How come the shooter did not target an NRA club or a police station? Because: too many guns. Those p.o.s. are cowards, but not stupid.

Woman, Gang Raped In Syria, Then Allegedly ‘Honor Killed’ By Her Family In Germany


A rape victim branded “unclean” by her family after the assault in her native Syria has been murdered in Germany amid claims her mother ordered the honour killing.

The woman, named only as Rokstan M, was found buried in a shallow grave in an allotment in the eastern German city of Dessau after being stabbed to death.

Police believe the 20-year-old was murdered by her father and brothers, who thought she had brought shame on their family through the sex attack by three men.

And Rokstan’s former employer, author Mark Krüger, has claimed the young woman’s mother was behind the slaying, ordering the men to carry out the murder.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/im-young-die-chilling-last-6589673

PUEBLO, Colo. – A female high school student awaits a disciplinary hearing and could face expulsion for wearing a Halloween costume to school that prompted officials to lock down the building Wednesday.

An unnamed female student was spotted in the hallway at Pueblo County High School early yesterday morning wearing a gas mask and trench coat, and a classmate reported her to school officials, The Pueblo Chieftain reports.

The teen was hauled to the office where she was interrogated by the police, who also placed the school on lockdown for about an hour. The Pueblo County Sheriff’s Office SWAT team, which was training near the school, also responded in full camouflage gear and a large armored vehicle to sweep the building for anything dangerous or suspicious. They found nothing, according to the news site.

A spokesman for the sheriff’s office told KKTV the girl said the outfit was a Halloween costume. She wasn’t carrying any weapons.

“Incidents like this cannot be overlooked and must be taken serious,” Pueblo County superintendent Ed Smith told the Chieftain. “Our concern is always for the students.”


http://eagnews.org/swat-descends-on-co-school-over-students-halloween-costume/

I identify as a childfree woman, one of a growing demographic of young people for whom having children is not only not in their present, but not in their future, either, entirely by choice. (Syntactically, the childfree are distinguished from the childless—those who want children but cannot or do not have them—because the latter term implies that one is “less” something for not having offspring.) For many, the decision to be childfree is a matter of practicalities: a baby would not fit in with their career and lifestyle, or they aren’t financially secure, or they haven’t yet found The One. While all those things are true in my case, the main reason is much simpler: I basely, emphatically, viscerally hate children.

I can’t remember a time when I felt anything more positive than contempt for children, even when I was a child myself. From (quite literally) the time I could talk, I announced my intent that I never wanted children, and as a little girl, I never had even the slightest inclination towards baby dolls. As an only child of older parents, I spent much of my time around middle-aged adults, and found I far preferred their company to that of my agemates. As an adult, my dislike seems to be rooted in my nature, stemming from the same sort of inborn, primal (if opposite) urge as those who desperately want them. I think of myself as “not a kid person” much in the same way that someone else might feel they’re “not a cat person” or “not a dog person”; it is not a conscious choice, but a natural state of being. But whereas cat- and dog-haters get a pass from society, there is something singularly off-putting to others about having an aversion the young of one’s own species.

Other childfree women have felt this resultant animosity, and have tried to preempt others’ judgment. From data-driven news stories to personal essays—including those in the excellent new collection “Selfish, Shallow, and Self-Absorbed: Sixteen Writers on the Decision Not to Have Children,” edited by Meghan Daum—almost each story by and about childfree women seems to include apologetic, vehement protestations that such women are not baby-haters. (“We do not hate kids,” Daum writes in her introduction, “and it still amazes me that this notion is given any credence.”) Nearly every woman-authored piece on the topic, both in Daum’s collection and elsewhere, is defensive about an implied dislike of children, and those that aren’t are instead evasive of it. (Notably but perhaps unsurprisingly, men who dislike children are more outspoken about it, and far less stigmatized.) Childfree women are often characterized as doting and dedicated aunts, godmothers, professionals or community volunteers whose lives are full of children they love, even if they ultimately—some pined for children in the past—do not want any of their own. I have no doubt that such characterizations are true, and that many childfree people do in fact love children; that is their reality. But by failing to account for the possibility that there are baby-haters among us, by attempting to subvert the ugly stereotype before it even arises, such authors negate the experiences of—and even the existence of—those of us for whom our reality is in fact one of baby-hating. And by denying that we exist—especially for women, society’s designated nurturers, who feel this stereotype especially acutely—we are denied the chance to prove that, contrary to what one may instinctively characterize us as, this particular facet of our personalities, our identities as baby-haters, does not make us bad people.

