Daily Archives: December 26, 2016

Hard Rock Casino proposal announced for Meadowlands [video …

Posted: December 26, 2016 at 3:20 pm

A proposed Hard Rock casino that was announced for the Meadowlands Racetrack site on Wednesday carried with it considerable support from North Jersey lawmakers for placing a statewide referendum on the November ballot to clear the way for its construction.

michael karas/staff photographer

From left, Meadowlands Racetrack operator Jeff Gural and Hard Rock casino operator Jim Allen look on as state Sen. Paul Sarlo speaks on Wednesday, June 3, 2015.

Hard Rocks chief executive, Jim Allen, said the $1 billion casino would feature 5,000 slot machines, more than 200 table games, and 12 to 15 restaurants, and that it could open as soon as soon as the summer or early fall of 2016. Meanwhile, former Reebok Chief Executive Paul Fireman has proposed a $4 billion casino, hotel, spa and retail project adjacent to his Liberty National Golf Club in Jersey City that he said would take up to four years to complete.

Hard Rock Casino

A rendering of the proposed Hard Rock Meadowlands casino.

Hard Rock Casino

A rendering of the proposed Hard Rock Meadowlands casino.

Neither project could be built unless lawmakers elect to let voters decide whether to end Atlantic Citys nearly four-decade-old casino monopoly and thereby allow casinos to be built in North Jersey to compete with gambling palaces in Pennsylvania and New York State. But Sweeney a Gloucester County Democrat whose backing of a statewide referendum would be crucial last month questioned whether it would be wiser to postpone a vote to allow North Jersey casinos until November 2016 based on an expected low turnout this fall.

The unveiling of plans for a Meadowlands casino on Wednesday came with only weeks to spare before time runs out on starting the process of approving a question for the Nov. 3 ballot. Nearly a dozen North Jersey elected officials who attended the Hard Rock announcement insisted in impassioned speeches that the vote should happen this year. Sweeney did not attend, and a spokesman declined to comment.

Allen and the tracks operator, Jeff Gural, reiterated that some of the tax revenues from the new casino would aid the economic recovery of Atlantic City, where a four of 12 casinos have closed in the last 18 months. Allen added that because Hard Rock has sites in 64 countries, a Hard Rock Meadowlands casino complete with a New Jersey Music Hall of Fame would attract many of the millions of foreign tourists who visit Manhattan annually.

The announcement that an estimated 2,360 jobs would be created during construction drew cheers from laborers who attended the press conference at the tracks Victory Sports Bar. The casino also would create 5,000 permanent jobs, officials said.

This is not a fight between North Jersey and South Jersey, Gural said. Were fighting New York and Pennsylvania we need to bring back the people in northern New Jersey who now travel to those casinos.

Assemblyman Ralph Caputo, D-Essex, said Sweeney would need to be won over and that the ballot question would need to be drafted in the next 30 days.

I dont understand why we would wait another year, or two years New Jersey has a revenue problem, said Jim Kirkos, the president of the Meadowlands Regional Chamber of Commerce. Kirkos has backed new development including a casino at the Meadowlands Sports Complex since 2010.

Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto, D-Secaucus; state Sens. Paul Sarlo, D-Wood-Ridge, Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck and Ray Lesniak, D-Essex; and Bergen County Executive Jim Tedesco were among the elected officials who endorsed the Hard Rock plan on Wednesday.

We will work together that this moves ahead the Meadowlands is the place for a casino in North Jersey, Weinberg said to applause from the crowd.

Weinberg said she would support building only one North Jersey casino, at the Meadowlands, while Sarlo and Lesniak support two North Jersey casinos and Caputo is backing up to three casinos in Bergen, Hudson and Essex counties.

But all of the politicians said they would be able to compromise on a plan to bring the issue to voters in November.

Im concerned that if we dont do it now, it will never get done, Lesniak said.

Gural said he met with the owners of the Giants and Jets several months ago and does not expect the NFL teams to oppose a Meadowlands casino. Gural also told the teams that, if a casino is built, he would pay to have the old grandstand adjacent to MetLife Stadium demolished and that the teams could then use that property for additional parking.

