Daily Archives: September 18, 2013

Helba. ~ Ragnarok #Thor ~ ILLUMINATI – Video

Posted: September 18, 2013 at 9:42 pm


Helba. ~ Ragnarok #Thor ~ ILLUMINATI
De bobeira na madrugada upando nos mapas especiais. Oferecimento: Loja Buster Sword: Grupo do facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/bustersword/ Loja: ht...

By: Neto Araújo

Originally posted here:
Helba. ~ Ragnarok #Thor ~ ILLUMINATI - Video

Posted in Illuminati | Comments Off on Helba. ~ Ragnarok #Thor ~ ILLUMINATI – Video

'GTA 5': Multiple 'Grand Theft Auto 5' Easter Eggs Revealed [PHOTOS + VIDEOS]

Posted: at 9:42 pm

The "Grand Theft Auto 5" map below points out the general locations of where you could find multiple "GTA 5" Easter eggs, which include the location of an Alien base, areas where you're likely to experience a Bigfoot sighting, and much more.

"GTA 5" Easter Egg Map

GTA 5 Easter Eggs Map http://www.gta5cheats.com

According to the above "GTA 5" map, an Alien base is located somewhere at the extreme northwest corner. The map also indicates that you could find Bigfoot in one of two general areas: north/northwest of Los Santos and east of what appears to be an airport. Another Bigfoot sighting location is northeast of Los Santos.

If you head directly east of Los Santos, you may encounter "Deer-man," according to the above map. In the mood for a close encounter of the third kind? Head to the extreme northeast portion of the land mass included in "GTA 5" and you could spot a UFO there. Finally, if you're up for a deep sea adventure, the map indicates that the waters directly east of Los Santos County landmass could contain such beasts.

Note that the above Easter egg locations have yet to be substantiated, according to gta5cheats.com. These are unconfirmed Easter eggs, so your mileage may vary.

"GTA 5" Illuminati Easter Egg?

An intrepid "GTA 5" player discovered what may be multiple references to aliens, alien life and the existence or influence of the Illuminati within the game. There's also an achievement, hidden symbols and a message that instructs the player to collect 50 spaceship parts and to "come back once your story is complete," implying that the full Easter egg can't be found until you beat the game. Check out the photo and video below to see and judge for yourself.

GTA 5 Illuminati http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWuTcGWpuo8

"GTA 5" Special Edition Map UV Secret Messages

Read more from the original source:
'GTA 5': Multiple 'Grand Theft Auto 5' Easter Eggs Revealed [PHOTOS + VIDEOS]

Posted in Illuminati | Comments Off on 'GTA 5': Multiple 'Grand Theft Auto 5' Easter Eggs Revealed [PHOTOS + VIDEOS]

Cracking McKinsey: How to Write a Book About the One of the World's Most Secretive Companies

Posted: at 9:42 pm

An interview with the author of The Firm, a new book about the global management-consulting giant

How do you get one of the worlds most secretive business organizations to cooperate with the writing of a book that promises to air plenty of dirty laundry? Apparently, a nod from Jamie Dimon doesnt hurt.

In a conversation with business-spin watcher Jack Flack, author Duff McDonald explains the unique challenges of writing The Firm, a full history the inner workings and impact of McKinsey & Company.

JF:McKinsey is well-known in corporate circles butless so among the general public.What interested you enough to take on a book?

DM:It was Jamie Dimon's idea, in a way. While I was working on my biography of Dimon, we talked a few times of his highly critical view of executives who can't seem to function without expensive management consultants. When he stopped speaking, he took a breath and said, "Except for McKinsey. They're different."

JF:So how do you research a book on an organization that is actually famous for its secrecy?

DM: The same way that you'd research any topic. Though one thing was different. One of the most difficult challenges on most projects is finding people to speak on-the-record while criticizing an individual or a company.But in this case, it was actually the opposite -- it was harder to find satisfied customers to talk. That's part of the whole compact of strategic and management consulting, which is that McKinsey, or any other consultant, doesn't get to publicly claim credit for a great idea. That will always accrue to the CEO.

JF:Given McKinsey's reputation for secrecy, what was your research strategy? Did you start with McKinsey itself, or avoid them as long as you could to fly under the radar?

