EFF’s publicity-led obsessions plausibly deny and distract from the obviously more serious internet corporate IP warfare at their doorstep; consolidation and trending anti-competitive practices unmatched since the days of the railroad robber-barons. Who seriously thinks the interest of independents figure prominently in these continuing, acquiesced mega-million trolling deals? Does it just not appear more, like anyone messing with facebook’s IPO strategy will end up as crab food in SF Bay?

Public interest: my ass. Self-aggrandizement: priceless.

This is too sad to belabor. But you need to know that the agency that promises to protect us from cyberwarfare by hardening the internet cannot even protect us from Google.

In obvious pre-election fear of the new web robber-barons, after a two-year effort FCC just punted and fined Google $25,000 for illegally gathering servers full of personal communications with their street snoops. Does anyone imagine Google officers chastened and dissuaded, or simply laughing their asses off as they unroll a well-planned series of strategic workarounds?

For perspective, FCC routinely levies fines over $10,000 against wayward FM pirates, CBers, hams, and restaurants with cell phone quieters. FCC just fined Clear Channel $22,000 simply for vague contest terms. They got ripped off! For only $3,000 more, Clear Channel could have bought the rights to data-mine all of the country’s personal online activity.

FCC’s purported investigation was stymied simply by one engineer claiming the 5th Amendment and hence offering no information on those who green-lighted the project. Though its Chairman is an admittedly brilliant Communications jurist and former Supreme Court clerk, FCC was curiously unable to uncover essential evidence despite this stonewalling. (Notably, several European agencies are not so timid either in their fines or continuing investigations.)

Now FCC implies that Congress missed something; as if we don’t have enough laws and precedent against invasion of privacy, illegal wiretapping, to say nothing of that pesky 4th Amendment protecting personal security. In fact, Mr. Genachowski has been legally advising the FCC since the early 90s, specifically assisting two previous Chairmen by writing their telecommunications agendas; and now twenty years later finds enough loopholes surrounding encryption to obstruct his own decisiveness on behalf of the public? Ultimately, Google got off simply because you didn’t encrypt all of your love letters and other private information. Their theory is that you invited data rape. That is how your FCC is protecting you today; by deciding your digital life is all fair game for the unseen.

Effectively, Chairman Genachowski just told every internet service they could do whatever they like by simply adding $12,500 per year to their cost of doing business. What nonsense be this? Was he oblivious to privacy issues when writing the laws or only now while incapable of respecting them? You cannot call this incompetence: he is too smart. We are left only to suspect the accelerated collusion and corruption surrounding this budget-strapped and weakened FCC since Genachowski’s rise to stardom with The 1996 Telecom Act—which also dissolved your rights against cell towers in your back yard.

Julius, can we just cut through the crap? Any ambiguity here resides only in the minds of the industry that put you there and continuously pushes the limits of conspiracy to steal personal data for profit. Otherwise there would have been no basis for action at all, no need for over two years of continuing international investigation, no grounds for anyone to claim the 5th, no need for bullshit excuses about encryption, no need for House Energy & Commerce to investigate you as a paradigm study for needed reforms, and finally, no need for the U.S. public to live with Federal acquiescence in this cover-up and continued erosion of our rights to privacy.

Mr. Genachowski, again, please exit through the gift shop with your former colleagues via that golden revolving door that you have so publicly applauded. I was going to refrain from saying that you have ill-served the President, until finding that Wikipedia already predicted you to be gone in 2011: “criticisms have become numerous and increasingly vocal among consumer groups and legislative supporters about his lack of substantive accomplishments to date.”

Yes that house is interdimensional obviously

perfect for seances.

OR

It’s a Nikon Coolpix.

in most pics the orbs are biased to the right side–that’s a flash giveaway.

but surely, “emanations of spirit” probably should go in the house listing as a nice feature

instead of “I have a cheapshit camera”

Then I realized dropping the pic into Aperture might give me its EXIF data. Please look under the photo where I have arranged the Camera Model column.

Haunted by Coolpix

How did I know? Simply, two years of hard-earned unglamorous experience with a Coolpix S10, after which I concluded these cameras generate faux orbs due to their flash design. A time-lapse series and many examples are ready to post (along with one puzzling and incongruous anecdote). Generally, a Coolpix in the hands of a predisposed believer is a mightily deceptive machine. And how many millions of these cameras are out there?

Please understand: I do not deny anyone’s orb experience. There are many more challenging pictures that do not so easily disintegrate.

But I hate like hell to see an environment created where knowledge of these kinds of obvious failures is buried and discouraged by mutually-indulgent ‘scientists’ in favor of the profit motive; to say nothing of inexcusably screwing with people’s belief systems on questionable if not false evidence.

