable.
Short of actually wiping his ass with their pink-slips, that is.
The speaker repeatedly stresses that moving the plant to Mexico will make the company’s owners richer by increasing their profit margins, as though this will somehow seem to be a comfort to the workers who will soon be unable to feed their families or save for their retirement – workers whose labor made every dime of the company’s profits to date possible.
It’s an odd sign of the times that the people who prepare this sort of speech believe that workers will be swayed by the logic that “We will make more money by destroying your life and the lives of your families” and lead with that as their best defense for visiting tragedy upon thousands of people.
The biggest surprise is that no one threw the guy out on his ass.
Here’s another way I’m privileged: I have free access to the University of Minnesota library system, with all of its journal subscriptions, so I rarely have to worry about finding something published in the major journals, with a few annoying exceptions. It’s only now, then, that I’ve learned about Sci-Hub, but I’ll be using it more, especially to deal with those exceptions.
For those of you who aren’t already using it, the site in question is Sci-Hub, and it’s sort of like a Pirate Bay of the science world. It was established in 2011 by neuroscientist Alexandra Elbakyan, who was frustrated that she couldn’t afford to access the articles needed for her research, and it’s since gone viral, with hundreds of thousands of papers being downloaded daily. But at the end of last year, the site was ordered to be taken down by a New York district court – a ruling that Elbakyan has decided to fight, triggering a debate over who really owns science.
“Payment of $32 is just insane when you need to skim or read tens or hundreds of these papers to do research. I obtained these papers by pirating them,” Elbakyan told Torrent Freak last year. “Everyone should have access to knowledge regardless of their income or affiliation. And that’s absolutely legal.”
She’s being sued by Elsevier! She is fighting the most evil science publisher in the world. This isn’t just heroism, it’s epic heroism.
These areas of overlap show where someone from an industry, like Pharmaceuticals, Finance, or Agriculture, worked in the government agency which is supposed to oversee that industry, for the public good.
So you can see, for example, where about a dozen people have worked at Goldman Sachs and also for the Treasure, and even the SEC.
This is called Regulatory Capture, and it means that industries are “regulated” by the same people whose livelihood is dependent on the success of those industries.
Who do you think these people work for, when they have to choose between 99% of Americans and their buddies in the 1%?
And politicians have the audacity to wonder, out loud, why the American People have decided that the system is stacked against them.
The House of Representatives approved legislation Wednesday that would require the National Science Foundation to provide written justification for how every grant furthers the “national interest.”
The legislation, H.R. 3293, passed largely along party lines in the Republican-controlled House. Its sponsors characterized the measure as designed to “ensure that the National Science Foundation (NSF) is open and accountable to the taxpayers about how their hard-earned dollars are spent.”
The chirp is also sweet vindication for the National Science Foundation, which spent about $1.1 billion over more than 40 years to build a new hotline to nature, facing down criticism that sources of gravitational waves were not plentiful or loud enough to justify the cost.
All right, smart guys. I’m a reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-educated biologist, and I’ve been struggling to grasp the significance of this discovery. I want you to imagine standing in front of Lamar Smith or Dana Rohrabacher and having to explain to them how a squiggle in a billion-dollar instrument furthers the national interest. These are people quite happy to throw a trillion dollars away on the F-35, but want to know exactly how every penny going to basic science will Make America Great Again.
Tim Schwalfenberg is trying to fool us with this kitchen photograph, which appears to be a gorgeous modern kitchen in an upscale home decor magazine. Look closely, though, and you’ll notice that it is completely LEGO. There are lots of great details here, but I like the train wheels for barstool cushions, and the tiled backsplash, which just looks perfectly realistic.
And if you enjoy large-scale modern home interiors made of LEGO, then you’ll definitely want to check out Littlehaulic’s builds:
Happy Birthday is one of the best known songs worldwide and up until a few months ago Warner/Chappell music claimed to own the rights.
The melody was originally written before 1893 by sisters Mildred and Patty Hill, but the rights to the song were later transferred to Summy Co., which was eventually acquired by Warner/Chappell.
For decades, Warner continued to demand licensing fees from filmmakers, artists and other people who used the song in public, generating an estimated $2 million annually.
However, in 2013 a group of artists including musician Rupa Marya sued Warner’s music division claiming that the company doesn’t hold the rights to the song. Aside from missing agreements, the filmmakers argued that it’s not clear what the true origins of the song are.
