Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz recently reported that some "Fox journalists" believe that colleague Glenn Beck "uses distorted or inflammatory rhetoric that undermines their credibility." Nevertheless, Fox News' reporters and "news" programs have routinely promoted and echoed Beck on stories such as the 9-12 Project, tea party protests, ACORN and former White House officials Van Jones and Anita Dunn.

Kurtz: Some "Fox journalists" worried Beck "undermines their credibility"

From Kurtz's March 15 Washington Post column:

In just over a year, Glenn Beck's blinding burst of stardom has often seemed to overshadow the rest of Fox News.

And that may not be a good thing for the top-rated cable news channel, as many of its staffers are acutely aware.

With his celebrity fueled by a Time cover story, best-selling books, cheerleading role at protest rallies and steady stream of divisive remarks, Beck is drawing big ratings. But there is a deep split within Fox between those -- led by Chairman Roger Ailes -- who are supportive, and many journalists who are worried about the prospect that Beck is becoming the face of the network.

By calling President Obama a racist and branding progressivism a "cancer," Beck has achieved a lightning-rod status that is unusual even for the network owned by Rupert Murdoch. And that, in turn, has complicated the channel's efforts to neutralize White House criticism that Fox is not really a news organization. Beck has become a constant topic of conversation among Fox journalists, some of whom say they believe he uses distorted or inflammatory rhetoric that undermines their credibility.

[...]

Friction between opinionated cable personalities and journalists has also flared occasionally at MSNBC. But Beck has caused such anguish at Fox that some of its journalists celebrated the failure of last week's interview with embattled ex-congressman Eric Massa, which Beck pronounced a waste of time.

[...]

One thing is beyond debate: Beck provides a strong lead-in for the network's evening lineup. "The significance of Beck to Fox's bottom line cannot be underestimated," says Tyndall, the industry analyst. "Getting an audience that size at 5 p.m. is absolutely unheard of."

But that growth has come at a price, at least for those at Fox who believe that Beck is beginning to define their brand. Glenn Beck is a media phenomenon married to a phenomenally successful network, but away from the cameras, theirs is a troubled relationship.

The New York Times reported on October 11, 2009, that Fox News claims its news hours are objective and defined as "9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays." Those weekday hours include America's Newsroom, Happening Now, America Live, Studio B, Special Report, and The Fox Report. America Live replaced Live Desk in early 2010.

"News" division takes cues from Beck on ACORN tapes

Beck brings ACORN videos to Fox. On the September 9, 2009, edition of his Fox News program, Beck previewed an "exclusive" that would air on his program the next day, which he claimed would make "things change a lot for those in power." Beck later aired snippets of a video from James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles in which they entered the Baltimore office of ACORN. Beck suggested the video was the "exclusive stuff" that he predicted the media would be "talking about" instead of health care. On September 10, Beck interviewed Giles and credited Andrew Breitbart with starting the story. On September 15, Beck again hosted O'Keefe for a "one-hour special." Beck continued pushing subsequent ACORN videos from O'Keefe and Giles in the following months. Investigations later found significant problems with the ACORN tapes and cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing.

Fox "news" programs follow Beck's lead, seize on ACORN videos. Following Beck's "exclusive" preview, on September 10, 2009, through 7 p.m., Fox News dedicated at least 17 segments to the ACORN video. Fox "news" programs covering the video included: America's Newsroom; Happening Now; Live Desk; and Special Report.

Fox "news" programs hype Beck-promoted San Bernardino ACORN tapes. On September 15 and 16, 2009, Fox "news" programs devoted significant programming to O'Keefe and Giles' video of their interactions with an ACORN worker in San Bernardino, CA, who claimed that she murdered her husband and gave advice on how to run a brothel. The worker stated after the video was released that she hadn't murdered her husband -- which was confirmed by police -- and was attempting to "shock them as much as they were shocking me." Live Desk teased the video, with co-host Martha MacCallum stating: "We can now tell you that you are going to see yet another big development in the ACORN story. Another tape is expected to come out tonight after 5 p.m." -- a reference to Glenn Beck's program. At 5 p.m., Beck devoted a "special program" to the San Bernardino video. Following Beck, Special Report and America's Newsroom ran reports on the video.

Fox News Sunday devoted 18 minutes, over two consecutive broadcasts, to ACORN controversy. In September, Fox News Sunday devoted a total of 18 minutes of programming time on two consecutive broadcasts to covering the ACORN tapes. During his September 20 broadcast, host Chris Wallace conducted an interview with ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) to discuss the story. During the September 27 broadcast of the program, Wallace aired a segment on O'Keefe, in which he advanced several of O'Keefe's claims without noting that they are contradicted by readily available evidence and labeled O'Keefe the "Power Player of the Week."

"News" division follows Beck's lead on bogus Dunn controversy

Beck pushed concocted story that Dunn "worships" and "revere[s]" Mao Zedong. Throughout his October 15, 2009, program, Beck claimed that then-White House communications director Anita Dunn "worships" and "idolizes" "her hero" Mao Zedong. As evidence, Beck aired a video in which Dunn cited two of her "favorite political philosophers," Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa during a speech to high school graduates. However, Dunn offered no endorsement of Mao's ideology or actions -- rather, she spoke of Mao and Mother Teresa as two of her favorite "political philosophers," and based on short quotes from them, she offered the advice that "you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths" or "let external definition define how good you are internally." Indeed, admiration" for Mao and that President Obama has "surrounded himself with Mao supporters."

Special Report followed Beck's lead in highlighting Dunn's "Mao" comments. On October 19, 2009, Fox News' Special Report aired a truncated clip of Dunn's Mao quote, and Fox News contributor Brit Hume responded: "Well, she also said that this is the two people she turns to most. This doesn't sound like it was a one-off attempt to make a joke and imitate the Republican strategist Lee Atwater."

