Kenneth Heiles Named Dean of Proposed Fort Smith Osteopathic Medical School

Posted on by

The proposed osteopathic medical school at Chaffee Crossing in Fort Smith now has a dean.

Kenneth A. Heiles, D.O., on Wednesday, was named dean of the Arkansas Colleges of Health Education and the proposed Arkansas College of Osteopathic Medicine in Fort Smith.

Kyle Parker, president and CEO of ACHE, said Heiles was "the key hire" needed to ensure the best program for the proposed school. Parker referred to Heiles as "one of the most respected and influential deans at both the state and national levels."

"He will be instrumental in developing graduate medical education in and for both the state of Arkansas and the nation," Parker said in the news release.

Heiles, currently the American College of Osteopathic Physicians Chair of the Committee on Education and Evaluation, said he was excited to have the opportunity to shape the future of the proposed medical school.

"This will be a tremendous asset to western Arkansas and the entire state and make great strides in helping fill the need for medical professionals," he said in the release.

Cole Goodman, M.D., president of Mercy Clinic in Fort Smith, said Heiles' hiring will fast-track the process of setting up a curricula and hiring faculty while the construction of the college begins.

"Dr. Heiles as dean of the osteopathic college is a major step in making the proposed COM a reality," Goodman said in the release.

In February, the Fort Chaffee Redevelopment Authority donated 200 acres to the project. The Fort Smith Regional Healthcare Foundation has also approved $58 million for the school, which is hoped to be opened in the fall of 2017.

"Our mission clearly states that we have a responsibility to fill gaps in health care and provide care for the medically underserved," Parker said in February.

More here:

Kenneth Heiles Named Dean of Proposed Fort Smith Osteopathic Medical School

How 3-D Printed Guns Evolved Into Serious Weapons in Just One Year

Posted on by

Its been a full year since I watched the radical libertarian group Defense Distributed test fire the Liberator, the first fully printable gun, for the first time. Imura is one of a growing number of digital gunsmiths who saw the potential of that controversial breakthrough and have strived to improve upon the Liberators clunky, single-shot design. Motivated by a mix of libertarianism, gun rights advocacy and open-source experimentation, their innovations include rifles, derringers, multi-round handguns and the components needed to assemble semi-automatic weapons. Dozens of other designs are waiting to be tested.

The result of all this tinkering may be the first advancements that significantly move 3-D printed firearms from the realm of science fiction to practical weapons.

With the Liberator we were trying to communicate a kind of singularity, to create a moment, says Cody Wilson, who founded Defense Distributed and hand-fired the first 3-D printed gun in May, 2013. The broad recognition of this idea seemed to flip a switch in peoples mindsWe knew that people would make this their own.

Even as the DIY community has refined and remixed 3-D printed guns, its left legislators and regulators in the dust. Congressional efforts last year to place restrictions on printed, plastic weapons within the renewed Undetectable Firearms Act fell flat. That said, the legality of 3-D printing a gun in the United States remains unclear, which explains why most of the gun designers contacted by WIRED declined to comment or wished to do so anonymously.

Despite that legal ambiguity, it took only weeks for digital gunsmiths to improve upon the first fully 3-D printed gun. Defense Distributed printed the first Liberator in May, 2013, using a second-hand refrigerator-sized Stratasys 3-D printer it bought for $8,000. Later that month, a gun enthusiast in Wisconsin riffed on the Liberator to produce a working firearm for far less, using a $1,725 Lulzbot printer with less than $25 in plastic. It fired eight .38-caliber bullets without damage.

Two months later came the first fully 3-D printed rifle, built by a Canadian gunsmith identified only as Matthew. The gun, which he calls the Grizzly, fires .22-caliber bullets. In the video below, it fires three shots. Another clip, since pulled from YouTube, shows him hand-firing it 14 times. Wilson calls the Grizzly the best, first improvement on the Liberator.

