OT: Unbelievable

General Discussion on any topic relating to CPAP and/or Sleep Apnea.
User avatar
rocklin
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:51 am
Location: NYC

Re: OT: Unbelievable

Post by rocklin » Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:17 pm

NightMonkey wrote:Ditto to that
and i'll drink to that ditto.

uh waiter, check please!

ots can be spectacularly boring (especially political rants), but once in a while they can be fun, and having fun may help you sleep.

p.s.: good to see your nick, nightmonkey, for a while i feared that the pm rumors were true, and that you had indeed eloped with the bassoon player.

p.s.s.: (where the heck is ems; i think I've fallen for the driver, and call regularly)
.
It is easy to be brave from a safe distance - Aesop
.

User avatar
NightMonkey
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:43 pm
Location: Three seats, orchestra right

Re: OT: Unbelievable

Post by NightMonkey » Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:28 pm

rocklin wrote: p.s.: good to see your nick, nightmonkey, for a while i feared that the pm rumors were true, and that you had indeed eloped with the bassoon player.

Sorry, been busy fighting Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council who are backing an amendment to our State constitution prohibiting night monkeys from marrying buffoon players.
NightMonkey
Blow my oropharynx!

the hairy, hairy gent who ran amok in Kent

User avatar
Otter
Posts: 1063
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:02 pm

Re: OT: Unbelievable

Post by Otter » Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:09 pm

BlackSpinner wrote:And far more dangerous are the Girl Guides
Morris felt the need to warn fellow legislators of the organization's corrupting influence. The Girl Scouts, he wrote, is the "tactical arm" of Planned Parenthood. He called it a "radicalized" group with a homosexual agenda that promotes abortion while seeking "the destruction of traditional American values."
Thanks for bringing this to my attention BlackSpinner. I always thought there was something shady about the Girl Scouts, what, with the cookies and all.

_________________
Mask: Quattro™ FX Full Face CPAP Mask with Headgear
Humidifier: S9™ Series H5i™ Heated Humidifier with Climate Control
Additional Comments: Software: SleepyHead 0.9 beta

User avatar
idamtnboy
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:12 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: OT: Unbelievable

Post by idamtnboy » Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:09 pm

Great website w/ lots of info, and opportunity to massage data! http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/#
NightMonkey wrote:Manufacturing output in the U.S. continues to grow rapidly. No one is outpacing our growth and no one is as innovative and productive in manufacturing as the U.S.
Here's another one. The red line is number of employees in manufacturing from 1/1/1962 to 1/1/2012. The blue line is the value of all manufacturing shipments from 1/1/1992 to 1/1/2012 adjusted for consumer purchasing power index.

Image

_________________
Mask: AirFit™ P10 Nasal Pillow CPAP Mask with Headgear
Humidifier: S9™ Series H5i™ Heated Humidifier with Climate Control
Additional Comments: Hose management - rubber band tied to casement window crank handle! Hey, it works! S/W is 3.13, not 3.7

User avatar
rocklin
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:51 am
Location: NYC

Re: OT: Unbelievable

Post by rocklin » Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:18 pm

Otter wrote:I always thought there was something shady about the Girl Scouts, what, with the cookies and all.

Agreed, I never trusted those terroristic cookie pimps.

(as per that droll link)
.
It is easy to be brave from a safe distance - Aesop
.

User avatar
NightMonkey
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:43 pm
Location: Three seats, orchestra right

Re: OT: Unbelievable

Post by NightMonkey » Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:54 pm

idamtnboy wrote:Great website w/ lots of info, and opportunity to massage data!

Nothing massaged at all. The blue line in the graph you posted confirms exactly what was in the graph I posted and exactly what I said - there is no decline in U.S. manufacturing in fact there is excellent long term growth.