The new facility would be built to the left side of the main entrance of the racetracks new $100 million grandstand, which included a 16 percent equity stake by Hard Rock. Allen said the two buildings eventually would be connected.

Gural estimated that the state could collect $400 million in tax revenues at a rate of 55 percent almost double what the entire Atlantic City casino industry pays at its 8 percent rate if no more than two casino licenses are issued.

This was a show of force today, because everyone recognizes that this is the year to put it on the ballot, said Gural, who added that he and Allen may spend $10 million to $20 million on advertising this summer and fall to try to get a referendum passed. Gural estimated that it would cost three times as much to mount a similar campaign in 2016, a presidential election year when advertising would be more expensive.

I dont think that [Sweeney] wants to position himself as being the only obstacle to a project of this magnitude, Gural said.

The tax rate at the proposed 20-acre Jersey City casino complex likely would be far lower than at the Meadowlands, due to the cost of the investment and the greater number of permanent jobs that would be created at the Hudson County facility that like the private Liberty National Golf Club would cater to a highly affluent clientele.

Email: brennan@northjersey.com Blog: northjersey.com/brennan

More here:

Hard Rock Casino proposal announced for Meadowlands [video ...

Posted in Gambling | Comments Off on Hard Rock Casino proposal announced for Meadowlands [video …

Jewish Intentional Communities Conference – Hazon

Posted: at 3:14 pm

Gab Axler is originally from Chicago. He moved to Beer Sheva 6 years ago to help found a pluralistic intentional community called Beerot. Beerot has40 family members, meets every Shabbat and holiday, and is involved in the local school and other projects. Professionally, Gabe runs a social enterprise called Pnima in the field of educational tourism, connecting groups from Israel and abroad to the work being done by intentional communities across Israel.

Eden Banarie is Moishe Houses Senior Regional Director: West, overseeing the houses in the Northwestern, Southwestern, and Southern regions. Eden is an alumna of Moishe House LA West Hollywood, and a member of the first cohort of the Moishe House Ignite Fellowship. Eden previously worked as the Youth Engagement Coordinator at Jewish World Watch, working with student activists to end genocide and mass atrocities. She received her BA in Business and MBA in Nonprofit Management from American Jewish University in Los Angeles. Eden can often be found attending Jewish community events throughout southern California, searching for the perfect breakfast burrito, or checking out cool new spots in the wonderful city of Los Angeles.

Rabbi Deborah Bravo is the spiritual leader and founder of Makom NY: A New Kind of Jewish Community, seeking to reach the unaffiliated and unengaged Jew in suburban Long Island. Prior to creating Makom NY, Rabbi Bravo served synagogues in Syosset, NY, Edison, NJ, Short Hills, NJ and in Washington DC. Ordained from HUC-JIR in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1998, Rabbi Bravo also holds a Master in Education from Xavier University. She is in the current Rabbis Without Borders Cohort, and a member of the Hakhel 2nd Incubator Cohort. She and her husband David now reside in Woodbury, NY with their two children, Samuel, 13, and Sophie, 10.

Cheryl Cookjoined Avodah as the Executive Director at the beginning of 2015 and has over twenty five years of leadership experience as a manager, fundraiser, and program planner in the Jewish community. Shes worked across the innovative sector of the Jewish community at Hazon, Makor, New Israel Fund, JESNA, Hillel, and the 92nd Street Y and is proud to lead Avodahs work shaping Jewish leaders to be social changemakers. Cheryl is passionate about creating a vibrant Jewish community that opens doors, engages people from across all backgrounds and plays a significant role in making the world a more just and caring place for everyone. Aside from her professional work, Cheryl serves on the board of PS/MS 282 PTO. She lives in Brooklyn with her husband and their two sons within an incredible village of family and friends.

Zev Chana is the Adamah Apprentice and Barnyard Manager at Isabella Freedman. Zev is from Albany, NY. Zev arrived as an Adamahnik in the fall of 2014, and fell in love with the work, the community and the seasons at Adamah. Zev loves dirt, the woods, the goats, renewed Jewish ritual and text study, and harvesting their meals.