The Grizzly, like the Liberator, requires removing the barrel to load a new round after each shot. But less than a month after Matthew unveiled the Grizzly, another gunsmith who calls himself Free-D or Franco test-fired a five-shot derringer revolver he calls the Reprringer. It shoots low-power .22-caliber rounds. Though the tiny revolver isnt entirely 3-D printedit uses 8mm metal tube inserts in each barrel and several screwsits metal components seem to allow for a far more compact design, making the the Reprringer the smallest working 3-D printed gun publicly tested.

The blueprint for that miniature six-shooter, along with dozens of other firearms, gun parts and even explosives like grenades and mortar rounds, are hosted online by FOSSCAD, the Free Open Source Software & Computer Aided Design. The group spun out of Cody Wilsons online gun printing community known as Defcad.

Most of FOSSCADs designs havent been publicly tested, and its loose-knit members are reluctant to reveal their identities. But one anonymous member summed up the groups motivations: First, I like guns, he wrote via instant message. And second, I think you should be able to 3-D print virtually anything you want.

Aside from the Reprringer, the anonymous FOSSCAD member noted another new, proven design that may be far more practicaland have far more serious implicationsthan fully-printed guns: a key part of a semi-automatic weapon called the lower receiver. That part, which comprises most of the body of a gun, is the most regulated element of a firearm. Print a lower receiver, and you can buy the rest of a guns components off the shelf without an ID or waiting period.

See the original post:

How 3-D Printed Guns Evolved Into Serious Weapons in Just One Year

Tour of my Private Library (ear to ear whisper, tapping, page flipping) [Libertarian ASMR 003] – Video

Posted on by


Tour of my Private Library (ear to ear whisper, tapping, page flipping) [Libertarian ASMR 003]
Welcome to my private library, where you can find literally thousands of books on various topics, just waiting to be perused. Learn a little more about the l...

By: Zach Foster

Go here to see the original:

Tour of my Private Library (ear to ear whisper, tapping, page flipping) [Libertarian ASMR 003] - Video

Conversations between Anarchist & Libertarian – Property Rights Pt1 – Video

Posted on by


Conversations between Anarchist Libertarian - Property Rights Pt1
This is a podcast between self identified Anarchist (or Ancom) and American style Libertarian (Ancap). The discussion is about property rights and the different prospectives. There are five...

By: Shayne Hunter

Go here to see the original:

Conversations between Anarchist & Libertarian - Property Rights Pt1 - Video

Libertarian Candidates Hit Record in Virginia

Posted on by

COMMONWEALTH, VA-- You might be hearing about the Libertarian Party more than ever here in the Commonwealth. That's because a record number of of Libertarian candidates are aiming for the 2014 elections.

So far, nine are trying to get to the House of Representatives in multiple districts. Robert Sarvis, who ran for governor last year, will try for Mark Warner's seat. He received around 6.5% of the vote last year, the highest for a third party candidate since 1970. We spoke with Will Hammer, a Staunton resident, who is running for Goodlatte's seat in November. He told us why he thinks his party is catching on the in state.

"I think the people are just getting fed up with the two-party system, people are looking for alternatives, and don't feel like they fit into the cookie-cutter parties."

You can find more information on Hammer at his website, http://www.wmhammer.com.

Go here to read the rest:

Libertarian Candidates Hit Record in Virginia

Anarcho-Capitalists Against Ayn Rand

Posted on by

The New Libertarianism: Anarcho-Capitalism. By J. Michael Oliver, CreateSpace, 2013. 188 pp.

J. Michael Oliver tells us that this remarkable book began as an academic thesis written in 1972 and submitted the next year for a graduate degree at the University of South Carolina. The book is much more than an academic thesis, though; it is a distinguished addition to libertarian thought.

Olivers principal contribution arises from his reaction to two intellectual movements. Like many in the 1960s and 70s, he was attracted to the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. Together with several others in the Objectivist movement, though, Oliver disagreed with the political conclusions that Rand and her inner circle drew from her philosophy. Some students of the philosophy concluded that Rand and the orthodox Objectivists had failed to develop a political theory that followed from the more basic principles of Objectivism. It was at that time that Rands advocacy of limited government began to come under attack from a growing number of deviant objectivists. The libertarian-objectivists ... declared that government, limited or otherwise, is without justification, and that the only social system consistent with mans nature is a non-state, market society, or anarcho-capitalism.