Raising a theme that may appear again here in many forms: I hold that the pictures are at most secondary. The story, your story, is primary. That’s why you need to take your own pictures.

At least until the point where you know what you know. Not what anyone tells you. Including me.

I’ve often found it helpful in preface to topics such as this to remind even—if not especially—the well-educated that everything we think we “know” today was once considered absolutely absurd. And that “knowledge” is destined to be again so classified at an ever-increasing rate—just ask the Brontosaurus and Pluto. Intellectual evolution cannot occur without embracing for evaluation the seemingly absurd. Quantum mechanics itself is so notoriously absurd it defies understanding by all but a few exceptional minds.

The orb issue is an intriguing and complex example of just such a question that challenges conventions of absurdity and evidence. Like many, many others I have taken pictures that I believe are at least remarkable; been given others by those astounded to learn that somehow they could now produce them; and I have taken quite a few I know to be suspect. Here are ten examples covering a range of contexts:

 « prev      1   2      next »  
(10 Photos)

When studying orb pictures it is mandatory to know the camera being used (if not lens as well), and usually the location (unless somehow private). In no cases have anything been added or retouched to my posts, but one typically advances the exposure digitally. Initially, I overdid this in pursuit of obviousness. As my technique progressed, I found lightening less necessary. Where instructive I try to provide pre- and post- versions for comparison. The point is, don’t discard apparently black frames; you may be very surprised at what they can reveal.

Contemporary orb research began in 1976, when Trevor Constable published the first infra-red pictures from 1959 of “sky amoeba.” He had simply wanted to research WWII dogfights, but the irrepressible images—provoking corroborating contemporaneous publications from isolated international researchers—changed his life, and likely, ours:

The Problem
While by now many can be said to have met Constable’s challenge, the state of the issue is that science in turn has challenged advocates to produce a true stereo picture of an orb. That is, a simultaneous recording by separate identical, professional cameras from independent angles proving that the image is a 3D object, not simply a dust mote or water droplet (the two perennial reductions) near one lens. To my knowledge, despite years of widening exposure, expertise, and promotion this has not yet been convincingly achieved.

Something novel is occurring; that is indubitable. But as my favored Mencken reminds, “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” It is not my job to tell you what orbs ‘are.’ That is something I consider presumptuous at best, if not—as is more likely in view of the actual evidence—perhaps fraudulent. Reticent in respect for the individual’s process, nevertheless after six years I’ve learned that for the sake of discussion people are entitled to expect some observations.

First of course you have the standard fare of optical or environmental reductions: dust, vapor, and the role of flash. For hard-nosed skeptics this is the end of the discussion.

Then come the various spiritual theories to which anyone is entitled—but that we may have little ability to prove to each other. Should one tell me the circle is an inter-dimensional Being, another knows it is my Guardian Angel, and yet another says it is just Crazy Uncle Jack foolin’ around, we have a fundamental disagreement about what counts as evidence that rather precludes rational dialog.

To my mind that currently leaves the following strongest candidates for general discourse and objective research. Importantly, they aren’t necessarily exclusive. After all, ‘orbs’ generally includes appearances of all different kinds of circular and semi-circular anomalies; filled, radial, or concentric, and giving most crayons in the box representation.

Psychology
Our self-confident conscious minds frequently discard details unrelated to its current tasks; as evidenced by the general experience that once made aware of orbs, one typically finds them newly appearing in photos upon which they may have sat unseen by entire families for years. I suppose therefore that some part of the issue involves retraining individual perception, which can only be done through one’s own experimentation and self-evaluation. Then, perhaps being able to transfer the skill—if that it be—to others; also being a widely-recounted phenomenon. What can possibly explain these constant, similar stories? Are versions of “Mass Hysteria” really the best thinking that academics or doctors can exhibit? Is that not simply dismissive and closed-minded?

Now, I’m not sure I believe this legend that the indigenous had no frame of reference by which to see Columbus’s or Cortez’s ships—but that behavior seems to be exactly what we have here! At the very least, given the non-recognition/recogntion phenomenon, there would seem to obviously be legitimate psychological questions for the qualified to sort out.

Electromagnetism
There could be an electromagnetic (EM) entanglement between the photographer and the camera’s infrared-attentive, increasingly-sensitive, constantly-evolving sensors.

It is easy to suggest a vague EM coupling between camera and the mind-as-brain. But this group of “mental” theories are vulnerable by ignoring that your thinking cap’s EM is in fact too weak to be sensed by anything but the most exotic laboratory detectors (such as the legendary, six-figure SQUID).

At this point HeartMath would rightly remind us that actually the heart produces 5000x the EM of the brain, so is a better candidate to be such a transmitter. Unfortunately, by itself this does not explain much as we already know most people have hearts, but not orbs. (And obviously we can’t assemble a test control group of people without hearts that can use cameras.)