"News" division follows Beck's campaign against Van Jones

Beck led the charge against Van Jones. Beck repeatedly attacked then-White House green jobs adviser Van Jones. Beck has falsely accused Van Jones of being a "convicted felon," misleadingly stated that Jones' place in the Obama administration "says that the president has an agenda that is radical, revolutionary, and in some cases, Marxist." A September 6, 2009, New York Times article stated that "[c]hief among those keeping the story alive was Glenn Beck, the conservative host of a Fox News Channel program. Mr. Beck began criticizing Mr. Jones in July, first in segments on his syndicated talk radio show and then, on July 23, on his Fox News program, said Christopher Balfe, the president of Mr. Beck's production company."

"News" division picks up Jones "controversy." On September 3, 2009, America's Newsroom, Live Desk, and Special Report ran segments on the "controversy" over Jones. Fox News dispatched at least two reporters, Molly Henneberg and James Rosen, to the Van Jones story. For instance, America's Newsroom's Megyn Kelly said Jones has a "somewhat radical and sometimes racially-charged past," and asked Henneberg if Jones "described himself as a communist." Kelly further wondered how Jones became a "czar." From America's Newsroom:

Live Desk covered Jones' past remarks with Rosen and promoted the results of a non-scientific poll finding that 97 percent of Fox News viewers aren't "satisfied with Van Jones' apology" for past remarks:

On Special Report, host Bret Baier introduced a report by Rosen by stating that there's a "troubling pattern of behavior by one of the president's top advisers [Jones]" and later concluded, "We'll see if the national hoo-rah develops" over Jones.

Van Jones resigns; Beck and Fox "stories" receive credit. On September 6, 2009, Jones resigned, citing that he "cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past." The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim noted that "[b]efore Beck mentioned Jones in the last few weeks on his Fox News television show, Jones remained an obscure figure in the administration. After Beck mentioned him, protesters at town hall meetings made Jones a staple of their complaints." In an October 28, 2009, speech (retrieved from the Congressional Record) on the House floor, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) said: "Fox reports the stories that the national media ignore. For example, without Fox News, you might not have heard about the recent ACORN scandal. You might not have heard about the troubling political associations of the President's former green jobs czar, which eventually led to his resignation."

Wallace: It is "certainly the case that Van Jones had a history as a radical, as a self-professed communist." In a panel discussion about Jones' resignation on the September 6, 2009, edition of Fox News Sunday, Wallace stated that "it certainly is the case that Van Jones had a history as a radical, as a self-professed communist, and also, the fact that is -- that he signed a 2004 petition suggesting that there be an investigation of whether or not the government had a role in 9/11."

News division continues to track Jones post-resignation. Fox News' Special Report has continued to discuss Van Jones despite his White House resignation. Since Jones' resignation, according to Nexis, Special Report has mentioned Van Jones on February 25, February 24, October 19, October 6, September 28, September 16, and September 10.

"News" division promotes Beck's 9-12 special and rally

Beck started conservative 9-12 Project, whose members helped organize 9-12 protests. On March 13, 2009, during his "You Are Not Alone" special, Beck announced the launch of his 9-12 Project, whose members helped organize and turn out participants to a protest on September 12, 2009. Beck routinely implored his audience to attend the Washington, D.C. rally on his Fox News show. Beck then aired a special edition of his television show live from 1 to 3 p.m. ET on Fox News on September 12.

Happening Now promotes Beck's original 9-12 Project special. On March 13, 2009, Happening Now hosted Beck to promote his special. From Happening Now:

Live Desk promotes Beck's original special as "the place to be." On the March 13, 2009, edition of Live Desk, co-host Trace Gallagher started a countdown to Beck's special and said Beck's show is "gathering steam across the country." Co-host Martha MacCallum added that Beck's special is "the place to be this Friday night." Gallagher said that Beck's first principle is "America is good and we seemed to have forgotten that." Gallagher interviewed Beck live outside Fox News' offices while he and Fox News graphics repeatedly promoted the special:

Wallace: "I'm a big Glenn Beck fan." On the March 13, 2009, edition of Fox News' Studio B, while discussing Beck's special, Wallace said he sensed that Fox News host Shepard Smith was "begrudging" Glenn Beck and that he himself is a "big Glenn Beck fan" and is "on the Glenn Beck bandwagon."

Fox News heavily promoted the Beck-fueled 9-12 rally. Fox News heavily promoted the 9-12 Tea Party rally and the Tea Party Express tour, whose last stop was on September 12 in Washington. For instance, during the August 23, 2009, edition of America's News HQ, host and reporter Shannon Bream said, "We want to let folks know" the Tea Party Express' schedule so "they can be a part" of the events. And on August 28, 2009, Fox News dispatched reporters Griff Jenkins and William La Jeunesse to the Tea Party Express kickoff in Sacramento, California. Jenkins also reported from the 9-12 rally for Beck's special; a Fox News producer was caught encouraging the crowd to cheer during Jenkins' report.

"News" division heavily promotes April 15 Tea Parties -- featuring Glenn Beck

Beck promotes, hosts a "FNC Tax Day" Tea Party. While discussing the April 15, 2009, Tea Party protests on his April 6, 2009, program, Glenn Beck suggested that viewers could "[c]elebrate with Fox News" by either attending a protest or watching it on Fox News. Beck stated that in addition to himself, hosts Neil Cavuto, Greta Van Susteren, and Sean Hannity would be "live" at different protests. While Beck spoke, on-screen text labeled those protests as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." In the lead-up to April 15, Beck repeatedly promoted the tea parties and urged viewers to attend them.