DM:I spent some time gathering straw before I contacted them - three or four months. But you can only get so far talking to people you can be sure won't alert the subject to your work. It turned out, though, that they'd known all along.I'd told some 21-year-old on a dive boat in Barbados about it, thinking it was a safe move. His father-in-law is a partner at McKinsey. These people are everywhere.

JF: McKinsey is feared by some as today's version of the Illuminati, with tremendous but invisible influence. Did that ever concern you?

Originally posted here:
Cracking McKinsey: How to Write a Book About the One of the World's Most Secretive Companies

Posted in Illuminati | Comments Off on Cracking McKinsey: How to Write a Book About the One of the World's Most Secretive Companies

Cracking McKinsey: How to Write a Book About One of the World's Most Secretive Companies

Posted: at 9:42 pm

An interview with the author of The Firm, a new book about the global management-consulting giant

How do you get one of the worlds most secretive business organizations to cooperate with the writing of a book that promises to air plenty of dirty laundry? Apparently, a nod from Jamie Dimon doesnt hurt.

In a conversation with business-spin watcher Jack Flack, author Duff McDonald explains the unique challenges of writing The Firm, a full history the inner workings and impact of McKinsey & Company.

JF:McKinsey is well-known in corporate circles butless so among the general public.What interested you enough to take on a book?

DM:It was Jamie Dimon's idea, in a way. While I was working on my biography of Dimon, we talked a few times of his highly critical view of executives who can't seem to function without expensive management consultants. When he stopped speaking, he took a breath and said, "Except for McKinsey. They're different."

JF:So how do you research a book on an organization that is actually famous for its secrecy?

DM: The same way that you'd research any topic. Though one thing was different. One of the most difficult challenges on most projects is finding people to speak on-the-record while criticizing an individual or a company.But in this case, it was actually the opposite -- it was harder to find satisfied customers to talk. That's part of the whole compact of strategic and management consulting, which is that McKinsey, or any other consultant, doesn't get to publicly claim credit for a great idea. That will always accrue to the CEO.

JF:Given McKinsey's reputation for secrecy, what was your research strategy? Did you start with McKinsey itself, or avoid them as long as you could to fly under the radar?

DM:I spent some time gathering straw before I contacted them - three or four months. But you can only get so far talking to people you can be sure won't alert the subject to your work. It turned out, though, that they'd known all along.I'd told some 21-year-old on a dive boat in Barbados about it, thinking it was a safe move. His father-in-law is a partner at McKinsey. These people are everywhere.

JF: McKinsey is feared by some as today's version of the Illuminati, with tremendous but invisible influence. Did that ever concern you?

Go here to see the original:
Cracking McKinsey: How to Write a Book About One of the World's Most Secretive Companies

Posted in Illuminati | Comments Off on Cracking McKinsey: How to Write a Book About One of the World's Most Secretive Companies

ECU speaker offers overview of Second Amendment

Posted: at 9:41 pm

Ada The language of the Second Amendment is simple: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Those 27 words are more complicated than they appear and have sparked a national debate over what the amendment means.

Dr. Paul Collins, associate professor of political science at the University of North Texas, spoke about the Second Amendment and its future during a lecture Tuesday at East Central University. He gave students a quick overview of the amendment, summarized key U.S. Supreme Court cases on the subject and predicted how the amendment would fare in the future.

Collins said the first clause of the amendment leads people to believe that it does not protect peoples right to carry firearms unless they serve in a branch of the U.S. military. But he said people who zero in on the second clause conclude that the amendment protects an individual right to carry guns.

For those that put a lot of faith in the preface, it seems to suggest theres no individual right to keep and bear arms, he said. For those that focus on the operative clause and sort of set aside the preface, set aside that justification clause, that gets you to the individual-right interpretation.

ECU hosted the lecture to celebrate Constitution Day, which commemorates the signing of the U.S. Constitution. The colleges Rothbaum Lecture series is funded by an endowment established by the late Julian Rothbaum.

Key cases

The U.S. Supreme Court first tackled Second Amendment issues in 1939, when the court upheld a federal law banning shipments of sawed-off shotguns in interstate commerce. The court declined to strike down the law on Second Amendment grounds without evidence that sawed-off shotguns were linked to preserving a well-regulated militia.