Hyper-Ideomotion
Consistent with HeatMath’s observation, in fact the body’s significant EM channels are only easily readable outside the research lab once they leave the brain as nerve signals and muscle movement. Thus, and I confess to now favoring this for its explicative power, it is actually not much of a leap to suspect a strong EM photonic eruption from the known, tangible ideomotor reflex. These are subconscious muscle movements—again, electricity-fed nerve impulses—produced just from focused attention upon the conception of action without performing the action itself. The voltage affecting the sensor could come simply from the photographer’s hand, if not from momentary phase alignment of waveforms throughout the body due to unconscious processes.

This theory could parsimoniously explain 1) the failure of the dual-camera challenge, 2) why certain cameras seem to become ‘conditioned’ to the photographer, 3) why orbs can appear similarly on film as digitally, and 4) why the mental attention to ‘surprise’ helps—after which orbs tend to quickly dissipate. This last point, not incidentally, is the first indicator of a ‘genuine’ session, as no skeptic can argue that dust or moisture habitually depart a scene all at once after a few minutes.

What any theory like this suggesting that the event is electrical rather than optical might not explain would be any apparent deliberate positioning such as in the girl’s hand, above, unless the suggested ideomotive photons can be emitted by the subjects themselves. That is, we could be seeing the EM eruption of unconscious attention to her hand. As amazingly dense and sensitive sensor technologies hurriedly evolve, even this suggestion should not reasonably be precluded from testing.

So I do believe this theory merits consideration for serious research attention—especially as the ideomotor reflex is now relatively easy to measure. Among the many prior reports of camera influence by exceptional individuals, if someone has instead of a mental eruption hypothesized hyper-ideomotion EM specifically, please update me.

Extremophiles
Extending Constable, only in the past decade have we become aware of life where we thought it not possible, such as hot sea vents; accordingly orbs might be predominantly energetic extremophiles that at some point took a different path than strictly terrestrial evolution. As our understanding of inanimate matter increases and the dividing line greys, this theory could remain in play.

Artificial Intelligence
Another viewpoint notices occasional announcements about military research into “intelligent dust.” At best, this might be a fleet of detectors deployed to monitor or control a disaster or attack. At worst…is up to your paranoia. But about something at this time so prima facie implausible to most civilians unfortunately one cannot rule out disinformation.

Memes
Skeptics in reaction ignore a final, indirect, subtle possibility. What if orb pictures were means, not ends? This accumulating general perceptual shift as a feature of human behavior—often accompanied by authenticating, fundamental questioning and reframing of one’s habitual assumptions—may well be sufficient justification to sustain interest in the orb experience; even if at the end of the day this relegates all the photos to the status of side effects to a currently unclear process.

In other words, you could set aside the question of what orb pictures might show, and still have a legitimate scientific, sociological challenge in understanding this undeniable changing relationship between an increasing chunk of humanity and its participation in photography itself. Posit, for example, an evolutionary mutation accelerated by intensified information exchange. In philosophical shorthand, orbs as memes. Briefly, these are models or concepts that become so compelling they indeed begin to achieve ‘a life of their own.’ Here, Susan Blackmore’s un-ignorable The Meme Machine is prerequisite to further informed discussion. (Neither have I yet seen this interpretation offered elsewhere.)

Simply, Cameras
There is one premise I long held upon which I have reversed myself. I initially argued that with their legendary focus on quality control it would be virtually impossible for “Japan, Inc.”—the design and managerial hub of most optical recorders—to produce millions of defective cameras. For a variety of reasons—most tellingly Toyota’s mounting quality problems inexplicably defying their Ohno system which has been idolized, taught, and imitated for decades as the ideal zero-defect design and manufacturing methodology—I find no remaining justification to benignly neglect informed suspicion of any camera’s ability to deceive. For example, using pro Nikon gear I accidentally found I could repeatably make orbs appear in daylight within a specific aperture range of a certain wide-angle lens.

As orbs now begin to appear unquestioned in newspapers (and embarrassingly for most spiritual arguments, even in pornography), we must admit that there is reasonable evidence we are looking at a lot of mass failures. A camera that cannot take a flash picture without often producing orbs—such as the many compacts that mount the flash immediately adjacent to the lens—is not terribly useful. Similarly, collections from notoriously humid or particulate areas such as rain forests in the Northwest or Tropics, fire ceremonies, or dust bowls like Burning Man may simply supply more fodder for eager debunkers.