I firmly believe that some of us were simply born without the nurturing gene and with biological clocks that nature neglected to wind. My baby-hating doesn’t come from a place of malice. I don’t wish children ill; I just want them to stay the hell away from me. I’m not a situational baby-hater, either; though a child behaving badly might cause me to shoot some side-eye or make a snarky comment, my inherent dislike of children does not significantly lessen when a kid behaves well, even if I do find them slightly more tolerable. (As Kate Christensen writes of her boyfriend in her essay in “Selfish, Shallow, and Self-Absorbed” and which I can wholeheartedly relate to, “Seeing other people with their kids, no matter how cute they are, only reinforces his knowledge that he doesn’t want them.”) I can count on one hand all the children I’ve seen in my life that have struck me as cute. On the subway, if I see even a well-behaved child heading for the empty seat next to mine, I will move across the train car, all the while raising the volume on my music. On a recent outing to the Bronx Zoo, a small child mistakenly grabbed my hand instead of her mother’s, and I instinctively recoiled as if the toddler’s touch had sent 10,000 volts of electricity coursing through my body.

I’m not the only baby-hater out there. While I am fairly open about my views, other women have confessed to me in hushed tones their dislike—even hatred—of children or doubt over whether they might ever want any. In fact, even as the stigma against baby-haters persists, science shows that there’s probably a little baby-hater in all of us: new research demonstrates that nothing kills happiness quite like having a baby does.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/07/im_a_baby_hater_and_im_not_sorry/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow


-----------------------------------------
Alanna weissman, from ?
http://www.parentguidenews.com/Authors/AlannaWeissman

Yep.

Can Clinton's Email Scandal Get Worse? It Already Is


Corruption: Hillary Clinton has complained about the steady "drip, drip, drip" of revelations about her email troubles. This week, the drips became a torrent. Will her presidential aspirations drown in a flood of scandal?

The news cycle turned Tuesday night on reports that a second server handling Clinton's State Department emails has been found, raising questions about just how many people had access to the classified material on her emails.

How much did her negligence increase the country's vulnerability to espionage?

How widely did she expose herself to blackmail?

For months we've known that Clinton used Platte River Networks in Colorado to manage her email server — which had been in her house while she was secretary of state — after she left the State Department.

Now we know that Datto Inc. in Connecticut has been used as a second data storage site for her emails.

This came to light Tuesday when Sen. Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin Republican who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, asked Datto in a letter to turn over any Clinton emails that it has.

That doesn't hold up, though, unless it turns out that a concerned Platte River Networks employee is a Republican operative.

When this employee noticed that Clinton representatives had asked "Datto to reduce the amount of her emails it was backing up," he or she became suspicious, the McClatchy Washington bureau reported. The employee sent off an email that said "this whole thing really is covering up some shaddy (sic) sh*t."

Another Platte River Networks employee — or possibly the same one, it isn't clear — sent an email saying "this is a problem" when "Platte River employees discovered that her private server was syncing with an offsite Datto server," McClatchy reported.

Apparently, the Clinton camp wanted to be sure some emails weren't going to be saved.

That raises another question, one that has been asked many times throughout this scandal but never satisfactorily answered:

What is Clinton trying to hide?

The morning after the Datto news broke, the Washington Free Beacon reported that the FBI has seized four State Department servers in its probe of Clinton's personal email system. Investigators want to know "how top secret material was sent to Clinton's private email by State Department aides."

Remember, Clinton has said multiple times that there was never classified material in her personal email. Yet there it is, and the FBI wants to know why.

Clinton has also said constantly that she has turned over all the emails that investigators and officials have asked for. She even signed a statement in which she swore "under penalty of perjury" that she had produced all emails that were, or potentially were, federal records.

Yet, as we have noted, officials keep asking for more emails because they don't think Clinton has handed over everything. So we naturally wonder if she perjured herself when she signed the statement.

Clinton could have avoided all this if she had simply elected to use the State Department's secure email rather than her own account managed by a private server located in her personal residence.

But she didn't, and voters need to know why, just as much as they need to know what her involvement in the Benghazi disaster was.

Even those who fully stand behind her political positions should hold back their support until either Clinton comes clean or the investigations are completed.

If the investigations go beyond the next election, that's just the way it is.


http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/100715-774536-hillary-email-scandal-get-even-more-scandalous.htm?p=full

Also known as 'cancer'

Father of Oregon Shooting Victim: We Will Not Be Attending Obama’s Exploitive Gun Control Visit…






Tomorrow President Obama is scheduled to visit Rosenburg, Oregon, where 10 people were killed last week at Umpqua Community College by a deranged killer who happened to use a gun to carry out his crimes.