To claim that Rand misconceived the implications of her own philosophy is a daring thesis, but Oliver makes a good case for it. After a succinct account of Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology, and theory of volition, Oliver turns to ethics. Here one feature stands to the fore. Objectivist ethics, as the name suggests, holds that the requirements for human flourishing are objective matters of fact: Objectivists deny that there is any justification for the belief that ethics and values are beyond the realm of fact and reason. Man is, after all, a living being with a particular identity and particular requirements for his life. It is not the case that any actions will sustain his life; only those actions which are consonant with mans well-being will sustain him. Man cannot choose his values at random without reference to himself and still hope to live. This concept applies to an individual man as well as a human society (composed of individuals). Objective values follow from mans identity.

If there are objective requirements for your survival, that is going to be a matter of considerable interest to you; but is that the sum and substance of ethics? This is not the place to examine this question, but, at any rate, one of the arguments Rand used to support her egoist ethics does not succeed. Rand stated the argument in this way: Try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be damaged, injured, or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or lose; it could not regard anything as for it or against it, as serving or threatening its value, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals.

Why is the indestructible robot unable to have values? The answer, according to Rand, is that because the robot cannot be destroyed or damaged, nothing can matter to it. But why does the robots invulnerability imply that nothing matters to it? The answer is that because the purpose of values is to promote ones own survival, indestructibility removes the point of values. If nothing can kill or injure it, it doesnt need to do anything to prevent being killed or injured.

But this isnt an argument at all for ethical egoism: Rands conclusion follows only if one already accepts that the purpose of values is to secure ones own survival. Suppose the robot is altruistic: why would its own invulnerability prevent it from valuing the welfare of others? After all, even Rand doesnt claim that altruism is impossible: she just thinks it is mistaken.

But this is by the way. Much more important for our purposes are the political conclusions Oliver draws from Objectivist ethics. He begins with something Rand herself accepted. Man is a being of choice. Those essential actions, both physical and cognitive, which he must undertake to maintain his being are subject to his volition. Since his life depends upon his capacity to choose, it follows that his life requires the freedom to choose. ... Given that life is the standard of value, it is right that man be free to exercise his choice. The principle of rights as understood by the new libertarians is merely a statement of the fact that if man is to maintain life on the level which his nature permits, then men (in human society) must refrain from violating one anothers freedom.

To protect these rights, Rand thought it necessary to have a limited government, and here is where Oliver diverges from his philosophical mentor. A regime of rights, along the lines Rand sets out, does not at all require an agency, however limited, holding a monopoly on the permissible use of force. Such an agency of necessity violates the very rights Rand advocated. Government, being a coercive monopoly, must prohibit its citizens through the threat of force, from engaging the services of any alternative institution ...

Government then necessarily violates rights; and furthermore, a limited government cannot for long remain limited. The new libertarian concludes that the internal checks and balances on governmental power and the alleged mechanisms for the defense of minorities are ... flimsy constructs. ... Genuine competition, whether from another coercive agency of from a non-coercive business, can serve as the only real limit on State power, and it does so precisely by depriving government of its status as a government. Logically, then, if government exists, it is unlimited and self-determining.

Go here to read the rest:

Anarcho-Capitalists Against Ayn Rand

MountainWest Devops 2014 – Bridging the DevOps Islands with Pantry – Video

Posted on by


MountainWest Devops 2014 - Bridging the DevOps Islands with Pantry
By Jason Roelofs DevOps is a fascinating, quickly growing field. With Chef, Puppet, Ansible, Salt, Packer, Docker, Vagrant, AWS, and others, there are many ways to get an infrastructure up...

By: Confreaks

Originally posted here:

MountainWest Devops 2014 - Bridging the DevOps Islands with Pantry - Video