People who bought houses near National Airport once again complaining that "OMG! Airplanes can be noisy!" Once again attempting to limit flights. Here's the link

Posted by mikki at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

But I like it anyway

Sorry, Absinthe Trippers: Scientists Say You're Just Really Drunk | Wired Science from Wired.com:


The long-cherished idea that absinthe, an anise-flavored alcoholic beverage with a history of use by artists like Van Gogh and Picasso, is or ever was hallucinogenic might have met its death by data today.
German scientists put old bottles of the substance to the test and found that the liquid is 70 percent alcohol (140 proof) and 0 percent hallucination.
"All things considered, nothing besides ethanol was found in the absinthes that was able to explain the syndrome 'absinthism'," the researchers wrote in an open-access paper in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 
Absinthe, widely known as the 'Green Fairy' was banned across Europe in the early 20th century after it became the purported cause of absinthism, the symptoms of which included hallucinations, tremors and convulsions. It turns out that absinthism was probably just alcoholism.
Absinthe so scared the responsible adults of the world that only in the last few years was the substance allowed back onto the market. But when people failed to report excellent trips, arguments sprung up about whether or not the new absinthe was chemically equivalent to the old stuff.
The researchers took a systematic look at 13 samples of pre-ban absinthe and measured their levels of thujone, the active chemical component in the drink's famed wormwood. They found them to be no higher than today's licorice-tasting brew.
“Today it seems a substantial minority of consumers want these myths to be true, even if there is no empirical evidence that they are,” said the study's lead author Dirk Lachenmeier in a release. “It is hoped that this paper will go some way to refute at least the first of these myths, conclusively demonstrating that the thujone content of a representative selection of pre-ban absinthe... fell within the modern EU limit.”
UPDATE: In the comments, Herbal Ed brings up a good point, saying "It sounds like they're not considering that thujone from the wormwood (Artemisia absinthium) has probably broken down in to other components." I should have included this tidbit from the latter half of the paper in which the authors say they "have not found any evidentiary or investigative support for ... the proposition that thujone content changes in bottle, as a result of aging or other environmental factors."
Image: Courtesy of Dirk Lachenmeier, showing the implements of their absinthe sampling process, including a vintage bottle of Pernod Fils, a popular pre-ban absinthe brand.
See Also: A fantastic Wired article -- "The Mystery of the Green Menace" -- on Ted Breaux, one of Lachenmeier's collaborators for the most recent study.

Posted by mikki at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Small Firm Business - Two of Three Attorneys Facing Trial for Fen-Phen Case Ask for Delay:


Two of three lawyers facing federal mail fraud charges in a diet drug lawsuit settlement want more time to prepare their defense.

Attorneys William Gallion and Shirley Cunningham Jr. are scheduled for trial May 12 in Covington, Ky., along with fellow lawyer Melbourne Mills Jr.

The Lexington Herald-Leader reported on its Web site Friday that now Gallion and Cunningham have filed motions, asking for a continuance.

Gallion's motion says documents he needs to defend himself are missing.

Cunningham claims his defense needs more time to review records.

The attorneys are accused of bilking clients out of at least $42 million from a settlement awarded in a class action fen-phen lawsuit.

Posted by mikki at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Crawford and ID Creep:

Thanks to the Concurring Opinions gang for inviting me back for another visit!

I will leave it to the likes of the incredible Rick Hasen and SCOTUSBlog’s Lyle Deniston — among many, many others — to talk about the important election law elements of Monday’s Supreme Court decision on voter identification in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. But if you are a hammer everything is a nail, and if you are a privacy scholar every newspaper story is about privacy. And the privacy implications here are rather clear.

Quite appropriately, the case was briefed, argued, and decided on the basis of the burden that Indiana’s identification requirements placed (or didn’t place) on the right to vote. The seminal cases were Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, which held the poll tax unconstitutional, and its progeny. Other key sources cited in the opinions included the Carter-Baker Commission report and two recent federal electoral reform statutes, the motor voter law and the Help America Vote Act. The burdens considered by both the lead opinion and the dissents were pragmatic ones, largely monetary cost and inconvenience.

What about privacy burdens?

Election law doctrine does not leave much room for their consideration. In other contexts, identification requirements are viewed as potential privacy intrusions. The continuing controversy and the backlash in state legislatures against the federal Real ID Act (see, e.g., here and here) is one such area. Likewise, the 2004 decision in Hiibel, though it upheld state “stop-and-identify” laws allowing police officers to demand that a suspect disclose his or her name, was also analyzed primarily as a privacy issue.

But in Crawford, there is no mention of the privacy impact of turning voting into yet another important activity that you cannot accomplish without “showing your papers.” And since it is now basically impossible to board an aircraft, enter a federal building, or cash a check without showing ID, voter ID requirements become just another event in an accelerating trend toward an ID society.