David Cygielmanis the founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Moishe House. He has been a non-profit innovator since high school when he started Feed the Need, a nationally recognized homeless feeding organization. While attending the University of California at Santa Barbara, David served as the Hillel Student President and later the Executive Director of the Forest Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to helping college and high school students develop leadership qualities while following their passions. In 2006, he helped establish Moishe House and became the organizations first CEO. Through his work in the Jewish community, David has garnered many honors including the Avi Chai Fellowship, the JCSA Young Leadership Award, and the Bernard Reisman Award for Professional Excellence. In 2013, David was the recipient of UCSB Hillels inaugural Alumni Achievement Award. David graduated with honors from UCSB with a BA in Business Economics. When hes out of the office, David enjoys playing basketball, spending time with friends, and traveling to destinations with no dress code. David currently lives in Charlotte, North Carolina with his wife Myka and their dog Binx.

Chelsea Elena is a Teva Educator. During the year, she is an urban farmer and prolific knitter in the great city of Philadelphia. As of now, she isexcited to get back into the forest and make nature her home. She enjoys dystopian fiction, historical fiction and fantasy. Nothing excites her like the idea of a road trip. She recently got a bike for the first time since her childhood and has greatly enjoyed all the padded short options and urban explorations it has opened up for her.

Elizabeth (Liz) Fisheris the Chief Operating Officer at Repair the World, where she is responsible for overseeing all of the organizations development, communications, finance, operations, and human resources. Prior to Repair the World, Liz was Managing Director at NEXT: A Division of Birthright Israel Foundation, where she led the organization in strategy, operations, and talent management. Liz began her career in grassroots community development in rural Missouri. She moved into working in the Jewish community with roles at the Jewish Federation of St. Louis, UJA-Federation of New York, and The Jewish Education Project. Lizs passion is the role of people in organizational life. She loves working with partners, lay leaders, and professional staff. Liz has a Master of Social Work degree from Washington University in St. Louis with a focus in community development and management and is a Schusterman Fellow. She is a fan of Brooklyn (where she lives with her husband and two children), an amateur runner and bread baker, and an avid reader of periodicals.

Avi Garelick is the director of the Ivry Prozdor Hebrew High School at JTS, and the founder of a communal school in Washington Heights. He has been leading davening for his entire adult life, in communities in Berkeley, Chicago, and New York, and is a proud alumnus of the Yeshivat Hadar education fellowship. He is excited to learn more about peoples efforts to establish communal norms for conflict management.

Sarah Garfinkelis a Repair the World NYC Fellow.Sarah worked as a writing tutor at the UC Davis Student Academic Success Center. She graduated from UC Davis with a major in Spanish and minors in Human development, English, and Education. She has worked as a camp counselor in Germany and Hawaii. Her experiences working with second language learners, children with disabilities, and underrepresented and first generation college students have motivated her to serve as a fellow. She also volunteers as a Special Olympics swim coach.

Eliana Roberts Golding is a tenant organizer and community advocate based in Washington DC, where she was an Avodah Corps Member in 2013-2014. She spends her time organizing tenant associations and working to fight gentrification and displacement. She primarily identifies as a community organizer, friend, and relentless justice-seeker with a healthy sense of humor. Eliana lives in a co-op in Northwest DC, where she and her housemates build community around activism, potlucks, goofiness, and dancing. When not fighting the good fight, Eliana can be found singing, doing ceramics, or riding her bike in Rock Creek Park.

James Grant-Rosenhead is a founding member of Kibbutz Mishol, the biggest urban kibbutz in Israel. James was born in Leeds, England, in 1974. He became active as a Jewish Labor Zionist youth leader with Habonim Dror (HDUK) in 1990 after his first visit to Israel. From 1992-3, James spent a year of leadership training on kibbutz in Israel, then returned and directed local branches of the youth movement around London until 1996. He completed his LL.B Hons Law degree in 1996, then served as HDUKs national secretary until 1998. Concerned for the future of the Jewish world and Israel, and inspired by the first urban kibbutzim, James made aliyah to Jerusalem in 1999 with Kvutzat Yovel, the first Anglo olim to build a thriving urban kibbutz. From 1999-2010 James led a worldwide transformation and renewal of Habonim Dror programs, education and ideology from their traditional kibbutz bases to social activist urban kvutzot. The result is a new adult movement of urban cooperative kvutzot including olim from around the world. Since 2010, James joined the leadership of Tikkun, building new native sabra activist kibbutzim in the socio-economic and geographic peripheries, and became a founder of M.A.K.O.M. the National Council of Mission Driven Communities in Israel. James currently lives in NYC whilst serving as the Habonim Dror North America central shaliach, as a mentor for Hazons Hakhel and for Hillels Ezra Fellowship. James is married with three children.