Before even reaching a trial, Judge George King awarded a groundbreaking victory to the plaintiffs last fall. After a careful review of several agreements the court concluded that there is no evidence that the Hill sisters ever transferred their rights to Summy Co.
As a result Warner saw no other option than to settle the case. The settlement was announced last December and this week the terms were made public.
Under the terms (pdf) Warner agrees to create a $14 million settlement fund to compensate persons who paid Warner/Chappell Music or one of its predecessors licensing fees for Happy Birthday, since 1949.
In addition, Warner officially declares not to own any rights to the song.
“Defendants and Intervenors agree that, upon the Final Settlement Date, they will relinquish their ownership claims to the Song and all their rights to the Song,” the agreement reads.
Warner further agrees not to oppose a request from the artists to officially enter the Happy Birthday song into the public domain.
“Defendants and Intervenors will not oppose Plaintiffs’ request that the Final Judgment and Order include a declaratory judgment that, as of the Final Settlement Date, the Song will be in the public domain,” it reads.
Technically, Happy Birthday is now an orphan work which means that an unknown party could still step up to claim ownership. However, Warner/Chappell and the artists are both unaware of any outstanding copyright claims.
While $14 million is a significant amount, it’s relatively low considering that Warner probably made dozens of millions more from the song over the past 66 years.
The settlement marks the end of one of the most prominent copyright disputes in recent history. It also means that everyone is free to sing Happy Birthday in public, without having to look over their shoulders.
Can you use a magnifying glass and moonlight to light a fire?
—Rogier Spoor
At first, this sounds like a pretty easy question.
A magnifying glass concentrates light on a small spot. As many mischevious kids can tell you, a magnifying glass as small as a square inch in size can collect enough light to start a fire. A little Googling will tell you that the Sun is 400,000 times brighter than the Moon, so all we need is a 400,000-square-inch magnifying glass. Right?
Wrong. Here's the real answer: You can't start a fire with moonlight[1]Pretty sure this is a Bon Jovi song. no matter how big your magnifying glass is. The reason is kind of subtle. It involves a lot of arguments that sound wrong but aren't, and generally takes you down a rabbit hole of optics.
First, here's a general rule of thumb: You can't use lenses and mirrors to make something hotter than the surface of the light source itself. In other words, you can't use sunlight to make something hotter than the surface of the Sun.
There are lots of ways to show why this is true using optics, but a simpler—if perhaps less satisfying—argument comes from thermodynamics:
Lenses and mirrors work for free; they don't take any energy to operate.[2]And, more specifically, everything they do is fully reversible—which means you can add them in without increasing the entropy of the system. If you could use lenses and mirrors to make heat flow from the Sun to a spot on the ground that's hotter than the Sun, you'd be making heat flow from a colder place to a hotter place without expending energy. The second law of thermodynamics says you can't do that. If you could, you could make a perpetual motion machine.
The Sun is about 5,000°C, so our rule says you can't focus sunlight with lenses and mirrors to get something any hotter than 5,000°C. The Moon's sunlit surface is a little over 100°C, so you can't focus moonlight to make something hotter than about 100°C. That's too cold to set most things on fire.
"But wait," you might say. "The Moon's light isn't like the Sun's! The Sun is a blackbody—its light output is related to its high temperature. The Moon shines with reflected sunlight, which has a "temperature" of thousands of degrees—that argument doesn't work!"
It turns out it does work, for reasons we'll get to later. But first, hang on—is that rule even correct for the Sun? Sure, the thermodynamics argument seems hard to argue with,[3]Because it's correct. but to someone with a physics background who's used to thinking of energy flow, it may seem hard to swallow. Why can't you concentrate lots of sunlight onto a point to make it hot? Lenses can concentrate light down to a tiny point, right? Why can't you just concentrate more and more of the Sun's energy down onto the same point? With over 1026 watts available, you should be able to get a point as hot as you want, right?
Except lenses don't concentrate light down onto a point—not unless the light source is also a point. They concentrate light down onto an area—a tiny image of the Sun.[4]Or a big one! This difference turns out to be important. To see why, let's look at an example:
This lens directs all the light from point A to point C. If the lens were to concentrate light from the Sun down to a point, it would need to direct all the light from point B to point C, too:
But now we have a problem. What happens if light goes back from point C toward the lens? Optical systems are reversible, so the light should be able to go back to where it came from—but how does the lens know whether the light came from B or to A?