Like Beck, Fox "news" programs repeatedly urged attendance at tea parties. In the lead-up to the April 15, 2009, tea parties, Fox's "news" programs and anchors frequently aired segments publicizing and encouraging viewers to get involved with the protests. For instance, Special Report host Baier noted the URL of TaxDayTeaParty.com and stated that the protests have been "largely ignored by the mainstream media," while America's Newsroom frequently hosted tea party organizers and posted on-screen organizing information, such as protest dates and locations. Host Bill Hemmer also repeatedly directed viewers to the show's section on the Fox News website, which posted a list of tea party protests. The following are some of the graphics America's Newsroom aired to promote the April 15 tea parties:

Hemmer promotes Beck's appearance at the Alamo. While guest-hosting the April 12, 2009, edition of Fox News Watch, news anchor Hemmer promoted Beck's appearance at the Alamo tea party, stating:

HEMMER: While the mainstream is ignoring the tea party movement, here at the Fox News Channel, we're gearing up to bring you special coverage of the events all across the country. Sean Hannity is in Atlanta. Glenn Beck is at the Alamo. Where else would he be? San Antonio. Neil Cavuto is live in Sacramento and Greta is in Washington, D.C.

Can't get to a tea party? Fox Nation hosts a virtual tea party. You can check it out on the site for the location of a tea party in your area. Again, that is Wednesday, the 15th of April.

A few years back, UK law firm Davenport Lyons made a splash by sending out a ton of "pre-settlement" letters to people accused of file sharing, threatening to sue them if they didn't pay a few hundred pounds. The law firm used a default judgment (i.e., a case where the defendant didn't show up) to claim that it had the law on its side and would sue and win. Of course, an investigation into the thousands of letters being sent found that plenty of innocent bystanders were being sent those letters as well -- which certainly raised all sorts of questions about the legitimacy of the effort. The negative publicity resulted in some high profile Davenport Lyons customers backing out of their relationship, and eventually a new entity called ACS:Law to pop up to continue the effort -- though, an investigation found that the documents used by ACS:law were created by Davenport Lyons.

Despite many calls for sanctions against the lawyers for taking part in an effort that has remarkable similarities to a traditional shakedown scheme, there had been little response from regulators. However Marcus alerts us to the news that two Davenport Lyons lawyers have now been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I'm not quite sure how this process works in the UK, but it seems like it's about time that someone was checking in on these activities.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

You can limit number of simultaneously running builds in a build configuration on the General serttings page.

 

>> Thanks !!!  This should address my issue.

 

BTW it is useful to have several builds running simultaneously because it simplifies investigation of possible test failures - the lesser number changes in each build - the faster you can find the cause of the failure.

 

 

>>  I actually don't understand why you would want several builds simultaneously running (see pic above)...like "B" starting to run without "A" having finished. If "A" fails, 99.9% of the time "B" will in turn fail. So would you not agree that it was a waste of processing power (and the waste of an Agent) to be running "B" in the first place without waiting for "A" to finish? In particular when you have long running builds...this is not an issue really if builds are 5 mins long, but in this case they are 45 mins long.

 

Seems to me that the TC default is 0 for "Limit the number of simultaneously running builds (0 - unlimited)" is that correct. If so why is it this (why not 1)

 

Am I missing a key concept here?

 

Thanks for your feedback.

 

 

CK

Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, who had a sexual assault allegation filed against him last week in Midgeville, Ga., has yet to meet with authorities there.

In early February reviews of hot new streaming TV site TVGorge.com started appearing.

“If you’re outside of the US and sick of not being able to see good TV online or just tired of waiting for Hulu to get your favorite shows, you’ll want to check out TVGorge and its huge archive of shows,” wrote Lifehacker.

“The amount – and quality – of the content on TVGorge is nothing short of impressive,” wrote TechCrunch. “All episodes from all eight seasons of 24 are on there, for instance, in addition to dozens of episodes of shows like Californication, 30 Rock, Heroes, Lost, CSI, Mad Men, Grey’s Anatomy, The Simpsons, and so on. I counted 128 TV shows on the site.”

TVGorge was an indexing service and didn’t carry any material on its own servers. The site’s engine found sources for new TV episodes stored on other sites and either embedded or linked to the videos found. Users flagged broken links and also added their own links to TV shows.

The videos available via TVGorge came with no geo-lockouts, meaning that anyone worldwide could enjoy them without being bugged by “this show is not available in your area” type messages.

In total TVGorge linked to approximately 5500 episodes, 10,000 embedded videos, offered 60,000 external links, and reached 3 million people a month.

While nearly every review of the site was positive, most contained an element of doubt. Is TVGorge actually legal? Could it survive longer term? The general consensus was ‘no’ and ‘no’. Although it could be argued that the answer to the first question is still possibly up for debate, the latter proved fairly accurate.

Around a week ago, TorrentFreak received information that TVGorge was being threatened with legal action. At that stage the site was still fully operational, but very quickly the situation changed. We are now able to confirm that TVGorge was ordered to cease and desist by the MPAA on behalf of the companies they represent.

“TVGorge has recently been advised to remove all of our indexed content,” said the site’s operators in a statement.

“We understand content owners have a need to protect their content and we can only hope they take the initiative to provide easy access to all of their great TV shows at an international level. If anything, hopefully we have shown them that people are desperately looking for a place to watch their favourite TV shows.”

The site’s operators are remaining upbeat and say they will continue to index streaming sources for the TV shows they list, but of course, these will now link to authorized sources instead with the same restrictions that drove people to sites like TVGorge in the first place.

The new sources for TV shows are slightly less exciting….

Nevertheless, TVGorge won’t stagnate. The site will take on a new shape by becoming a TV guide featuring breaking news, forums, episode guides, TV schedules, show and episode reviews and linking to or embedding authorized sources from around the world.

Although TVGorge’s legal woes may be over, TorrentFreak has been informed that many other streaming sites are also currently the subject of legal threats and unwanted attention.