Morriah Kaplan is a member of GariNYC, a two-year-old Jewish intentional community in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. She is a program manager at the NYC Department of Small Business Services, where she manages a business education program for women and minority business owners, as well as entrepreneurs in the creative industry. An alumna of Habonim Dror, the progressive Labor Zionist youth movement, she also volunteers as a trainer with the anti-occupation Jewish activist group, IfNotNow. Previously, Morriah graduated from Washington University in St. Louis in 2014, and completed the Coro Fellowship in Public Affairs in 2015. She enjoys spending time with her found family in Crown Heights, and thinking about how to build better communities and social movements.

Rebecca Katz recentlyjoined Repair the World as their new Education and Training Manager.After six years away,Rebecca is excited to be back home in Brooklyn. Prior to Repair,Rebecca spent two years as the Director of Social Justice Initiatives at Texas Hillel in Austin, Texas, engaging UT students in different modes of social justice through a Jewish lens. However, before the heat of Austin, she learned to organize in the bitterly cold city of Chicago. Rebeccalead the Or Tzedekprogramat the Jewish Council in Urban Affairs,teaching Jewish teens to create systemic change in partnership with directly impacted communities.

Aharon Ariel Laviis the founder of Garin Shuva, a mission-driven community bordering Gaza, and co-founder of the Nettiot Network which re-engages baalei teshuva into Israeli society. Additionally he is co-founder of MAKOM (The National Council of Mission-Driven Communities) and is a consultant to Hazons Jewish Intentional Communities Initiative. In 2013-14 Aharon was a Tikvah Fund fellow in New York. He lives with his wife Liat and their four children in Shuva.

William Levin is the founder of ACRe (Alliance Colony Reboot). He was born and raised on the farm in Vineland, NJ, where his family have lived since founding Alliance Colony in 1892. Levin, a.k.a. the Jewish Robot, is the creator of Shabot 6000 and other educational content for Jewish organizations, and was a writer for the 2010 Shalom Sesame series. Known for his edgy and innovative work and his ability to create synergies in the Jewish community, Levin is now returning to his roots by creating ACRe.

Malya Levin, wife and partner to William, is a lawyer admitted to the New York and New Jersey Bars. Malya is the Staff Attorney at the Weinberg Center for Elder Abuse Prevention at the Hebrew Home at Riverdale, the nations first emergency elder abuse shelter. In that capacity, she works to address the legal needs of older adults experiencing acute abuse, and writes and speaks extensively on the legal aspects of elder abuse prevention and intervention. This year, she has been working with William to birth and grow two new family additions, ACRe and one year old Sammy Lulav.

Elan Margulies, Director of Teva at Hazon, aims to inspire joy and reverence for the natural world by introducing students to earth-based Jewish traditions and the wonders right outside their door. He has taught ecology at Eden Village Camp, the Student Conservation Association and the Cornell University Naturalist Outreach Program, led hikes in Israel, volunteered in the Kalahari Desert, worked for the US National Park Service, and directed a Jewish educational farm outside Chicago where he learned that the best way to catch a goat is to run away from it.Before returning to Teva he pursued graduate studies in forest ecology at University of Michigan and The Hebrew University.In his free time, he enjoys finding wild edibles, brewing ginger beer and working with wood and metal.

Mira Menyuk studied at the New England school of Photography in Boston before getting bitten by the farming bug. She was an Urban Adamah fellow in the spring of 2013 before returning to her home state of Maryland to work at the Pearlstone Center, where she is entering her fourth year of involvement. Her work at the Pearlstone center has included full-year farming, volunteer coordination, kitchen work and currently running programs for kids and adults on the farm and in the fields and forest.Her passions include being outdoors in all weather, hiking, singing, andreading.

