The first simultaneous, nationwide multimedia test of the federal Emergency Alert System is schedule for 1 p.m. (CST) Wednesday, Nov. 9. The test will last up to three and a half minutes.
An audio message, “This is a test,” will be broadcast for the first time in the United States and its territories simultaneously on radio, satellite radio, television, cable stations and wire line providers. This is the first test of a nationwide emergency alert on all media.
Individuals who are not aware of the test may perceive it as an actual emergency message, so it is important to make the public aware of the test well ahead of the testing period.
The federal agencies helping to conduct this first-of-its-kind multimedia test are the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
This national alert and warning system was set up to enable the president of the United States to address the American public during extreme emergencies.
The nationwide test is similar to local EAS tests that have been conducted for many years to test the operation of local emergency alert systems. These local EAS tests typically last less than one minute and do not occur on all media simultaneously.
FEMA, the FCC and other federal partners, along with state, local, tribal and territorial governments, have been working to coordinate the nationwide test for two years as part of the nation’s ongoing emergency preparedness planning efforts.
Find out how to stay informed during an actual emergency at http://www.ready.gov
Read tips on what to do in the event of an emergency at http://www.fema.gov
For more Information Regarding the EAS National Test visit
http://www.fema.gov/emergency/ipaws/eas_info.shtm
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Nashville is the seventh most popular city in the nation to live in, according to a Harris Interactive Poll released today.
Nashville is the seventh most popular city in the nation to live in, according to a Harris Interactive Poll released today.
Nashville tied for seventh with Atlanta.
The top 10 cities were: New York City, San Diego, Las Vegas, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Nashville (tie), Atlanta (tie), Denver and Boston.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/589/Default.aspx
Nashville tied for seventh with Atlanta.
The top 10 cities were: New York City, San Diego, Las Vegas, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Nashville (tie), Atlanta (tie), Denver and Boston.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/589/Default.aspx
Monday, January 11, 2010
SCHWAB LOWERS AND SIMPLIFIES TRADE COMMISSIONS
Flat $8.95 per online equity trade commission applies regardless of number of shares traded or client account size
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 7, 2010 — In its ongoing effort to make investing more accessible and
affordable, The Charles Schwab Corporation today announced reductions in online equity trade commissions designed to provide greater value for investors of all sizes, regardless of the frequency or size of their trades.
Beginning January 19, 2010 Schwab retail investors will pay just $8.95per online trade in stocks or non-Schwab exchange traded funds. (Schwab ETFs feature commission-free online trading through Schwab accounts.) Formerly, investors who held less than $1 million in household assets at Schwab or who traded fewer than 120 times per year paid $12.95 per trade plus charges for trades larger than 1000 shares.
More information available at ::: http://www.schwab.com/ :::
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 7, 2010 — In its ongoing effort to make investing more accessible and
affordable, The Charles Schwab Corporation today announced reductions in online equity trade commissions designed to provide greater value for investors of all sizes, regardless of the frequency or size of their trades.
Beginning January 19, 2010 Schwab retail investors will pay just $8.95per online trade in stocks or non-Schwab exchange traded funds. (Schwab ETFs feature commission-free online trading through Schwab accounts.) Formerly, investors who held less than $1 million in household assets at Schwab or who traded fewer than 120 times per year paid $12.95 per trade plus charges for trades larger than 1000 shares.
More information available at ::: http://www.schwab.com/ :::
Thursday, June 26, 2008
District of Columbia Total Ban on Firearms Ruled Unconstitutional by SCOTUS
Thursday Morning, 26th June, 2008, A. D.
District of Columbia Law Prohibiting the Possesion of Firearms within the Home without posession of a triger-lock, as well as the "total weapons ban" held unconstitutional.
D.C. residents may now receive licenses to possess a Loaded Firearm without a Trigger-Lock in their homes. As the Supreme Court of the United States of America has held that Citizens are allowed to bear arms for self-defense of their home and person. The court also held that the second amendment right is not unlimited. The Court ruled that laws may restrict locations where firearms may be used or carried, one example given was Courtrooms and Primary Schools. However cities, states, and the federal goverment may restrict or require that persons be licensed to carry or possess if the licensing requirement is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, The Supreme Court of the United States of America held that The District of Columbia must allow Mr. Heller the right to register his handguns and weapons and be issued a license to bear arms in his home if he completes the licensing process. Assuming that the licensing process is fair.
In the past the District of Colubmia required that if one wanted to license a handgun that it be dis-assembled, not loaded, have a trigger-lock, be registered and be licensed.
The Supreme Court held in its majority decision that these requirements were too restrictive and prohibiting the use of functional weapons to protect one's self, family, and property in the home.
-----------------------
Read the full Brief at http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf
Below is a Summary of District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller
Pages 1 through 3 of the Brief.
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed
handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;
and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms
unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.
Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a
handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He
filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the
city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement
insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in
the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed
the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second
Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and
that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for
self-defense, violated that right.
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
Page 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Syllabus
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) -- Page 3
Syllabus
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a
dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,
joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
District of Columbia Law Prohibiting the Possesion of Firearms within the Home without posession of a triger-lock, as well as the "total weapons ban" held unconstitutional.