Considering the seriousness of the situation it would be irresponsible for us to publish the information we have been given without absolute confirmation, but we are told that in one particular case in a European country, a police investigation is underway against a major site. We asked the site and its host questions, particularly since the news we received corresponded directly with some site downtime, but the responses we received were generally pretty vague.

It may well be that their hands are tied. Time will tell.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Right-wing media have falsely accused Democrats of hypocrisy for considering the use of a legislative procedure known as a self-executing rule to finalize health care reform in the House. Those media have falsely claimed Democrats criticized Republicans' use of a self-executing rule in 2006. In fact, those Democrats did not criticize the 2006 bill because it was passed using that process, but rather because the version of the bill passed by the House differed substantively from the version signed by President Bush.

Conservatives distort 2006 controversy to accuse Dems of hypocrisy

Tapscott falsehood: 2006 Dem argument "against using a self-executing rule" same as current GOP argument against rule.  In a March 16 blog post headlined "Pelosi, Slaughter went to court against GOP's self-executing rule in 2005," Washington Examiner editorial page editor Mark Tapscott reported that in 2005, "the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase using a self-executing rule similar to the Slaughter Solution," and that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) joined Public Citizen with amicus briefs in their suit alleging that bill was invalid "because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form." Tapscott added:

If the Pelosi/Slaughter/Waxman argument against using a self-executing rule against a debt limit increase measure sounds familiar, it should because it's the same argument now being used by Republicans to oppose the Slaughter Solution for moving Obamacare through the House.

Right-wing blogs runs with Tapscott's post to accuse Dems of hypocrisy. The blog Sweetness and Light posted Tapscott's piece in full, commenting "To be fair, if it weren't for hypocrisy the Democrat leadership would have no principles at all." Similarly, Andy McCarthy linked to Tapscott's post at NRO's The Corner, stating:

At the Examiner, Mark Tapscott points out that when the Republican-controlled Congress used a "self-executing" rule very similar to the "Slaughter rule" to raise the debt ceiling in 2005, Rep. Louise Slaughter - along with Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Henry Waxman - went to court to try to reverse it, arguing that it was a blatant violation of the Constitution's procedure for passing legislation (art. I, sec. 7).

Michelle Malkin subsequently quoted that passage from McCarthy on her blog. Ace of Spades linked to the McCarthy post and  commented: "A few years ago, Nancy went to go to court to stop Republicans from doing something similar, though on a much smaller scale. Good news, we've got her on hypocrisy."

But Dems were not criticizing use of the self-executing rule

Public Citizen case actually dealt with instance where bill did not pass both houses of Congress before signed into law. In the 2006 brief for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to which Tapscott linked, Public Citizen argued:

Some constitutional provisions are open to interpretation. One constitutional requirement that is not ambiguous, however, is the requirement that every bill pass both houses of Congress before it can be presented to the President and become law. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ("DRA") was presented to the President in violation of that requirement: The Senate passed one version of a bill, the House another, and then the Senate's version was presented to the President, who signed it. Under the Constitution, that bill has not become a law.

Public Citizen asked the appellate court to find the DRA "invalid because the version passed by the House of Representatives was substantively different from the version signed by the President."

Final House and Senate versions of bill differed. According to Public Citizen's brief, when engrossing the final version of the bill that passed the Senate for transmittal to the House, a clerk made a "substantive change" to a section of the bill, altering the duration of a Medicare payment provision from 13 months to 36 months. Subsequently, the House voted on the engrossed version of the bill, "which contained the clerk's error and, therefore, was not identical to the version of the bill passed by the Senate." After the House returned the legislation to the Senate for transmission to Bush, a clerk changed the Medicare provision's duration from 36 months back to 13 months. Thus, different versions of the bill had passed the House and the Senate; Bush subsequently signed a version that had only passed the Senate.

Pelosi statement criticized GOP House leaders for sending "to the President for his signature into law a bill they knew was different from what the Senate had passed." In February 2006, Pelosi issued the following statement (accessed from the Nexis database):

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi introduced a privileged resolution on the House floor today regarding the culture of corruption surrounding the Budget Reconciliation bill. The motion asked for an ethics investigation into the abuse of power surrounding the bill because Republican House leaders sent to the President for his signature into law a bill they knew was different from what the Senate had passed. This was in direct violation of House rules, precedents, and the Constitution. Republicans killed Pelosi's resolution without debate. Their motion passed on a party-line vote.

"Once again, Republican leaders have burned the book on how our laws are made. Every elementary student knows that the exact same bill must pass the House and the Senate first, before it can be signed into law by the President.

"But on February 8, President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation bill that only passed the Senate; that bill is invalid.

"This happened with the full knowledge of House Republican leaders and because of the abuse of power by Republicans in Congress. Republican leaders chose to ignore House rules, precedents, and even the Constitution itself.

"That is just not right, and it is why, I offered this privileged resolution calling for an ethics committee investigation into the abuse of power surrounding the Budget Reconciliation bill. The American people deserve honest leadership and open government. And once again, the Republicans have chosen to sweep this under the rug and not even debate my resolution. This is yet another example of the Republican culture of corruption."

Pelosi's statement did not address the use of the self-executing rule.

Waxman letter similarly addressed signing of bill that only passed Senate. In February 2006, The Hill reported:

The Democratic leadership also distributed a letter written by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) that cites the text of the Constitution, House rules and legal scholars to support the case that the bill has not actually been enacted. President Bush signed the legislation last Wednesday.

The GOP leadership has contended that the problem was rectified when Hastert and Senate President Pro Tempore Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) certified that the bill was correct and had been passed by both chambers before sending it the White House last week. "These leaders signed this statement despite the fact that the Republican leadership in both houses know that this was not true," Waxman wrote. "It is a major abuse of power."