I’m not necessarily saying that Crawford was wrongly decided. But it is remarkable that “ID creep” has played such a small role in both the legal argument and the news coverage related to this controversial case. Indeed, I suspect that crabwise movement toward a de facto ID requirement, through individual rules that necessitate ID in more and more settings, is worse than a straightforward debate on a national ID card. Great Britain is going through that debate now (see, e.g., here and here); if the end result is a true national ID then at least all the arguments for and against will be fully aired. Just a thought.

[Cross-posted at Concurring Opinions.]

Posted by mikki at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Full story

The COFEE, which stands for Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor, is a USB "thumb drive" that was quietly distributed to a handful of law-enforcement agencies last June. Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith described its use to the 350 law-enforcement experts attending a company conference Monday.

The device contains 150 commands that can dramatically cut the time it takes to gather digital evidence, which is becoming more important in real-world crime, as well as cybercrime. It can decrypt passwords and analyze a computer's Internet activity, as well as data stored in the computer.

It also eliminates the need to seize a computer itself, which typically involves disconnecting from a network, turning off the power and potentially losing data. Instead, the investigator can scan for evidence on site.

More than 2,000 officers in 15 countries, including Poland, the Philippines, Germany, New Zealand and the United States, are using the device, which Microsoft provides free.

Posted by mikki at 08:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Atheist soldier claims harassment - CNN.com:


JUNCTION CITY, Kansas (AP) -- Like hundreds of young men joining the Army in recent years, Jeremy Hall professes a desire to serve his country while it fights terrorism.


Spc. Jeremy Hall says the pressure to believe in God is so strong, "I was ashamed to say that I was an atheist."

But the short and soft-spoken specialist is at the center of a legal controversy. He has filed a lawsuit alleging that he's been harassed and his constitutional rights have been violated because he doesn't believe in God. The suit names Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

"I'm not in it for cash," Hall said. "I want no one else to go what I went through."

Known as "the atheist guy," Hall has been called immoral, a devil worshipper and -- just as severe to some soldiers -- gay, none of which, he says, is true. Hall even drove fellow soldiers to church in Iraq and paused while they prayed before meals.

"I see a name and rank and United States flag on their shoulder. That's what I believe everyone else should see," he said.

Hall, 23, was raised in a Protestant family in North Carolina and dropped out of school. It wasn't until he joined the Army that he began questioning religion, eventually deciding that he couldn't follow any faith.

But he feared how that would look to other soldiers.

"I was ashamed to say that I was an atheist," Hall said.

It eventually came out in Iraq in 2007, when he was in a firefight. Hall was a gunner on a Humvee, which took several bullets in its protective shield. Afterward, his commander asked whether he believed in God, Hall said.

"I said, 'No, but I believe in Plexiglas,' " Hall said. "I've never believed I was going to a happy place. You get one life. When I die, I'm worm food."

The issue came to a head when, according to Hall, a superior officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, threatened to bring charges against him for trying to hold a meeting of atheists in Iraq. Welborn has denied Hall's allegations.

Hall said he had had enough but feared that he wouldn't get support from Welborn's superiors. He turned to Mikey Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

Weinstein is the foundation's president and a U.S. Air Force Academy graduate. He had sued the Air Force for acts he said illegally imposed Christianity on students at the academy, though that case was dismissed. He calls Hall a hero.

"The average American doesn't have enough intestinal fortitude to tell someone to shut up if they are talking in a movie theater," Weinstein said. "You know how hard it is to take on your chain of command? This isn't the shift manager at KFC."

Hall was in Qatar when the lawsuit was filed September 18 in federal court in Kansas City, Kansas. Other soldiers learned of it, and he feared for his own safety. Once, Hall said, a group of soldiers followed him, harassing him, but no one did anything to make it stop.

The Army told him it couldn't protect him and sent him back to Fort Riley. He resumed duties with a military police battalion. He believes that his promotion to sergeant has been blocked because of his lawsuit, but he is a team leader responsible for two junior enlisted soldiers.

No one with Fort Riley, the Army or that Defense Department would comment about Hall or the lawsuit. Each issued statements saying that discrimination will not be tolerated regardless of race, religion or gender.

"The department respects [and supports by its policy] the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs," said Eileen Lainez, a spokeswoman for the Department of Defense.

All three organizations said existing systems help soldiers "address and resolve any perceived unfair treatment."

Lt. Col. David Shurtleff, a Fort Riley chaplain, declined to discuss Hall's case but said chaplains accommodate all faiths as best they can. In most cases, religious issues can be worked out without jeopardizing military operations.

"When you're in Afghanistan and an IED blows up a Humvee, they aren't asking about a wounded soldier's faith," Shurtleff said.

Hall said he enjoys being a team leader but has been told that having faith would make him a better leader.

"I will take care of my soldiers. Nowhere does it say I have to pray with my soldiers, but I do have to make sure my soldiers' religious needs are met," he said.

"Religion brings comfort to a lot of people," he said. "Personally, I don't want it or need it. But I'm not going to get down on anybody else for it."

Hall leaves the Army in April 2009. He would like to find work with the National Park Service or Environmental Protection Agency, anything outdoors.