In general, there's no way to "overlay" light beams on each other, because the whole system has to be reversible. This keeps you from squeezing more light in from a given direction, which puts a limit on how much light you can direct from a source to a target.
Maybe you can't overlay light rays, but can't you, you know, sort of smoosh them closer together, so you can fit more of them side-by-side? Then you could gather lots of smooshed beams and aim them at a target from slightly different angles.
Nope, you can't do this.[5]We already know this, of course, since earlier we said that it would let you violate the second law of thermodynamics.
It turns out that any optical system follows a law called conservation of étendue. This law says that if you have light coming into a system from a bunch of different angles and over a large "input" area, then the input area times the input angle[6]Note to nitpickers: In 3D systems, this is technically the solid angle, the 2D equivalent of the regular angle, but whatever. equals the output area times the output angle. If your light is concentrated to a smaller output area, then it must be "spread out" over a larger output angle.
In other words, you can't smoosh light beams together without also making them less parallel, which means you can't aim them at a faraway spot.
There's another way to think about this property of lenses: They only make light sources take up more of the sky; they can't make the light from any single spot brighter,[7]A popular demonstration of this: Try holding up a magnifying glass to a wall. The magnifying glass collects light from many parts of the wall and sends them to your eye, but it doesn't make the wall look brighter. because it can be shown[8]This is left as an exercise for the reader. that making the light from a given direction brighter would violate the rules of étendue.[9]My résumé says étendue is my forté. In other words, all a lens system can do is make every line of sight end on the surface of a light source, which is equivalent to making the light source surround the target.
If you're "surrounded" by the Sun's surface material, then you're effectively floating within the Sun, and will quickly reach the temperature of your surroundings.[10](Very hot)
If you're surrounded by the bright surface of the Moon, what temperature will you reach? Well, rocks on the Moon's surface are nearly surrounded by the surface of the Moon, and they reach the temperature of the surface of the Moon (since they are the surface of the Moon.) So a lens system focusing moonlight can't really make something hotter than a well-placed rock sitting on the Moon's surface.
Which gives us one last way to prove that you can't start a fire with moonlight: Buzz Aldrin is still alive.
Sometimes in chat Adam is all “FOOTBALL” and “GRAND STRATEGY GAMES” and “LUNCH”. Usually my favourite Adam chat is “LUNCH”. Today, however, we had “WAVE SIMULATOR”. “WAVE SIMULATOR” is my favourite of all.
The wave simulator in question is a simple-looking wave tool by David Li which lets you tweak a patch of ocean, making it choppier or calmer according to your fancy. It’s fantastically soothing for me to have on in another browser window as I work.
It was brought to my attention that the tired excuse for when one doesn’t like something that was said on the internet was trotted out by the new CEO of Center For Inquiry, Robyn Blumner. It seems defending the old-school status quo is far more important than bothering with facts.
Via source and source: “Robyn Blumner, in her interview with Hemant Mehta on his podcast says this about Richard Dawkins’ twitter feed (starts at 30:31)”:
“I think Richard Dawkins is purposefully misunderstood at times as a way to generate clicks on some bloggers’ page. It’s because his name brings page views and eyes so why not generate a lot of heat around something that is pretty tame if you really unpack it.”
Dear Ms Blumner, the fact is that Richard Dawkins’ Twitter feed has become a source of power for those who wish to silence and harass minority voices in the atheist and feminist communities and beyond. His comments on abortion and down syndrome, rape, pedophilia, islamism, feminism,people with disabilities,white privilege and social justice are not “something that is pretty tame if you unpack it.” His comments are divisive, incendiary and out-right damaging to already muffled voices hoping to to be heard and wishing to be part of a community. There are plenty of more tweets I could link to- including ones he has recently deleted, but quite franky this topic has gotten tired don’t you think? It should however be pointed out to people such as Ms Blumner, since they have found themselves in a position of power in the free-thought community that the term “SJW” was created as an insult to people, mainly activists hoping to help minorities and create more inclusivity in communities such as atheism, humanism and gaming. Yes, caring about issues that affect the less privileged in society has become a popular insult and a joke used on a regular basis by antifeminists and the likes of Mr Dawkins. But maybe it’s not for attention. Maybe it’s purely out of spite.