2006 dispute and health reform cases are not analogous

Under reported proposal, both houses would approve identical bills. The circumstances regarding the 2006 passage of the DRA are not analogous to the current reported proposal to use a self-executing rule to finalize health care reform in the House. Under the current reported proposal, majorities of both houses of Congress would pass the Senate health reform bill, and majorities of both houses would subsequently pass a reconciliation bill amending that legislation.

Not the first time right-wing media have invented Dem procedural hypocrisy on health care

Conservative media revived "nuclear option" falsehood to accuse Democrats of reconciliation hypocrisy. Numerous conservative media pushed the falsehood that "the nuclear option" refers to the budget reconciliation process in order to accuse Democrats of hypocrisy for previously criticizing the nuclear option and now considering using reconciliation to pass health care reform. But Democratic criticism of a 2005 Republican proposal to change filibuster rules is in no way inconsistent with passing health care reform through reconciliation -- a process that has repeatedly been used to pass legislation, including major health care reform.

In 1993, The Journal of Chemical Ecology published a study concerning chemosensory investigation in snakes, which the crew from NCBI ROFL believes you will find interesting. If you have a delicate disposition, please pretend the post ends here....

Insert ironic comment here

Undercover US agents are infiltrating MySpace, Facebook, and other social networking sites with false online profiles in an attempt to nab users under investigation for breaking the law, a Justice Department document reveals....

What is your recession sales strategy?

You can limit number of simultaneously running builds in a build configuration on the General serttings page.

BTW it is useful to have several builds running simultaneously because it simplifies investigation of possible test failures - the lesser number changes in each build - the faster you can find the cause of the failure.

Life imitates Avatar. Danger Room reports, "The House Committee on Science and Technology’s investigations and oversight panel is holding a hearing today on rare-earth metal supplies, focusing on China’s near-monopoly on the stuff. As we’ve reported here before, China has raised concerns by threatening to limit exports. And to make matters more complicated, U.S. mining companies are dependent on China for processing."...

Legal chief tells of killings and torture in early days of invasion

Eight or more civilians died in the custody of British troops in the weeks after the invasion of Iraq, despite frequent warnings by the army's most senior legal adviser there about unlawful treatment of detainees, an inquiry has heard.

In devastating evidence to an official inquiry, Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Mercer described the way Iraqi detainees were intimidated and hooded by British soldiers as "repulsive". He said that 10 days after the invasion in March 2003 he saw 20 or 30 detainees lined up with sandbags on their heads.

He was shocked, he said, adding that it was "a bit like seeing pictures of Guantánamo Bay for the first time".

Mercer said he had had a "massive row" with the commander of the Queens Dragoon Guards about the army's legal obligations under the Geneva conventions and the European Convention on Human Rights. He had walked out of a meeting between British officials and the International Committee of the Red Cross after being told by a "political adviser" to keep his mouth shut, he added.

Mercer's repeated protests about the unlawful treatment of Iraqis in British custody was so unwelcome within the Ministry of Defence that his boss, Martin Hemming, head of its legal service, threatened to report him to the Law Society, he said.

Mercer, who is still serving, was giving evidence into the death of Baha Mousa, a Basra hotel worker who died in British custody in September 2003. This was months after Mercer had persistently warned senior army officers — including General Robin Brims, commander of British troops in southern Iraq — that detainees were being subjected to unlawful treatment.

He revealed that he and Brims later refused to sign statements pre-prepared by Hemming as evidence to the Commons human rights committee.

He said the abuse of Iraqi prisoners might have been prevented if a British judge had been appointed to oversee the handling of detainees, a proposal that he said was blocked by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general.

Goldsmith, who has said he never authorised the use of five banned techniques, including hooding, may be asked to give evidence to the inquiry with the former defence secretary Geoff Hoon, and former armed forces minister, Adam Ingram.

In his evidence, Mercer described how in May 2003, two months after first issuing his warnings, military police investigators told him about two deaths in custody. They added that they thought there were "five or six more deaths that required investigation".

Speaking later outside the inquiry, Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers, which represents Iraqi detainees, said there were 47 "unresolved cases" involving the mistreatment of civilians by British troops. "There are so many cases, that is why we need a single inquiry [to cover them all]", he said.

Mercer recalled seeing one prisoner, Faisal Sadoon, held in "appalling conditions" in a container "with a barbed wire door in 40 degrees-plus of heat". He was told of prisoners appearing bruised and hooded at detention centres. He recalled seeing "a generator running outside the interrogation tent, which seemed to me to create a culture of intimidation and possibly with the aim of muffling any noise".

He warned that "in no circumstances should [detainees'] faces be covered as this might impair breathing" "I felt I was banging my head against a brick wall. We found ourselves in a constant legal battle," he told the inquiry.

He regarded hooding, banned in 1972, as repulsive. "It amounts to violence and intimidation and it degrades the individual so I don't like it in any circumstance," he said.

He said he felt vindicated when the Red Cross began to express concern in May 2003. British soldiers were handed cards before the invasion saying that civilians should be treated "humanely". But there was no training in interrogation techniques, Mercer said.

His warnings, and those of the Red Cross, reached ministers and top military commanders in London. But hooding was not banned until after Mousa's death more than six months later, the inquiry heard.

"The issue of prisoners had very low priority and was treated more as an inconvenience than an obligation under international law," Mercer said in a written statement to the inquiry. It was partly a question of resources and lack of planning, he said.

But he added that it was also about "proper education, training, and the moral compass". He said there was a "classic dilemma" in the army. "You're in the command structure and there's always pressure to do one thing, when legally you may believe something else".

An MoD spokesman said: "All deaths in British custody in Iraq have been thoroughly investigated. Having committed to a public inquiry, it would be wrong to comment upon any evidence presented to it."

He said the ministry will have an opportunity to respond to the report written by the chairman, Sir William Gage, at the end of proceedings.