"I hope this doesn't define me," Hall said of his lawsuit. "It's just about time somebody said something."

Posted by mikki at 12:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Lawmakers back bill to ban genetic discrimination at work - CNN.com:


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Lawmakers have agreed to make it illegal for employers and insurance companies to deny applicants jobs and health care coverage because DNA tests show they are genetically disposed to a disease.


Supporters of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act said Wednesday that the Senate planned to vote on it Thursday. The House also is likely to give quick approval to the bill, sending it to President Bush for his signature.

A similar bill passed the House by a 420-3 vote a year ago. The White House, at the time, indicated its support for the legislation.

Sponsors reached an agreement Tuesday with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, who had been blocking Senate action on the bill.

The compromise tightens language to ensure there is a "firewall" between the part dealing with health plans and the section regarding employment so as to discourage inappropriate claims.

It also makes clear that, while individuals are protected from discrimination based on genetic predisposition, insurance companies still have the right to base coverage and pricing on the actual presence of a disease.

Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts; and Reps. Mike Enzi, R-Wyoming, and Louise Slaughter, D-New York, have been pushing the issue for years, asserting that dramatic advances in genetic research make it crucial that people are protected from discrimination.

Snowe noted that nearly 32 percent of women offered a genetic test for breast cancer risk by the National Institutes of Health declined because of concerns about health insurance discrimination.

"Like discrimination based on race and gender, genetic discrimination is based on the unchangeable and -- because the information must be sought out by the offender -- is equally offensive," she said.

Kennedy said the bill will "unlock the extraordinary potential of this new era of the life sciences."

The legislation forbids sponsors of health coverage from requesting or using genetic information to adjust premiums or to determine eligibility.

It would prohibit employers from using genetic information in hiring, firing, assignment or promotion decisions.

The Senate unanimously passed versions in 2003 and 2005, but the House didn't take up the issue until last year, when Democrats took control of both houses.

Slaughter said she had introduced the first version of the legislation 13 years ago. "Since no one is born with perfect genes, each one of us is a potential victim of genetic discrimination," she said.

Sharon Terry, president of the advocacy group the Coalition for Genetic Fairness, said that when she started working on the issue 13 years ago, there were only a few single-gene disorders in play. Now, she said, genetic information is essential to research major diseases such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease or afflictions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

She said there are many people, such as those with colon cancer in their families, who want to enroll in clinical studies but don't because of fear of discrimination. "They call us with lots of heartbreaking stories, and they are not willing to go public with those stories," she said

Posted by mikki at 08:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I can't believe a court would go along with this crap.

Border Agents Can Search Laptops Without Cause, Appeals Court Rules | Threat Level from Wired.com:


Federal agents at the border do not need any reason to search through travelers' laptops, cell phones or digital cameras for evidence of crimes, a federal appeals court ruled Monday, extending the government's power to look through belongings like suitcases at the border to electronics.
The unanimous three-judge decision reverses a lower court finding that digital devices were "an extension of our own memory" and thus too personal to allow the government to search them without cause. Instead, the earlier ruling said, Customs agents would need some reasonable and articulable suspicion a crime had occurred in order to search a traveler's laptop.
On appeal, the government argued that was too high a standard, infringing upon its right to keep the country safe and enforce laws. Civil rights groups, joined by business traveler groups, weighed in, defending the lower court ruling.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the government, finding that the so-called border exception to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches applied not just to suitcases and papers, but also to electronics.
The ruling (.pdf) came in a case where customs agents searched the laptop of Michael Arnold who was returning from the Philippines. They found images they believed to be child pornography, seized the laptop and later arrested him. While the lower court ruling excluded from trial the pictures of young boys the government says it found on the hard drive, they now can be used again.
The panel chose to follow the reasoning of a similar case from the 4th Circuit, known as Ickes (.pdf), which held that the government did not need any reason to search a vehicle crossing the border.
The 9th's ruling did not, however, clarify whether a traveler has to help the government search his computer, by providing the login information, or what would happen when the government decided to search a laptop with encrypted data on the drive. The defendant in the case can appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Court is unlikely to take up an issue that two separate appeals courts have agreed upon.
In the meantime, travelers should be aware that anything on their mobile devices can be searched by government agents, who may also seize the devices and keep them for weeks or months. When in doubt, think about whether online storage or encryption might be tools you should use to prevent the feds from rummaging through your journal, your company's confidential business plans or naked pictures of you and your-of-age partner in adult fun.
The case is Arnold vs. USA

Posted by mikki at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A homeless man has found confidential blueprints for New York's new Freedom Tower dumped in a city rubbish bin. Mike Fleming handed the documents - marked "Secure Document - Confidential" in to the New York Post newspaper. The Freedom Tower is being built at Ground Zero, to replace the World Trade Centre towers destroyed on 9/11. A spokeswoman apologised for the security breach and said that anyone found responsible would be liable for "serious disciplinary action".

More at the BBC News

Posted by mikki at 01:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)