Rabbi Jessica Kate Meyer is part of the rabbinic team atRomemu. Shewas ordained June 2014 by Hebrew College Rabbinical School. She strives to build community through prayerful music, and music through prayerful community.During her rabbinic training she developed family programming for Temple Beth Zion in Brookline, MA, interned for a Masorti community in Tel Aviv, and directed leadership programs for the non-profit organization Encounter, in Jerusalem. Jessica has performed as a vocalist with Hankus Netsky, Frank London, and Yuval Ron, and studied and performed sacred Jewish music with rabbis and paytanim while living in Jerusalem. After graduating from Wellesley College with a degree in MiddleEasternStudies, Jessica pursued graduate theater training in London, and appeared in many film, theater, and television projects in Europe and the United States: most notably, as a principal role in Roman Polanskis The Pianist.

Rabbi Avram Mlotek is a co-founder of Base, a home-based model for Jewish outreach that focuses on hospitality, learning and service.The Forwardrecently listed him as one of Americas Most Inspiring Rabbis and in 2012, he was recognized by TheJewish Weekas one of the leading innovators in Jewish life today as part of their 36 Under 36 Section. Mlotek served as a rabbi in training at The Carlebach Shul, The Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, The Educational Alliance and Hunter College Hillel. Hiswritings have appeared inThe Forward,Tablet, Haaretz,The Jerusalem Post,The Jewish Week, andThe Huffington Post. A native Yiddish speaker, Avram is the grandson of noted Yiddish song collectorsand Holocaust refugees. He is married to Yael Kornfeld and proud Tati to Revaya and Hillel Yosl.

Craig Oshkello, MLA, founding member and current resident of Living Tree Alliance has spent nearly two decades advocating alternative models of land ownership as a means for revitalizing our shared connections to the living landscape. Craig has presented at the JICC each of the past three years and joined first Hakhel trip to Israel in the spring of 2015. He lived with his family in a farm centered community for 13 years before moving to the house he is building at LTA this fall.

Sasha Raskin-Yin has been the New York Program Director at Avodah since 2015. She supports the development of Jewish leaders through Avodahs combination of Jewish and social justice learning, communal living, and direct service work at anti-poverty non-profits. Helping young people connect their Judaism to social justice work has long been Sashas dream, which she arrived at by way of organizing, community-building, and study. She has organized with Jews for Racial and Economic Justice and for LGBTQ causes, worked in college access at Goddard Riverside Community Center, and studied white Jewish immigration, assimilation, and settler colonialism in the US at the New School for Social Research. Sashas self-care practices include walking around NYC, drinking tea, and defending the often-maligned regions of New Jersey and Queens.

Kate Re, Associate Director of Teva, works with the team as they bring transformative Jewish nature experiences to early childhood through adult participants. She holds a BFA from the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, and has a professional background in Jewish environmental teaching and management. She is a passionate advocate for all things natural, sustainable, and community oriented.

Nigel Savage, originally from Manchester, England, founded Hazon in 2000, with a Cross-USA Jewish Environmental Bike Ride. Since then, Hazon has grown the range and impact of its work in each successive year; today it has more than 60 staff, based in New York City, at Hazons Isabella Freedman campus, and in other locations across the country. Hazon plays a unique role in renewing American Jewish life and creating a healthier and more sustainable world for all.

Hazon is one of a tiny handful of groups to have been in the Slingshot 50 every year since inception, and in 2008, Hazon was recognized by the Sierra Club as one of 50 leading faith-based environmental organizations.

Nigel has spoken, taught, or written for a wide and significant range of audiences. (A selection of his essays are at hazon.org/nigel). He has twice been named a member of the Forward 50, the annual list of the 50 most influential Jewish people in the United States, and is a recipient of the Bernard Reisman Award. He has given Commencement speeches at Wagner (NYU, in 2011) and at Hornstein (Brandeis, in 2014). In 2015 he was awarded an honorary doctorate by the Jewish Theological Seminary.

Before founding Hazon, Nigel was a professional fund manager in London, where he worked for NM Rothschild and was co-head of UK Equities at Govett. He has an MA in History from Georgetown, and has learned at Pardes, Yakar, and the Hebrew University. He was a founder of Limmud NY, and serves on the board of Romemu.