• Baha Mousa
• Iraq
• Military

Richard Norton-Taylorguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

A U.S. journalist, who was investigating the Cold War mind-control experiments conducted by the CIA, came across some documents relating to an obscure episode in France that was never elucidated. He alleges that in 1951 the CIA was testing for a secret weapon: the aerosol spraying of LSD. The experiment was reportedly carried out in a French village, whose inhabitants and authorities were kept completely in the dark. But it went wrong, causing the death of 7 people.
We asked Hank Albarelli to provide a summary of his investigation for the readers of Voltaire Network.

I frequently receive emails asking what type of computer and software I use to search...

The whistleblower at the centre of a damning investigation into alleged wrongdoing at Lehman Brothers published last week was dismissed weeks after he raised concerns about the bank’s accounting policies.

MPs have demanded an investigation into whether vital intelligence was withheld from detectives hunting the perpetrators of the worst terrorist atrocity of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

· Inquiry should span Republic's borders, says committee
· Families welcome report after Panorama programme

A public inquiry should be established to examine if vital intelligence on the Real IRA was shielded from detectives investigating the Omagh bomb massacre.

The Northern Ireland affairs committee at Westminster made the recommendation following their investigation into how the Omagh atrocity was handled.

Families of the victims welcomed the cross-party committee's report but Michael Gallagher, whose son Aidan died in the bombing, said any inquiry should span the Irish border and explore allegations that the Republic's security forces made errors in the Omagh investigation.

Twenty-nine men, women and children were killed in the 1998 explosion – the biggest single act of mass murder in the Troubles. No one has ever been successfully prosecuted over the bombing in the County Tyrone market town.

Last year, four men were found liable for the bombing in a landmark civil case taken by the victims' families.

The parliamentary committee launched an inquiry into the security services' role following claims in a BBC documentary that the government's listening station GCHQ had monitored suspects' mobile phone calls as they drove to Omagh from the Irish Republic on the day of the atrocity in August 1998.

The Panorama programme said this information was never passed to Royal Ulster constabulary detectives assigned to the case.

While a subsequent review by the intelligence services commissioner, Sir Peter Gibson, rejected many of Panorama's assertions, the committee chairman, Sir Patrick Cormack, said the bereaved still needed answers.

"Far too many questions remain unanswered," he said. "The criminal justice system has failed to bring to justice those responsible for the Omagh bombing.

"The least that those who were bereaved or injured have the right to expect are answers to those questions."

Sir Patrick also criticised the government for refusing to give the committee sight of the commissioner's full report, which has been classified for security reasons.

After reviewing the edited summary, committee members agreed with Sir Peter's claim that information obtained by GCHQ was not monitored in "real time" and therefore could not have prevented the bombing.

But it raised concerns about the data flow after the attack, in particular whether names of the suspected bombers were known and, if so, why they were not passed to police officers.

In particular, the inquiry said there was a need to establish the part played by RUC Special Branch – the police's anti-terrorism unit – and whether it was handed data by GCHQ but failed to pass it on to RUC colleagues in the Crime Investigation Department (CID) who were working on the Omagh case.

As well as calling for a fresh examination of the intelligence, the committee's report also:

· Found that questions remain about whether the bombing could have been pre-empted by action against terrorists who carried out earlier bombings in 1998.

· Called for a definitive statement on whether the names of those thought to have been involved in the bombing were known to the intelligence services, Special Branch, or the RUC in the days immediately after the bombing, and if so, why no arrests resulted.

· Asked the government to justify the argument that the public interest is best served by keeping telephone intercepts secret rather than using them to bring murderers to justice.

· Called on the UK's intelligence and security committee to reconsider how any intercept intelligence was or was not used.

· Recommended that the government considers providing legal aid for the victims of terrorism if they bring civil actions against suspected perpetrators once criminal investigation has failed to bring a prosecution.

Panorama claimed that intelligence officers had tracked the movements of the bombers' car and a scout car on their way to Omagh.

However, in his review intelligence commissioner Sir Peter said technology was not advanced enough in 1998 to do that and insisted the vehicles were not being followed in "real time", meaning the information could not have prevented the bombing.

"The portrayal in the Panorama programme of the tracking on a screen of the movement of two cars, a scout car and a car carrying a bomb, by reference to two 'blobs' moving on a road map has no correspondence whatever with what intercepting agencies were able to do or did on 15 August 1998," he said in his review.

Sir Peter said information on the bombers taken from telephone intercepts examined in the wake of event was passed to police. But he did not reveal whether this data included written transcripts of the phone calls.

He added: "Throughout 1998, before, on and after 15 August, GCHQ ensured that intelligence from any interception that might have been relevant to RUC Special Branch for its operational purposes was promptly being made available to them."

He also said there was no evidence before him that police in the Republic had warned the RUC of a likely attack.

Sir Peter was one of a number of witnesses who gave evidence to the committee during its inquiry.

Others who faced the MPs' questions included Panorama reporter John Ware, victims' relatives Michael Gallagher and Godfrey Wilson, former PSNI chief constable Sir Hugh Orde and detectives who investigated the bombing, former police ombudsman Baroness O'Loan, and Jason McCue, the lawyer who represented the families in the civil action.

• Omagh bombing
• Northern Ireland
• Northern Irish politics
• Ireland

Henry McDonaldguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

A report says a new investigation must be set up to examine whether the state withheld vital intelligence from detectives hunting the Omagh bombers.

· Kidnappers left Sahil Saeed 40km away from Jhelum
· High commission describes his recovery as 'fantastic news'

The five-year-old British boy kidnapped on holiday in Pakistan nearly two weeks ago has been found, British officials and his family confirmed today.

Sahil Saeed was snatched from a house in the Punjab region of the country on 4 March, after robbers held his family hostage at gunpoint.