However, it is quite well understood by anyone who does a little reading that the number of jobs in manufacturing is in decline. This is due to innovation, automation, and other productivity improvement. (A smaller factor is that manufacturers are using many more contracting companies and many of these jobs which were previously counted as manufacturing are now counted as service industry. For example, a manufacturing plant had their own payroll personnel on site and they were counted as manufacturing employees. They then contracted with a company to issue their payroll and the employees are now counted as service industry.)

Put these two things together, increased productivity and increase output, and you have a very good thing for a country's economy. It is exactly what we want - more goods, higher quality goods, and better money value.

Any government actions against this are very much counterproductive and a restraint on building of wealth for society.

So no massaging necessary; manufacturing in the U.S. is very healthy and on a strong long term growth trend; 600,000 excellent jobs open in manufacturing; and U.S. productivity and innovation is the world's best!

Smile.
NightMonkey
Blow my oropharynx!

the hairy, hairy gent who ran amok in Kent

User avatar
Otter
Posts: 1063
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:02 pm

Re: OT: Unbelievable

Post by Otter » Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:29 pm

NightMonkey wrote:
idamtnboy wrote:Great website w/ lots of info, and opportunity to massage data!

Nothing massaged at all. The blue line in the graph you posted confirms exactly what was in the graph I posted and exactly what I said - there is no decline in U.S. manufacturing in fact there is excellent long term growth.
I think he meant massage as in manipulate, but not manipulate as in alter. You can manipulate the display of data on that site by combining whatever plots you like.

_________________
Mask: Quattro™ FX Full Face CPAP Mask with Headgear
Humidifier: S9™ Series H5i™ Heated Humidifier with Climate Control
Additional Comments: Software: SleepyHead 0.9 beta

User avatar
PST
Posts: 984
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 9:56 pm

Re: OT: Unbelievable

Post by PST » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:03 pm

This OT thread is wandering gloriously from one OT subject to another. In keeping with that tradition:
hades161 wrote:I always try to review a law or bill as close to the source as I can get.
I agree with that 100 percent. It's easy to do these days and it can prevent a lot of arguments.
rocklin wrote:
PST wrote:To the best of my knowledge, no one has used it against open video recording of the police.
What's the difference if the video camera I use to record police misconduct is held openly in my hand, or hidden in my lapel flower?
What I was trying to get at is that most of the concern about the Illinois eavesdropping statute is not about anything it has actually been used for, but instead about what people speculate it could be used for. The statute itself can be found at http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4. ... d=32700000. It's an interesting read, because the language (except for some new amendments) seems quaint now, recalling an age when we worried about hidden microphones. There is nothing in it forbidding video recording of police or anything else, presumably because no one in the state legislature dreamed of iPhones or the like when they passed this anti-bugging law. Some of the draftsmanship is poor, especially the definition of conversation, but it isn't a terrible law in the context of its time considering what it was meant for. Technology caught up with it, however, and it could now be interpreted as forbidding actions that I imagine were far from the minds of those who enacted it. Basically, it defines an eavesdropping device as a "device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation," and then forbids knowingly and intentionally using an eavesdropping device to hear or record a conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation. That's not so crazy. There is always some tension between legitimate goals of privacy and transparency. It creeps me out if I think someone might be secretly recording my words, but I also sometimes wish I had a way to document the facts if someone tries to bully or defraud me. The Illinois act clearly skews to the privacy side, but there is nothing about it to suggest that it was intended to keep anyone from taking videos of police misconduct. That is what people are worried about now: that the law might forbid recording events like the pepper-spraying police officer at Cal Davis, or a Rodney King incident, or other use of excessive force. I agree completely that it would be a good idea to change the law to make this clear, but I have not actually heard of it being used in that way. For what it's worth, even the Chicago Police Superintendent has said publically that people should be free to record police officers performing their public duties. There are now two cases heading for the Illinois Supreme Court in which the statute has been held unconstitutional because it is too broad, an ACLU challenge in the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and a bill pending in the legislature to add an exception to the law confirming that it is legal to record police officers who are on duty and in public. So this seems like a problem that has been blown out of proportion. Technological advances have created the potential for abuse of an old law, but the most feared abuse is still theoretical, and the judicial system and legislature are addressing it.