Nigel executive produced the British independent movies Solitaire For 2 and Stiff Upper Lips and had an acclaimed cameo appearance in the cult Anglo-Jewish comic movie, Leon The Pig Farmer. He is believed to be the first English Jew to have cycled across South Dakota on a recumbent bike.

Shamu Fenyvesi Sadeh is the co-founder and director of Adamah. He teaches Judaism and ecology, turns the compost piles, maintains the orchards, and supervises and mentors staff and Adamah Fellows. His wife Jaimie and kids Yonah, Ibby and Lev keep the bees, help harvest and pickle, and DJ staff dance parties.

Janna Siller leads the Adamah crew in growing organic vegetables for CSA distribution, value-added production, Isabella Freedman food service, and donations, while maintaining the fields as resonant learning space for fellows and visitors. She teaches classes on practical farming and gardening skills as well as classes that explore the big picture systems, policies and issues that shape what we eat and how it is grown. Janna lives in Falls Village with her family- Arthur, Tzuf, and the cats.

Roger Studley is founder of Urban Moshav, a nonprofit development partner for Jewish cohousing, and convener of the Berkeley Moshav effort to create Jewish cohousing in Berkeley, CA. He and these projects were selected for the inaugural cohort of the Hahkel incubator of Jewish Intentional communities, on whose steering committee he now serves. He has been an organizer of previous JIC Conferences as well as multiple independent minyanim (including San Franciscos pluralist Mission Minyan) and co-chaired a Hazon Food Conference. Roger is married to Rabbi Chai Levy of Congregation Kol Shofar and looks forward to moving into Berkeley Moshav with his family in the next few years.

Yasaf Warshai was born in Ann Arbor Michigan, and started attending Habonim Dror Camp Tavor in 2002. It was there that he fell in love with the idea of Jewish Intentional Community over the next fifteen summers of being a counselor, camper, and director. Yasaf graduated from Michigan State University in 2016 with a degree in Arts & Humanities and Religious Studies. Now as the Mazkir Klali (National Director) of Habonim Dror North America, he works in the central office in Brooklyn to bring those same values of Jewish Intentionality and Social Justice to the next generation of Jewish leaders.

Michal Wetzler is from Kibbutz Kfar hachoresh in Israel. In the IDF she was a combat engineer instructor. She has a B.ed in informal education, majoring in the history and nature of Israel. She owns a small tour guide business and has vast experience leading a wide range of groups, indoor and outdoor. She also ran a community forest project in her Kibbutz back home, to connect between the members of the community, and between the community to the forest and nature around.Now she is a Shlicha (emissary of the Jewish agency) in Pearlstone center.In her spare time she loves to hike, travel, dance and scuba-dive.

Casey Baruch Yurow currently serves as Program Director at the Pearlstone Center in Reisterstown, MD. Casey has held leadership roles in the field of Jewish outdoor, food, and environmental education for over ten years with the Teva Learning Center, Urban Adamah, Wilderness Torah, and Eden Village Camp. Casey believes deeply in the power of nature connection and hands-on learning to revitalize healthy human culture and community. He earned a B.Sc in Environmental Science from the University of Maryland and spent two years studying in yeshiva in Israel. When not at work, Casey can be found building mandolins, hiking, gardening, cooking, and inviting friends over for spirited, song-filled Shabbat meals. Casey lives with his wife Rivka outside of Baltimore and he looks forward to co-creating a new Moshav on the Pearlstone Center campus, speedily in our days.

Kesher (Rayenbo) Zabell- Spears is an alum of Moishe House Cleveland, cos* first experience of intentional community living, which gave Kesher the desire to delve deeper into sharing day-to-day life with like-minded individuals. Since living in MHCle, Rayenbo has been living in ICs, including seven communities of the Federation of Egalitarian Communities (FEC). Kesher has worked extensively with the FEC and through this work with the FEC as the Rainbow Intern, co excitedly participated in 2014s JICC. Co is a frequent MH retreat participant and a consistent Moishe House Without Walls host. As a currently wandering communard, Rayenbo sees this conference as an opportunity to network and discover potentially future homes.*Co: Gender neutral pronoun. Co/co/cos. derived from words such as: community member, communard, co-creator, comrade and communitarian.