He is believed to have been recovered by police after being dumped by kidnappers in Kharian, about 40km from Jhelum the town in the Punjab province where he was taken.

"Sahil is in police custody," said the boy's grandfather Raja Basharat, speaking to Pakistani media. "God willing, they will bring him to our house. The whole family has gathered here waiting."

Sahil, from Oldham, was on holiday with his father Raja Naqqash Saeed, visiting family in Jhelum, when robbers broke into the house and took the boy away.

The British high commission in Islamabad said today he had been released and was safe, describing his recovery as "fantastic news".

"It brings to an end the traumatic ordeal faced by Sahil Saeed's family," said Adam Thomson, the British high commissioner in Islamabad.

"I would like to praise the high level of co-operation between the UK and Pakistani authorities and in particular I would like to thank the Jhelum police for their role in bringing about the safe return of Sahil."

Rana Sanaullah, the provincial law minister, said there had never previously been so much government effort put into such a kidnapping case. He said that Pakistani intelligence were also involved in the boy's recovery.

Sanaullah added, without explaining further: "He (Sahil) was safe and sound for the last four to five days. It was just a question of (securing) his custody."

Last week Sanaullah had mistakenly announced that Sahil had been recovered, mixing up the case with that of another kidnapped boy.

Raiders had struck as the pair were preparing to take a taxi to the airport for their flight home to the UK.

The kidnappers originally set a deadline of noon the next day for the money to be delivered.

After Sahil was taken, several men – including a taxi driver – were arrested.

His family suffered frustrations during the investigation, after Pakistani authorities said on several occasions they were close to securing the boy's release.

Sahil's mother, Akila Naqqash, begged for the safe return of her son back home in Oldham, telling the kidnappers at one point: "I just want my son back. All is forgiven, I will forgive you."

Naqqash Saeed returned to the UK at the start of last week, despite reports police in Pakistan wanted him to stay in the country as a witness.

Rehman Malik, Pakistan's interior minister, said that Sahil's father Naqqash had left Pakistan last week "against our wishes". He also repeated the allegation that "a family member was involved" in the kidnapping.

Raja Naqqash Saeed, Sahil's father, flew back to the UK last week. It remains unclear why he left Pakistan. The police in Pakistan had said they needed him to remain in the country, as the kidnappers might contact him directly.

Mr Malik indicated that the kidnappers had "let the boy go in a village".

"Obviously the pressure on them (the kidnappers) was very high," said Mr Malik. "All the phones they were using were being monitored,"

Initial reports suggested that the police had received an anonymous phone call telling them where Sahil had been left.

It is understood that the police is currently carrying out a series of raids in order to try to nab the kidnapping gang.

• Pakistan

Saeed Shahguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Anthropologist Roxanne Varzi came to our UCLA working group Culture, Power, and Social Change last week and spoke and showed a courageous and wise reflexive ethnographic film “Plastic Flowers Never Die” on the religio-statist support of martyrdom in Iran. I asked a question about how to theorize the role of digital ‘texts’ in the present era of ubiquitous self-publishing and social broadcasting. I was thinking about jihadi videos that are shot and distributed on online video portals as advertisement, recruitment tools, or celebrations of religio-military success. According to the IntelCenter, jihadi videos can be categorized as operational, hostage, statement, tribute, training, and instructional videos.

Essentially antagonistic with technoprogressive modernity while exploiting the simplicity, freedom, and access that comes with new media, these videos can be described as vanguard, counter, resistant, or subversive to capitalistic modernity while using the forefront of the sociotechnical tools of that capitalist technocracy. Our models of user-generated labor, from Shirkey and Benkler’s celebrations of social production to Terranova’s Marxist perspective on exploitative and ‘free’ labor, might not fit this un-capitalist media production practice. It is going to take a mix of something new to get it. But what?

I asked Varzi about jihadi videos: “These strike me as a rich source of information about a culture that is otherwise inaccessible to anthropologists: jihadi martyrs. How would you go about developing a critical anthropological methodology to reading these video texts?” Correctly but dangerously she stated she wouldn’t do it without an ethnographic component. I thought to myself: Let me get this right. I gotta hang out, like, deeply, with jihadi terrorists? As an anthropologist I cannot make a statement about jihadi video production practices without having first squeezed my way into their schedule and shared a few meetings over tea with my local jihadist? I’d love to, frankly, but I doubt I can network into their cliques. Are we going to let these remarkably reflexive, vocal “weapons of the weak” go unnoticed? If we can’t talk about these videos we are losing our disciplinary focus on subcultural expression and resistance and an opportunity to expand our methodological repertoire.

Jihadi video producers and new media firms, my focus, share little but extreme privacy. The similarities end there, but the problems for the ethnographer of either are identical: gaining access. My subjects are powerful. They have ideas that are worth millions in venture capital. Their lawyers are all about intellectual property. They live comfortable lives. They don’t need my cultural capital. They don’t need me around. Infrequently and for whatever reason, they invite me into their world. The Frontline documentary Behind Taliban Lines is a rare example that follows a single video journalist into the operations of the Taliban attempting to blow up a US convoy. This rarely happens in every context where a researcher wants access. Though our own Rex thinks our focus should be on the subtle and not the savage, he’ll be happy to know that anthropologists usually are gutsy enough to pursue such inaccessible subjects.

What if I couldn’t meet these wealthy entrepreneurs in person? What if they were so private that participant observation was impossible? I would be forced to construct something anthropological through their public representations. Thankfully, my subjects produce a lot of media. They socially broadcast on Facebook and Twitter and have scheduled relations with the public at conferences. (Except for TED, which at $6000 a weekend excludes most.) But with or without ethnography, this project, like a hypothetical investigation of jihadi video producers, needs to happen. If we have to begin-and probably end-with texts, what will we do? We’ll need to first develop an anthropologically specific way of reading these video texts and other public media artifacts.