D.C. residents may now receive licenses to possess a Loaded Firearm without a Trigger-Lock in their homes. As the Supreme Court of the United States of America has held that Citizens are allowed to bear arms for self-defense of their home and person. The court also held that the second amendment right is not unlimited. The Court ruled that laws may restrict locations where firearms may be used or carried, one example given was Courtrooms and Primary Schools. However cities, states, and the federal goverment may restrict or require that persons be licensed to carry or possess if the licensing requirement is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, The Supreme Court of the United States of America held that The District of Columbia must allow Mr. Heller the right to register his handguns and weapons and be issued a license to bear arms in his home if he completes the licensing process. Assuming that the licensing process is fair.
In the past the District of Colubmia required that if one wanted to license a handgun that it be dis-assembled, not loaded, have a trigger-lock, be registered and be licensed.
The Supreme Court held in its majority decision that these requirements were too restrictive and prohibiting the use of functional weapons to protect one's self, family, and property in the home.
-----------------------
Read the full Brief at http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf
Below is a Summary of District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller
Pages 1 through 3 of the Brief.
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed
handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;
and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms
unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.
Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a
handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He
filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the
city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement
insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in
the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed
the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second
Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and
that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for
self-defense, violated that right.
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
Page 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Syllabus
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) -- Page 3
Syllabus
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a
dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,
joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
hello amigos:
Our new countertop in the utility room was installed today, and now it's time for the tile, the concrete block patio we installed this past weekend looks good..
now we have to start packing up our kitchen in the next two to three weeks or so.
the job search is still slow... and i have almost become extremely jaded about life in general. hopefully, i will receive a few calls this month.
Thankfully, I still have storytelling, jokes, humor, hope, love, faith, and god.
Cheers, Hugs, and Love
J.. =)
Our new countertop in the utility room was installed today, and now it's time for the tile, the concrete block patio we installed this past weekend looks good..
now we have to start packing up our kitchen in the next two to three weeks or so.
the job search is still slow... and i have almost become extremely jaded about life in general. hopefully, i will receive a few calls this month.
Thankfully, I still have storytelling, jokes, humor, hope, love, faith, and god.
Cheers, Hugs, and Love
J.. =)
Friday, February 01, 2008
it's been another hectic, scattered month/qtr/week/day for me.
I really can't believe that today is Friday 1 February 2008.
it seems like things are a changing, and winter is just almost over two more months to go until 1 April the start of Spring.
and I can't believe that the superbowl is this weekend on Sunday, who will win the NY Giants or the NE Patriots? We will just have to wait and see, J. says that the horserace is "too close to call"
SouperTuesday is next week, on Mardi Gras, before Ash Wednesday...
So enjoy the rest of Carnival...and your favorite beverage...
Cheers Mates. and give me a ring sometime... if you need help,... hang up and then dial your operator....
J.
I really can't believe that today is Friday 1 February 2008.
it seems like things are a changing, and winter is just almost over two more months to go until 1 April the start of Spring.
and I can't believe that the superbowl is this weekend on Sunday, who will win the NY Giants or the NE Patriots? We will just have to wait and see, J. says that the horserace is "too close to call"
SouperTuesday is next week, on Mardi Gras, before Ash Wednesday...
So enjoy the rest of Carnival...and your favorite beverage...
Cheers Mates. and give me a ring sometime... if you need help,... hang up and then dial your operator....
J.
Friday, August 03, 2007
IT Security : a recent hack into the switches of the Vodafone Greece Mobile / Cell Public Telephone System
Is your Mobile being watched?
taken from the SPECTRUM
a hacker hacked the AES /plex correction block section that allows auto-updates without bringing the telephone system down. When Vodafone was notified of the breach, the immediate knee-jerk effect was.... can anyone guess.... terminate the rogue program.
The better course of action would be 1.) notify authorities that a breach has happened, 2.) use the logs... to identify the following a.) where is the breach both electronically and physically, b.) is any information being logged ? , c.) if so then identify which and what is being logged to guess what is being hacked or sent to a third-party,
3.) in this case the telephone number, calls and times -- a.) could have been used to triangulate
using geometric means... a to b.... a to c..... a to d ..... then where is b, c, d, .... calculate distance from a..... connect the dots.... b.) don't shut the log or the process down until the perpetrator is arrested....
4.) DONT kill the LOG!!! or the PROCESS.... you might ALERT the INTRUDER...
anyway... both VODAFONE and Greece Authorities dropped the BALL...
SO IS YOUR PHONE TAPPED? ...the answer is,..... probably so...
so use PGP, SSH, and SSL... or for most secure physically move the files.....
Cheers
J.
taken from the SPECTRUM
FAIR USE of IP Controlled by IEEE.org
FMI : see 17 USC 107,
a hacker hacked the AES /plex correction block section that allows auto-updates without bringing the telephone system down. When Vodafone was notified of the breach, the immediate knee-jerk effect was.... can anyone guess.... terminate the rogue program.
The better course of action would be 1.) notify authorities that a breach has happened, 2.) use the logs... to identify the following a.) where is the breach both electronically and physically, b.) is any information being logged ? , c.) if so then identify which and what is being logged to guess what is being hacked or sent to a third-party,
3.) in this case the telephone number, calls and times -- a.) could have been used to triangulate
using geometric means... a to b.... a to c..... a to d ..... then where is b, c, d, .... calculate distance from a..... connect the dots.... b.) don't shut the log or the process down until the perpetrator is arrested....
4.) DONT kill the LOG!!! or the PROCESS.... you might ALERT the INTRUDER...
anyway... both VODAFONE and Greece Authorities dropped the BALL...
SO IS YOUR PHONE TAPPED? ...the answer is,..... probably so...
so use PGP, SSH, and SSL... or for most secure physically move the files.....
Cheers
J.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
