8:27 pm - Sun, Apr 8, 2012

via Maser

8:19 pm

A video presentation of Dublin in its 1,000th year in 1988.

10:33 pm - Sat, Apr 7, 2012
12:45 am - Thu, Mar 15, 2012
The New York Times, November 10, 1919.
“LONDON,—Efforts made to put in words intelligible to the nonscientific public the Einstein theory of light proved by the eclipse expedition so far have not been very successful.”

The New York Times, November 10, 1919.

“LONDON,—Efforts made to put in words intelligible to the nonscientific public the Einstein theory of light proved by the eclipse expedition so far have not been very successful.”

1:30 am - Sat, Feb 25, 2012

Infographic: Hunger Strikes

via @jilliancyork

7:11 pm - Mon, Feb 20, 2012

Invaders in Tokyo

via sunuq

4:27 pm - Thu, Feb 9, 2012

A MODEST PROPOSAL

“I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that of the hundred and twenty thousand children, already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle, or swine, and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore, one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in sale to the persons of quality and fortune, through the kingdom, always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump, and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.”

A modest proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick.

by Dr. Jonathan Swift, 1729

4:12 pm
Tron gif
via tonechootero

Tron gif

via tonechootero

4:01 pm
More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U.S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443 (1976). This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers. Perhaps, as JUSTICE ALITO notes, some people may find the “tradeoff” of privacy for convenience “worthwhile,” or come to accept this “dimunition of privacy” as “inevitable,” post, at 10, and perhaps not. I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection.
5:36 pm - Sun, Sep 25, 2011

Samuel Beckett

Install Headline