The time is now to revisit our present anthropological theories about the role of textual studies. Finding its most useful expression in reconstructive indigenous and postcolonial historiographies, texts have long been an essential part of our field. But have we fully fleshed out a spectrum of specific theories for each type of text? I am not interested in adjudicating the validity or truthfulness of this text versus that. Colonial documents, biographies, and census records need to be differentially theorized not as statements of fact or fiction but as culturally situated texts. What I am fishing for is a debate on whether the new digital documents can find a home in contemporary anthropological theory. What differentiates paper-based from Web 2.0 personal documents and text from video? Most importantly, how can we take a culturally distinct but necessarily distant visual text of war and conflict, consider its technical and productive online existence, not defer to speculation on auteur intentionality, be mindful of the artifacts that appear on screen, and extrapolate back to the producer’s culture?

More broadly, we need to ask ourselves how to do an anthropological study of ethnographically inaccessible objects: leadership of corporations, governments, terrorist cells, elite institutions. Anthropologist Jane Weddell’s recent book, The Shadow Elite: How the World’s New Power Brokers Undermine Democracy, Government and the Free Market” is a fine example. Ethical problems abound in all these projects. Just as Nancy Scheper-Hughes prospered, so will the anthropologist of video culture of martyrdom and other inaccessible objects.

We've written before about the libel fight that Simon Singh is fighting in the UK, where the British Chiropractic Assocation sued him for libel for saying that some of the things that the BCA claimed chiropractors could do were "bogus." Singh, who has a PhD. and has written numerous books about science, was pointing out that the BCA was making claims that had little scientific evidence to back them up -- hence "bogus." Tragically a court focused on the use of that word, suggesting that Singh meant the BCA had engaged in deliberate dishonesty, rather than just aggressive marketing. Because of the amount of time and resources it is taking him to fight this, Singh is now giving up his column in The Guardian, noting just how damaging a ridiculous libel lawsuit can be on individuals.

The only good news out of this is that the lawsuit against Singh has brought about two important forms of backlash:

• A large group of concerned citizens online have actively been debunking claims from the BCA, and getting official investigations started of any chiropractor that makes bogus (yes, bogus) claims about what chiropractors can cure.
• Singh's case has become a focal point in a new, much-needed, effort in the UK to reform libel laws in that country -- where existing laws effectively put the burden on the accused to prove that they didn't libel the other party.
• It's awful to see Singh have to go through all of this, but hopefully his sacrifices will mean others won't have to face the same issue down the road.
  
  Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
  
  
  

Ann Clin Biochem, Vol. 46, No. 3. (1 May 2009), pp. 183-196.

Salivary concentrations of unconjugated steroids reflect those for free steroids in serum although concentrations may differ because of salivary gland metabolism. Samples for salivary steroid analysis are stable for up to 7 days at room temperature, one month or more at 4degreesC and three months or more at -20degreesC. When assessed against strict criteria, the evidence shows that salivary cortisol in evening samples or following dexamethasone suppression provides a reliable and effective screen for Cushing's syndrome. Sequential salivary cortisol measurements are also extremely helpful for the investigation of suspected cyclical Cushing's syndrome. There is potential for the identification of adrenal insufficiency when used with Synacthen stimulation. Salivary 17-hydroxyprogesterone and androstenedione assays are valued as non-invasive tests for the home-monitoring of hydrocortisone replacement therapy in patients with congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency. The diagnostic value of salivary oestradiol, progesterone, testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone and aldosterone testing is compromised by rapid fluctuations in salivary concentrations of these steroids. Multiple samples are required to obtain reliable information, and at present the introduction of these assays into routine laboratory testing is not justified. 10.1258/acb.2008.008208
Peter Wood

Last year LANVA reported the IP-addresses of 106 users of the country’s largest BitTorrent site to the police. The anti-piracy group claimed that the site’s users were sharing a copy of the Windows 7 Ultimate operating system and took action on behalf of Microsoft without notifying the software company.

The self-proclaimed investigators evidence consisted of a screenshot of peers as listed by uTorrent. The evidence was gathered in conjunction with a local police officer, but none of the parties involved was authorized to conduct an investigation of this kind.

LANVA nevertheless took one of the 106 users to court, hoping to set a favorable precedent that would allow them to go after other alleged copyright infringers. The case went before the courts and the verdict handed down today was not the one the anti-piracy outfit had hoped for.

Citing faulty evidence, the District Court judge closed the case and fully acquitted the sole defendant Sergej Bernotas. The judge stated that LANVA had no right to collect and use the information they gathered. In addition, the judge ruled that such evidence gathering techniques have to be approved before they can be used.

Sergej Bernotas Came Out As a Winner

For now, uTorrent and for that matter all other BitTorrent clients remain uncertified as proper evidence collection tools. To be used as such, the developers would also have to give their approval, something that obviously didn’t happen in this case.

At the court hearing it also became clear that the police officer involved had no IT experience and simply carried out what LANVA told him to. When the policeman was asked what tools he used to gather evidence he replied “a computer” resulting in laughs from the audience.

Aside from the action against several LinkoManija users, the alleged operator of the site is also facing legal action from LANVA and Microsoft. In January software giant Microsoft sued the alleged operator, demanding $43 million from the defendant and his company for assisting in the illegal distribution of Office 2003 and 2007.

The case against the operator is still ongoing, but today’s ruling makes it unlikely that LANVA will be successful in pursuing the site’s users. The anti-piracy outfit does have the option to appeal, but if they do the case won’t be heard before the coming winter.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Monday, March 15, 2010

An undercover investigation by Naperville, Illinois law enforcement has led to the arrest last Thursday of four people allegedly involved in prostitution. The stings came after police received tips that people were using websites like Craigslist and Backpage.com to sell sexual performances in Naperville hotels. 

More...