By the way, does anyone have a link to Judge Sacks's opinion in the Christopher Drew case? I can't find one, and I would like to read it.

User avatar
hades161
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Re: OT: Unbelievable

Post by hades161 » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:58 pm

Only if the bill passes and they are not sure that can get it through.

The bill has 26 co-sponsors, including three Republicans, yet police groups still oppose the bill, and Nekritz is not clear whether she has the necessary 60 votes to pass the legislation in the House.

“We’ve been engaged in discussions with the police groups to try to see if there is some room for coming together,” she said. “I still think we are probably philosophically just going to be on opposite sides of the fence. But we’re trying.” (First Link)

I don't believe for Mr. Drew anyway that things have been blown out of proportion or theoretical in terms of abuse. Nor in fact for Ms. Moore( Second Link)

Yes, cases are heading to the Illinois Supreme Court and the judicial system and legislature may or may not address it. How it turns out is anyone's guess. Again it boils down to faith in the system and if they follow the "Spirit of the Law" or the "Letter of the Law". Also they might wish to stall for after the NATO/G8 summits around the corner to correct things.


http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1100 ... ional.html

http://hosted2.ap.org/PAWIC/APUSnews/Ar ... 74ec676417

P.S. Last response on this, I have not intentionally Hijacked this thread but it's definitely going that way. So I bow out, Sorry Kempo.

_________________
Mask: Swift™ FX Nasal Pillow CPAP Mask with Headgear
Humidifier: S9™ Series H5i™ Heated Humidifier with Climate Control
Additional Comments: I swap out the Swift FX as needed with the Mirage Quatro Full Face with Headgear.
Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught.
Sir Winston Churchill

I’m not asleep… but that doesn’t mean I’m awake.
- Albert Camus

User avatar
rocklin
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:51 am
Location: NYC

Re: OT: Unbelievable

Post by rocklin » Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:58 pm

PST wrote: . . . the Illinois eavesdropping statute is not about anything it has actually been used for, but instead about what people speculate it could be used for.
Please call Mr. Drew and explain to him and his family that, hey, no worries about 15 years in prison, it's just people speculating.

Do the same for Ms. Moore.
.
It is easy to be brave from a safe distance - Aesop
.

ems
Posts: 2757
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:46 am

Re: OT: Unbelievable

Post by ems » Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:37 pm

rocklin wrote:p.s.s.: (where the heck is ems; i think I've fallen for the driver, and call regularly)
Fishing... gone fishin' - sometimes it's just better to stay out of the fray.
If only the folks with sawdust for brains were as sweet and obliging and innocent as The Scarecrow! ~a friend~

User avatar
PST
Posts: 984
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 9:56 pm

Re: OT: Unbelievable

Post by PST » Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:30 pm

rocklin wrote:
PST wrote: . . . the Illinois eavesdropping statute is not about anything it has actually been used for, but instead about what people speculate it could be used for.
Please call Mr. Drew and explain to him and his family that, hey, no worries about 15 years in prison, it's just people speculating.
Do the same for Ms. Moore.
Hi rocklin,

I'm going to call unfair ellipsis on you. What I said was that "most of the concern about the Illinois eavesdropping statute is not about anything it has actually been used for, but instead about what people speculate it could be used for." By that I meant that there are a bunch of newspaper stories claiming that in a few weeks, when the G8 summit comes to town, protesters can be arrested under the eavesdropping law if they attempt to video record what the police are doing. The implication is that we could have 1968 all over again, and that no one dare pull out their iPhones if the cops start wailing on protesters the way they did back in the day. That is the concern I called speculative, both because the law on its face only applies to audio recording of conversations, and because to the best of my knowledge it has not been used in that way. I did not imply that Mr. Drew and Ms. Moore didn't have something serious to worry about.