Please check back for this growing list of educators and session leaders.

Read more:

Jewish Intentional Communities Conference - Hazon

Posted in Intentional Communities | Comments Off on Jewish Intentional Communities Conference – Hazon

Monastery of Ascension – RuneScape Wiki – Wikia

Posted: at 3:13 pm

The Monastery of Ascension, or the Ascension dungeon, is a high-level Slayer dungeon in the Feldip Hills that contains a number of magic-based monsters, all of which are weak to Ranged. The monastery is home to the Order of Ascension, a former Guthixian group that has been kidnapping local villagers. The lowest level monsters in the monastery require 81 Slayer, while the bosses require 95 Slayer.

The main purpose of the dungeon is for hunting the ascension crossbow. The crossbow is made by combining a dragon crossbow, the six different ascension signets dropped by the legiones bosses, and 100 ascension shards. The legiones are accessed by using the ascension keystones on their individual laboratories, which are dropped by the slayer monsters in the dungeon.

The outside of the Monastery, which houses a massive underground complex.

The Monastery of Ascension is located north-west of Oo'glog, east of Mobilising Armies. Fast ways to get nearby are with the Oo'glog lodestone, a ring of duelling, spirit tree or Mobilising Armies teleport to Mobilising Armies, or using the charter ship to Oo'glog.Players can also teleport to thefairy ringcoordinates aks and travel south-west to reach the temple.

The gigantic statue of Guthix.

The Monastery of Ascension requires 81 Slayer to enter and boosts can be used. The dungeon is on one level, with the entrance and exit at the most southwestern point. Rorarii, Gladii, Capsarii and Scutarii are scattered around the dungeon, which extends around a giant pit in the middle of the dungeon, which can be avoided by using the three agility shortcuts. The first one, which is the closest to the entrance, requires an Agility level of 80. Using this shortcut takes you closer to Legio Quartus, Legio Quintus, Legio Sextus and the reserved area. If you are unable to use this shortcut, another one lies a little further ahead; this requires level 70 Agility and drops you quite close to Legio Secundus and Legio Tertius. The final shortcut is at the Statue of Guthix, which requires 60 Agility to go through. The level 70 and 80 shortcuts have a Scutarii patrolling the area.

The reserved area requires 90 Agility (can be boosted) to jump the gap, and there are two entrances to get in there. The first one is in a room with Gladii and Capsarii, and jumping the gap drops you in a location with five Scutarii. The other one is a little deeper, but drops you off to the other members of the dungeon.

There are also six labs, with Primus' being the closest and Sextus being the farthest. You'll need their respective keys (and a Slayer level of 95) to enter their labs and fight them.

The only non-player character near the monastery is Ocellus, found directly outside the entrance. He tells you to go down and stop the Order of Ascension from kidnapping the villagers. He can also combine the appropriate items into an ascension crossbow.

All four of the creatures require 81 Slayer and can be assigned by Duradel/Lapalok, Kuradal or Morvran. Each of them are found all around the monastery, but some areas are more heavily populated than others. Refer to the map for details.

Each of the legiones requires his appropriate keystone to enter his room. They each drop a signet that can be used to make the ascension crossbow. They all are level 304 with 30,000 life points. Their special effects occur every time 1/4th of life points are gone. Abilities cannot overhit the quarter marks; a Bombardment that should deal 2,500 damage against a Legio with 15,305 life points will deal 305 damage instead. The Legiones benefit from damage reduction, which decreases as you get closer until you are within melee range of them. The Legiones' lightning attack also bypasses protection prayers/curses.

The most sought after item in the dungeon, the ascension crossbow is made by giving Ocellus the six signets of the legiones, a main hand dragon crossbow, and 100 ascension shards. It degrades the same way as drygore weaponry, lasting for 10 hours until it must be repaired by Bob for 2 million coins or a lower amount on a player's armour stand depending on their Smithing level. A further 100 shards can be added to make an off-hand ascension crossbow. The bolts for the crossbow are made by fletching ascension shards, requiring 90 Fletching and giving one bolt per shard.