The Bottom Line
It is not simple, nor if it matters, should it be. You ask me what it is about: I say that you need to collect and own your own evidence—it is the only kind that means anything. Ultimately, if the whole affair amounts to but an exercise strengthening the self-acceptance of those who scrutinize their interpretation of experience through ongoing experimentation and open-minded rational processes and discussion, perhaps the orbs will have achieved their purpose.

The indubitable reasoning instigating the Communications Act of 1934 realized that if everyone had a radio transmitter at their will, no radio system could work. Pretty simple and extremely rational: You would have a situation where all could shout, while none listen—in other words, today’s Internet. But I digress.

As a limited national resource, the nature of the radio medium does not permit of simple analogies with the public square nor freedom of the press. You can place twenty times the newspaper vending machines in a city block than you can allocate radio stations to serve it. If you prefer, fill the sidewalk with 1000 megaphones and petitioners; but you can’t just add 1000 radio stations.

So, broadcasters are obliged to maintain their limited number of competing licenses by sharing the airwaves on behalf of the public. Necessarily, not every viewpoint will get the infinite airtime it no doubt deserves. Responsibility for the public interest is not simply heaped equally upon each station. More realistically, FCC expects good faith attempts at serving the public interest largely by encouraging a general even-handedness of representative stations in a ‘market.’ Consistent with their recently tossing “the fairness doctrine,” FCC is happier seeing competing stations than forcing each to schizophrenically adopt opposing orientations to the listener’s confusion. The relevant discussion is not at the lofty heights of the Supreme Court but at the thoroughly empirical and gritty level of how broadcasters attend to their community in context with others, and in consideration of significant variation in national market traditions.

Even the police do not have ‘free speech’ on police radios, nor pilots on aviation channels. Though the mandates for the Amateur Radio Service or Citizen’s Band are different still, the principle remains the same: Free speech takes a back seat to the prescribed communication purposes of all radio Services. And most Services maintain constant lobbying to ensure the FCC receives no cause for thought about increasing their performance standards or restricting their spectrum allocations. Thus, large-scale complaint filings such as about the SuperBowl costume fiasco have been observed to make the broadcast industry abundantly nervous. For specific stations, a large complaint file can seriously complicate their license renewal.

Today’s dysfunctional FCC has not impressed anyone with responsiveness. Nevertheless, if you want to end broadcast hate-mongering save your time arguing about free speech with dittoheads, and use it to entreat your friends to file virtually daily complaints against that lard-ass, mentally- and morally-defective, excrement-luncher—this IS the internet, after all—at:

File Complaint | FCC.gov

]]> http://www.jungleib.com/2012/03/07/actually-radio-broadcasting-is-not-a-first-amendment-issue/feed/ 0 http://www.jungleib.com/2012/03/06/carbonite-a-strong-new-material/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=carbonite-a-strong-new-material http://www.jungleib.com/2012/03/06/carbonite-a-strong-new-material/#comments Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:26:43 +0000 Stanley Jungleib http://www.jungleib.com/?p=931 Until a few days ago, I had no idea my on-line backup service advertised on radio, let alone Limbaugh. (And what an odd choice—a demographic largely appearing too illiterate to operate a computer.) But, we give credit where due. And let their CEO David Friend speak for himself:

I have received so many emails concerning Rush Limbaugh that I can’t possibly respond to each one of you individually, but I appreciate your many heartfelt and eloquent comments.  On Saturday night I issued the following statement:

“No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke — and I have two — could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady.  Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency.  Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show.  We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have also withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.” 

To our customers among you, I thank you for your continued support.  We would really appreciate anything you can do to help us get the Carbonite word out there.  If you have friends whose computers are not backed up, please tell them about Carbonite.  There’s always a free trial at www.carbonite.com.  Please suggest that they take advantage of my temporary Offer Code “DAVID” to obtain two months free when they sign up for a subscription as my way of saying thanks.

Consider it done and more, sir. For besides your service being beyond reproach, also seriously a day does not go by when I do not consider filing suit against your competitor iBackup. iBackup surreptitiously destroys Macintosh files by stripping out their resource forks. [My drive showing iBackup's destruction of over a hundred thousand files is available proof. Still, they rationalize this as normal as recently as last year.]

The reason for on-line backup is that all your local backup can still physically disappear in one negative incident. For that reason Carbonite, with it’s awesomely simple and effective interface is the best choice especially for Macintosh users.

Take Mr. Friend up on his offer. Gutting large-scale advertising programs takes guts; and positive actions deserve positive feedback.

First, verify your iron is electrostatic discharge (ESD) -safe, and legitimately grounded along with the unit. I turned mine down to 650F. To the more accessible contact opposite of the standing resistor I patiently applied angular pressure just until it wetted and lifted up. Then while pulling slightly upward on that loose end, heated the diode’s center until the other contact easily gave away. Under glass, no mess remained; no need for wicking.