We've already reported on the repulsed reaction from the community as people who live there continue to reject Obama's visit. Now Stacy Boylan, the father of shooting victim Ana Boylan, is directly speaking out against Obama's visit and has no interest in putting up with his exploitation of the tragedy for political purposes.

"I do believe it was Rahm Emanuel who said 'Never let a good tragedy go to waste,' and I really feel that his [Obama] visit here is to completely to support his gun control agenda. I can't understand why he wouldn't make a mention of the families and the victims. I mean, he did say that it was a tragic incident and I do thank him for lowering the flags but he made it all about gun control. He was very clear about that and we saw this in Sandy Hook and now we're seeing it again and I just question his motives," Boylan said. "I've spoken to my family and for myself and for my family, my daughter and son, on principle I find that we are in disagreement with his policies on gun control and therefore we will not be attending the visit."

"My position on this is that gun free zones are an issue, they're a target for crazy people because they know they're not going to be met with resistance. You know, my daughter said to me, 'What if somebody would have had a gun?' Gun free and gun control takes that option off the table. Somebody doesn't have to use their gun in defense, but to take that option entirely, I don't think that's the right course," he continued.

Boylan said his daughter is recovering from her physical injuries and is still processing what happened.



http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/10/07/father-of-oregon-shooting-victim-obama-is-visiting-for-his-gun-control-agenda-not-for-us-n2062550

As I said many times: killing free speech is their ultimate goal.

The Saudi Kingdom will behead 28 Muslims who reportedly caused the stampede in Mecca last month.


While collecting bodies and providing medical care for the wounded of today’s incident in Mina have not ended yet, an Arabic media reported that 28 people who were involved in the incident to be executed tomorrow!

According to Beirut Daily al-Diyar it is so possible that the king of Saudi Arabia to order the execution of who caused this deadly accident.

“This religious decree will be issued immediately in Mina tomorrow; they will be charged with violating security issues and disobeying orders which claimed the lives of more than 1000 pilgrims and brought disrepute for Saudi authorities,” al-Diyar daily added.

It is important to say that so far Saudi authorities have refused to accept responsibility for the accident and blamed pilgrims for this event. So the authenticity of the news is uncertain.

At least 1,300 people have been killed and nearly 805 others injured in a crush during Hajj pilgrimage rituals outside Mecca.


http://en.abna24.com/service/middle-east-west-asia/archive/2015/09/24/712190/story.html

High School Student Says He Raped And Murdered His Math Teacher Because She Used A Trigger Word





Jury selection begins Wednesday in the murder trial of a teenager accused of raping and killing his Danvers High School teacher two years ago.

Philip Chism was 14 when he was arrested and charged with the killing of his math teacher, Colleen Ritzer.

Prosecutors say Chism, who is now 16, killed Ritzer on Oct. 22, 2013, after she asked him to stay after class. They allege Chism stabbed her 16 times in the neck, put her in a recycling bin and dragged it into the woods near the school.

Several hours later, Chism was seen walking along a road in Topsfield, carrying credit cards in Ritzer’s name, women’s underwear and a box cutter with what appeared to be blood on it.

Chism has pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and rape.

He later allegedly told investigators he used a karate chop to subdue her, after Ritzer used a “trigger word” that angered him. He described how he cut her neck with the box cutter.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2015/10/07/trial-begins-for-teen-accused-killing-raping-high-school-math-teacher/RqomOIdhttz3FU2thfQI7K/story.html?p1=feature_pri_hp


-------------------------------------------------
"She said Foxnews!!!!"

Nothing belongs to anyone on the internet, unless it is monetized by facebook and Co.?

The way I see it: the robots among us are as strong as the brain controlling them. Once the brain is shut off the robots will look for new codes to fill their emptiness...

Well, it depends on what you mean as “own.”  Under copyright law, unless there is an agreement to the contrary or the photograph or video is shot as part of your job, a copyright to a photograph generally belongs to the creator.  As the copyright owner, you own the exclusive rights to display, copy, use, produce, distribute and perform your creation as you see fit and approve.  As the subject of the photograph, you have a right to publicity, which allows you to get paid for the commercial use of your name, likeness or voice.

But what happens when you decide to post that picture on the Internet — perhaps on Facebook or Twitter (using Twitpic), or some other social network or photo-sharing site?