Collins said the courts holding in U.S. v. Miller was the law of the land until 2008, when the justices heard arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller. That case centered on whether the District of Columbia could legally ban handguns.

The Heller decision struck down the districts ban on handguns and upheld an individual right to use firearms for legal purposes, such as self-defense in the home. But the court also said that certain regulations such as barring felons from owning guns are legitimate.

Link:
ECU speaker offers overview of Second Amendment

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on ECU speaker offers overview of Second Amendment

Second Amendment and D.C. slayings

Posted: at 9:41 pm

6:02 p.m.Sept. 18, 2013

Steve Breens Sept. 17 editorial cartoon on the Washington, D.C., shooting asks why, but I think the more pertinent question is how.

The answer is with a gun. If a terrorist group or a foreign country was assassinating our citizens at the rate domestic gun violence is doing it, society would be in an uproar and fighting on all fronts.

Most Americans want reasonable gun control. The framers of The Bill of Rights did not have modern weapons in mind when they drafted the second amendment. This country is being held hostage by the National Rifle Association, which is supported by our senators and representatives. When will enough be enough?

Jennifer Ouellette

San Diego

Steve Swendrowskis request (Letters, Sept. 18) for stronger mental health laws instead of better gun-control laws has become the catchword of the National Rifle Association for some time.

In answer to this, please note once and for all, the person who has a severe mental illness has about a 75 percent chance of killing himself rather than going on a rampage to slaughter others. And if the police in Rhode Island saw the severity of Aaron Alexis delusions and hallucinations, why they did not take him to the nearest psychiatric unit for a complete examination?

As a mental health social worker for 40 years in San Diego, I know the local police have instructions on dealing with this type of situation and if they feel the person is a danger to himself or others, they can act accordingly.

Ray Schwartz

Continued here:
Second Amendment and D.C. slayings

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Second Amendment and D.C. slayings

Clicking 'Like' on Facebook is free speech

Posted: at 9:40 pm

19 September 2013| last updated at 07:55AM

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond reversed a lower court ruling that said merely liking a Facebook page was insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection.

Exactly what a like means if anything played a part in a case involving six people who say Hampton Sheriff B.J. Roberts fired them for supporting an opponent in his 2009 re-election bid, which he won. The workers sued, saying their First Amendment free speech protections were violated.

Roberts said some of the workers were let go because he wanted to replace them with sworn deputies while others were fired because of poor performance or his belief that their actions hindered the harmony and efficiency of the office. One of those workers, Daniel Ray Carter, had liked the Facebook page of Roberts opponent, Jim Adams.

U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson in Norfolk had ruled in April 2012 that while public employees are allowed to speak as citizens on matters of public concern, clicking the like button does not amount to expressive speech. In other words, its not the same as actually writing out a message and posting it on the site.

Go here to read the rest:
Clicking 'Like' on Facebook is free speech

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Clicking 'Like' on Facebook is free speech

Facebook ‘liking’ is protected free speech, federal court says

Posted: at 9:40 pm

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that liking something on Facebook is a form of protected free speech in a closely watched Virginia case that tested the limits of the First Amendment in the digital age.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond rejected a lower courts opinion that clicking the ubiquitous thumbs up icon was not actual speech, an opinion that would have had wide-ranging implications for millions of Facebook users and other new forms of expression on the web if it had stood.

[Liking] is the Internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in ones front yard, which the Supreme Court has held is substantive speech, the three judge panel wrote in their 81-page opinion.

The ruling grew out of a lawsuit brought by Hampton sheriffs deputies, one of whom claimed he was fired for liking the campaign page of his bosss opponent. Daniel Ray Carter, Jr. said the dismissal violated his First Amendment rights in the 2011 suit.

But U.S. District Court Judge Raymond A. Jackson issued a summary judgement against Carter in January 2012, saying liking didnt rise to the level of protected speech. Jackson said Carter needed to have made actual statements to make such a claim.

Facebook and the ACLU filed friend of the court briefs in the case, saying Jacksons ruling would erode free speech rights. In the brief, Facebook said its users register more than 3 billion likes and comments every day.

Facebook users can like a range of content that appears on the social media site from articles to photos to organizations. If a user clicks the thumbs up icon, the content appears on his or her Facebook feed.