Bloggers on independent networks such as this are not writing about issues such as atheism and free-thought for the “clicks.” We are literally the new generation of the free press. We are the indie mags. We are the Xerox copies handed to you at a gig on the Sunset Strip. We are people who work regular jobs during the day unrelated to blogging so that we can write with total freedom. We have no advertisers or bosses or board of directors breathing down our blouses dictating what is appropriate to say and when. We add and delete as we wish. There is no holiday bonus or book deals. We speak when we choose. We share truth and our own opinions when we so desire.
And about those clicks. The most I have ever made in a month blogging from ad revenue sharing was approximately $30. I remember this because I was so excited that it was enough to buy a cheap dress. Let that sink in. $30 in a month. Compare that to your CEO salary, Ms Blumner and come back here and tell me who has more to gain or lose by telling the truth. We independent bloggers are free speech. Money has no effect on what we decide to say. If you believe what you claim, that bloggers are essentially just vultures circling the feeds of famous men, in it for clicks and eyeballs, then you are ignorant on how the internet press works and blind to the damage your partner Mr Dawkins has done to minority voices. Your associate, Mr Dawkins regardless of intent, has encouraged harassment of women (including myself and others on this blog), bigotry and he has evolved over the past few years, like an excruciatingly slow train-wreck, into a very famous troll with literally millions hanging on each of his 140 character texts. Texts that we do not need to misinterpret or unpack because they speak clearly on their own.
Doing it for the clicks is simply another way of saying doing it for the attention. So tell me Ms Blumner, why does Mr Dawkins tweet these things and why do you defend it?
Hat tip to FTB and Monette for listening to a podcast so I didn’t have to.
After 800 people pointed out my crappy base-11 number line (that's what I get for doing base-11 before bed), I have altered to votey. So, please press z to go back and give it a look!
“During an interview with Kevin Smith, Batman: TAS writer Paul Dini explained that Cartoon Network ended Young Justice because it didn’t like the type of people it was attracting, namely the penisly challenged. Dini claims to have actually heard executives say, “We do not want girls watching this show,” which was a problem because, as it turned out, women made up a significant chunk of Young Justice’s audience.
The studio’s reasoning was that older female viewers would either a) not buy Young Justice toys or b) demand the WRONG Young Justice toys, like official Batgirl tampons or something. What actually pisses me off the most, though, is not the economically nonsensical sexism but rather that Cartoon Network saw Young Justice, probably one of the greatest animated shows of the last few years, as just a vehicle to sell toys. It’s like telling someone to make you Cars and then complaining that you got Up instead.”
- Ridiculous Reasons Awesome TV Shows Were Canceled
I’ve heard a number of explanations: it’s a private conversation with the supernatural emperor of the universe, or possibly a moment of communion with all-that-is, or even just a quiet personal centering of the self. These are all lies. As we all know, prayer is actually an opportunity to posture publicly, promoting one’s own piety.
We have another example to illustrate the accuracy of my definition. Phoenix had a request from the Satanists to be allowed to give an opening prayer at council meetings, and the council struggled with their decision — whether to allow a Satanic prayer, which would cause a huge outcry from fanatical Christians; to prohibit certain faiths from participation, which would clearly violate the separation of church and state and lead to lawsuits; or to simply stop the prayer nonsense altogether, and instead have a moment of silence, in which individuals could freely have a private conversation with god, commune with all-that-is, center their self, or whatever.
Phoenix wisely went with the moment of silence idea. Seems smart to me; as an atheist, I wouldn’t object, and believers are still allowed to chat with god, commune, center, etc., if that’s what prayer is all about.
The majority of the council seem sensible and are willing. But others are willingly validating my theory that prayer is about loudly and publicly pronouncing the depth of their faith, and are melting down at the idea that they can’t get any more brownie points with the gods by babbling at others.
The objections have been emotional, loud and generally ignorant. Christians are pushing for their right to pray, but they don’t seem to understand the fact they can’t allow their prayers while banning others. The Phoenix council had an option of either allowing the alternate prayers, or banning them while facing a First Amendment-based lawsuit that is practically a guaranteed loss for them. They chose a third option of banning all prayer (the best option) completely. Now they are being threatened with even more lawsuits from Christians that want to insert religion into government – as long as it’s only Christian religion.