You may be shocked to find out that once you post on these sites, that although you still “own”� the photograph, you grant the social media sites a license to use your photograph anyway they see fit for free AND you grant them the right to let others use you picture as well! This means that not only can Twitter, Twitpic and Facebook make money from the photograph or video (otherwise, a copyright violation), but these sites are making commercial gain by licensing these images, which contains the likeness of the person in the photo or video (otherwise, a violation of their “rights of publicity”).

Facebook

Under Facebook’s current terms (which can change at anytime), by posting your pictures and videos, you grant Facebook “a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any [IP] content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (“IP License”). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.  Beware of the words “transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license.”  This means that Facebook can license your content to others for free without obtaining any other approval from you!  You should be aware that once your photos or videos are shared on Facebook, it could be impossible to delete them from Facebook, even if you delete the content or cancel your account (the content still remains on Facebook servers and they can keep backups)!  So, although you may be able to withdraw your consent to the use of photos on Facebook, you should also keep in mind that if you share your photos and videos with Facebook applications, those applications may have their own terms and conditions of how they use your creation!  You should read the fine print to make sure you are not agreeing to something that you don’t want to have happen.

Twitter

Twitter’s photo sharing service, Twitpic, just updated their terms of Service on May 10, 2011 (which, of course, can and will be updated at any time, from time to time).  By uploading content using Twitpic, you are giving “Twitpic permission to use or distribute your content on Twitpic.com or affiliated sites.”  You are also granting “Twitpic a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and Twitpic’s (and its successors’ and affiliates’) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.”�

The terms go on to state that you also grant “each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service.  The above licenses granted by you in media Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your media from the Service provided that any sub-license by Twitpic to use, reproduce or distribute the Content prior to such termination may be perpetual and irrevocable.”


http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1KtSpqFVwM

And a dumb robot to boot: he had to ask for data input multiple times. Then he switched to safe mode.

Surprise! Whole milk may be good for you after all


Over the last couple of years, the US government has had to back away from decades of dietary recommendations and health directives. Now whole milk may be the next line of retreat. Not only did science find no connection between whole milk and cardiovascular disease more than 40 years after urging people to stop using it, it turns out the science behind the initial recommendation was flawed — and known to be so at the time:

Whether this massive shift in eating habits has made anyone healthier is an open question among scientists, however. In fact, research published in recent years indicates that the opposite might be true: millions might have been better off had they stuck with whole milk.

Scientists who tallied diet and health records for several thousand patients over ten years found, for example, that contrary to the government advice, people who consumed more milk fat had lower incidence of heart disease.

By warning people against full-fat dairy foods, the U.S. is “losing a huge opportunity for the prevention of disease,” said Marcia Otto, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Texas, and the lead author of large studies published in 2012 and 2013, which were funded by government and academic institutions, not the industry. “What we have learned over the last decade is that certain foods that are high in fat seem to be beneficial.”

Note that this finding does not limit itself to the now-widely accepted point that replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates turned out to be a terrible idea, and pushed Americans further toward obesity. In this case, the fat in whole milk appears to be beneficial in itself. That hypothesis became the focus of a new series of tests, one that focused on actual consumption of dairy fat against development of heart disease, rather than correlation on overall diet. Surprise:

Otto and Mozaffarian used a blood sample for each of more than 2,800 U.S. adults. Using the blood sample, they could detect how much dairy fats each had consumed. And over the eight-year follow up period, those who had consumed the most dairy fat were far less likely to get  heart disease compared to those who had consumed the least.


So how did the US government conclude that whole milk should be discouraged? By claiming the science was settled when it actually wasn’t:

But even as a Senate committee was developing the Dietary Goals, some experts were lamenting that the case against saturated fats was, though thinly supported, was being presented as if it were a sure thing.

“The vibrant certainty of scientists claiming to be authorities on these matters is disturbing,” George V. Mann, a biochemist at Vanderbilt’s med school wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Ambitious scientists and food companies, he said, had “transformed [a] fragile hypothesis into treatment dogma.”


Golly, doesn’t that sound … familiar? At least no one  no one suggested locking up saturated-fat “deniers” at the time.


Perhaps the best lesson from these retreats from disastrous health directives over the last four decades is that government should get out of that business entirely. And while they’re exiting the dietary-diktat business, they should exit the climate-change business as well.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/07/surprise-whole-milk-may-be-good-for-you-after-all/

The evolution of Microsoft's HoloLens


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_NeDEPKvcA


--------------
Wearable holograms...