It is useful, however, to recall the facts of their cases, how different they are from what people are being led to fear, and what the results have been to date for them. Mr. Drew set out to be arrested to protest another law. It took him four tries before anyone bothered. He had a friend with him to record his arrest, which she did, and she posted it on YouTube. It sure looks to me like they did this openly, but you can judge for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72_ZzJC ... ata_player. I live here and have seen nothing in the papers suggesting that Nancy Bechtol, whose name is on the video, go in any hot water about it. However, Mr. Drew was also carrying a digital audio recorder in one of his bags. The Times story notes: "A few feet away, a friend of Mr. Drew's recorded the encounter on a video camera and later posted it on YouTube. At the police station, Mr. Drew's Olympus recorder was discovered. It was still recording." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/us/23 ... wanted=all) So the case involves this bugaboo that forms a common thread for cases under this act, surreptitious recording of events in the police station. Maybe that shouldn't be banned either, but you can understand the police being sensitive to the possibility of the mafia or other organized gang bugging the squad room or tapping its phones. In any event, as we all know, Judge Sacks threw the case out last week, although Mr. Drew isn't out of the woods yet. (I should add that I cannot say with certainty how broad the indictment was in this case, and whether it included the audio recording on the scene. Press accounts can be pretty sloppy, so I'd feel more confident if I could find the opinion.)

Ms. Moore is out of the woods. A jury acquitted her. According to the Times story and the Chicago Sun-Times, she secretly recorded her conversation with police on her Blackberry in the police station. Now she is suing the City of Chicago. (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1000 ... -city.html)

At the risk of being incredibly tedious, I want to point out again what I was contending, and then I, like my damp feline friend, plan to drop this. I'm not out to applaud this law even when confined narrowly to what it appears to have been designed for. I support the proposed amendment. All I was trying to say is that I think stories like that in Russia Today, which is what I responded to originally, are contrived and sensationalistic insofar as they suggest that the law allows protesters to be arrested for taking videos of police conduct, something they plan to do (and have every right to do, in my opinion) during the upcoming G8 summit. This law is aimed at something different.

User avatar
rocklin
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:51 am
Location: NYC

Re: OT: Unbelievable

Post by rocklin » Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:21 pm

PST, I think that understand your points, and pretty much agree (sorry about the unfair ellipsis).

And yes, Russia Today has a very particular axe to grind.

But even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
.

1. If a law is on the books—no matter how unfair and notorious it is—some prosecutor, somewhere, will use it . . . and cause massive havoc in someone's life.

(One of my closest friends is a retired prosecutor, and she has emphasized this point to me over and over again.)

.

2. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

roc

.
.
It is easy to be brave from a safe distance - Aesop
.

User avatar
NightMonkey
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:43 pm
Location: Three seats, orchestra right

Re: OT: Unbelievable

Post by NightMonkey » Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:12 am

rocklin wrote:
1. If a law is on the books—no matter how unfair and notorious it is—some prosecutor, somewhere, will use it . . . and cause massive havoc in someone's life.

(One of my closest friends is a retired prosecutor, and she has emphasized this point to me over and over again.)

.

2. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

roc

.
Liberals should be ashamed to admit that they don't care about that one individual who has his life and liberty stripped by government. Liberals will carp all day about group rights while individuals suffer at their feet. Disgusting and immoral.
NightMonkey
Blow my oropharynx!

the hairy, hairy gent who ran amok in Kent

ems
Posts: 2757
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:46 am

Re: OT: Unbelievable

Post by ems » Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:27 am

NightMonkey wrote:Liberals should be ashamed to admit that they don't care about that one individual who has his life and liberty stripped by government. Liberals will carp all day about group rights while individuals suffer at their feet. Disgusting and immoral.
NightMonkey... now that's a ridiculous thing to say if I'm reading this correctly. I do care (very much) about the "individual" as well as "group rights"!
If only the folks with sawdust for brains were as sweet and obliging and innocent as The Scarecrow! ~a friend~