Ppl be like “ I want an actual male gem, not just Steven.”
Jeez, it’s like having only one character
to represent your whole gender
in a group composed all of another gender
is a bit upsetting huh?
I wonder
what
that’s like
no really
can you
even imagine
what this lack of representation
MUST
FEEL
LIKE
This
post
isn’t
long
enough
none of the listed shows are named after the one female character, either
it’s actually physically impossible for me to not reblog this post.
I want to say I’ve reblogged this before, but I’m reblogging again for the brilliant addition of, “None of the listed shows are named after the one female character, either” because FUCKING THANK YOU.
mmmmmhm.
Every time I reblog this, there are new shows on the list.
Current Iron Builder competitor Tim Schwalfenberg is chugging through the competition, having already completed seven builds. His most recent creation is this delightful microscale train scene. That pin connector looks great as a tank car. But I wonder what that tiny village needs two full tanks of. Gasoline? Milk? Mountain Dew Code Red? Tim’s packed a lot of detail into this small build — my favorites, other than the train itself, include the railroad crossing sign and that glorious gorge-spanning bridge.
The Fibonacci sequence is found in many places in nature, including the branching of trees, leaves on a stem, the flowering of an artichoke, or an uncurling fern. But what if you applied this famous approximation of the golden spiral to our feline friends? Suddenly cats become even more awesome than we already thought they were.
Bored Panda is building a large collection of cute kitties demonstrating their mathematical prowess, nearly 40 as of the writing of this post. Click here to view them all.
PayPal is widely known for their aggressive stance towards BitTorrent sites, Usenet providers and file-hosting services, but VPN, proxy and SmartDNS providers might now suffer the same fate too.
This week PayPal stopped accepting payments for a company that provides VPN and SmartDNS tools, stating that these may facilitate copyright infringement.
So-called “unblocker” tools can be used to bypass geo-filtering blockades which Netflix and other video platforms have in place.
According to the message PayPal sent to UnoTelly and possibly others, these services are against the company’s policies because they help users to bypass copyright restrictions.
“Under the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, PayPal may not be used to send or receive payments for items that infringe or violate any copyright, trademark, right of publicity or privacy, or any other proprietary right under the laws of any jurisdiction,” PayPal’s email reads.
“This includes transactions for any device or technological measure that descrambles a scrambled work, decrypts an encrypted work or otherwise avoids, bypasses, removes, deactivates or impairs a technological measure without the authority of the copyright owner.”
PayPal informs the affected business(es) that their accounts have been permanently limited and that this decision can’t be appealed. This means that they have to switch to other payment processing providers.
UnoTelly informs TorrentFreak that the decision came as a shock, without any type of prior notice. The company is disappointed and sees the move as a direct attack on open and unrestricted Internet access.
“We are disappointed at PayPal’s unilateral action and the way it acted without prior warning. We provide both DNS resolution and secure VPN services. Our services are network relays that connect people around the world,” UnoTelly’s Nicholas Lin says.
Under PayPal’s policy every VPN and SmartDNS service is at risk of losing its PayPal account. However, it seems likely that the company will mainly take action against companies that market themselves as an “unblocker” service.
UnoTelly, for example, specifically mentions its ability to bypass geo-blocks imposed by streaming sites such as Netflix and Hulu.
PayPal’s actions are not an isolated incident. They come a few weeks after Netflix started to increase its crackdown on VPN services and other unblockers, as requested by copyright holders. It would be no surprise if copyright holders are also behind PayPal’s recent move.
This LEGO model of a Scarlet Macaw by James Universe is currently being displayed at Dallas Zoo until April 10th 2016. James’ model is just under 12 inches tall and features a “tree stand” for displaying. Dallas Zoo is currently hosting an exhibition called Nature Connects by LEGO Certified Professional Sean Kenney and James’ model relates to this exhibition.
The rainbow plumage on this Scarlet Macaw is wonderful – the LEGO colour palate certainly works well for this species. I particularly love the use of multiple Medium Azure surfboards for the tail feathers.
Happy Birthday is one of the best known songs worldwide and up until a few months ago Warner/Chappell music claimed to own the rights. 
PayPal is widely known for their aggressive stance towards BitTorrent sites, Usenet providers and file-hosting services, but VPN, proxy and SmartDNS providers might now suffer the same fate too.