The court properly recognized that in an era when so much of our communication takes place through social media liking a political Facebook page is an important means of political expression that deserves First Amendment expression, said Rebecca Glenberg, the ACLU legal director for Virginia.

Go here to see the original:
Facebook ‘liking’ is protected free speech, federal court says

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Facebook ‘liking’ is protected free speech, federal court says

US court: Facebook 'Like' is free speech

Posted: at 9:40 pm

RICHMOND, Virginia - Clicking "Like" on Facebook is constitutionally protected free speech, a US federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond reversed a lower court ruling that said merely "liking" a Facebook page was insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection.

Exactly what a "like" means - if anything - played a part in a case involving six people who say Hampton Sheriff B.J. Roberts fired them for supporting an opponent in his 2009 re-election bid, which he won.

The workers sued, saying their First Amendment free speech protections were violated.

Roberts said some of the workers were let go because he wanted to replace them with sworn deputies while others were fired because of poor performance or his belief that their actions "hindered the harmony and efficiency of the office." One of those workers, Daniel Ray Carter, had "liked" the Facebook page of Roberts' opponent, Jim Adams.

US District Judge Raymond Jackson in Norfolk had ruled in April 2012 that while public employees are allowed to speak as citizens on matters of public concern, clicking the "like" button does not amount to expressive speech. In other words, it's not the same as actually writing out a message and posting it on the site.

Jackson acknowledged that other courts have ruled that Facebook posts are constitutionally protected speech, but he said in those cases there were "actual statements." Simply clicking a button is much different and doesn't warrant First Amendment protection, he wrote.

In his ruling, Jackson acknowledged the need to weigh whether the employee's speech was a substantial factor in being fired. But the judge wrote that the point is moot if "liking" something isn't constitutionally protected speech.

The three-judge appeals court panel disagreed, ruling that:

"[L]iking a political candidate's campaign page communicates the user's approval of the candidate and supports the campaign by associating the user with it. In this way, it is the internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in one's front yard, which the Supreme Court has held is substantive speech."

Read more:
US court: Facebook 'Like' is free speech

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on US court: Facebook 'Like' is free speech

‘Like’ on Facebook is free speech, federal appeals court rules

Posted: at 9:40 pm

RICHMOND, Va. Clicking Like on Facebook is constitutionally protected free speech and can be considered the 21st century-equivalent of a campaign yard sign, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond reversed a lower court ruling that said merely liking a Facebook page was insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection. Exactly what a like means if anything played a part in a Virginia case involving six people who say Hampton Sheriff B.J. Roberts fired them for supporting an opponent in his 2009 re-election bid, which he won. The workers sued, saying their First Amendment rights were violated.

Roberts said some of the workers were let go because he wanted to replace them with sworn deputies while others were fired because of poor performance or his belief that their actions hindered the harmony and efficiency of the office. One of those workers, Daniel Ray Carter, had liked the Facebook page of Roberts opponent, Jim Adams.

U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson in Norfolk had ruled in April 2012 that while public employees are allowed to speak as citizens on matters of public concern, clicking the like button does not amount to expressive speech. In other words, its not the same as actually writing out a message and posting it on the site.

Jackson acknowledged that other courts have ruled that Facebook posts are constitutionally protected speech, but he said in those cases there were actual statements. Simply clicking a button is much different and doesnt warrant First Amendment protection, he wrote. In his ruling, Jackson acknowledged the need to weigh whether the employees speech was a substantial factor in being fired. But the judge wrote that the point is moot if liking something isnt constitutionally protected speech.

The three-judge appeals court panel disagreed, ruling that liking a political candidates campaign page communicates the users approval of the candidate and supports the campaign by associating the user with it. In this way, it is the Internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in ones front yard, which the Supreme Court has held is substantive speech. The case was sent back to the lower court.

Facebook and the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed friend of court briefs in the case, applauded Wednesdays ruling. This ruling rightly recognizes that the First Amendment protects free speech regardless of the venue, whether a sentiment is expressed in the physical world or online, Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, said in a written statement. The Constitution doesnt distinguish between liking a candidate on Facebook and supporting him in a town meeting or public rally.

Read the original post:
‘Like’ on Facebook is free speech, federal appeals court rules

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on ‘Like’ on Facebook is free speech, federal appeals court rules