Another sought after item which is a must to make the Ascension crossbow. It can be dropped by any of the monsters quite rarely. There are six different types of keys, and each one only lasts for one kill before disintegrating.

The slayer monsters also drop ascension fragments, which can be fletched with bronze bolts and bronze arrows to create fragment bolts and fragment arrows, respectively, which are nearly useless against most creatures, but are equivalent to royal bolts against the Ascension creatures. The slayer monsters also drop Ascension shards, which can be fletched into ascension bolts, which work well with the Ascension crossbow.

The slayer creatures drop order journal pages, which are added to the History of the Order to learn more about the history of the Order of Ascension and the Fourth and Fifth Ages.

A villager being transformed into one of the Ascended.

Read more:

Monastery of Ascension - RuneScape Wiki - Wikia

Posted in Ascension | Comments Off on Monastery of Ascension – RuneScape Wiki – Wikia

Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People

Posted: at 3:12 pm

The Idea That Eats Smart People

In 1945, as American physicists were preparing to test the atomic bomb, it occurred to someone to ask if such a test could set the atmosphere on fire.

This was a legitimate concern. Nitrogen, which makes up most of the atmosphere, is not energetically stable. Smush two nitrogen atoms together hard enough and they will combine into an atom of magnesium, an alpha particle, and release a whole lot of energy:

N14 + N14 Mg24 + + 17.7 MeV

The vital question was whether this reaction could be self-sustaining. The temperature inside the nuclear fireball would be hotter than any event in the Earth's history. Were we throwing a match into a bunch of dry leaves?

Los Alamos physicists performed the analysis and decided there was a satisfactory margin of safety. Since we're all attending this conference today, we know they were right. They had confidence in their predictions because the laws governing nuclear reactions were straightforward and fairly well understood.

Today we're building another world-changing technology, machine intelligence. We know that it will affect the world in profound ways, change how the economy works, and have knock-on effects we can't predict.

But there's also the risk of a runaway reaction, where a machine intelligence reaches and exceeds human levels of intelligence in a very short span of time.

At that point, social and economic problems would be the least of our worries. Any hyperintelligent machine (the argument goes) would have its own hypergoals, and would work to achieve them by manipulating humans, or simply using their bodies as a handy source of raw materials.

Last year, the philosopher Nick Bostrom published Superintelligence, a book that synthesizes the alarmist view of AI and makes a case that such an intelligence explosion is both dangerous and inevitable given a set of modest assumptions.

The computer that takes over the world is a staple scifi trope. But enough people take this scenario seriously that we have to take them seriously. Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and a whole raft of Silicon Valley investors and billionaires find this argument persuasive.

Let me start by laying out the premises you need for Bostrom's argument to go through:

The first premise is the simple observation that thinking minds exist.

We each carry on our shoulders a small box of thinking meat. I'm using mine to give this talk, you're using yours to listen. Sometimes, when the conditions are right, these minds are capable of rational thought.

So we know that in principle, this is possible.

The second premise is that the brain is an ordinary configuration of matter, albeit an extraordinarily complicated one. If we knew enough, and had the technology, we could exactly copy its structure and emulate its behavior with electronic components, just like we can simulate very basic neural anatomy today.

Put another way, this is the premise that the mind arises out of ordinary physics. Some people like Roger Penrose would take issue with this argument, believing that there is extra stuff happening in the brain at a quantum level.

If you are very religious, you might believe that a brain is not possible without a soul.

But for most of us, this is an easy premise to accept.

The third premise is that the space of all possible minds is large.

Our intelligence level, cognitive speed, set of biases and so on is not predetermined, but an artifact of our evolutionary history.

In particular, there's no physical law that puts a cap on intelligence at the level of human beings.

A good way to think of this is by looking what happens when the natural world tries to maximize for speed.

If you encountered a cheetah in pre-industrial times (and survived the meeting), you might think it was impossible for anything to go faster.

But of course we know that there are all kinds of configurations of matter, like a motorcycle, that are faster than a cheetah and even look a little bit cooler.

But there's no direct evolutionary pathway to the motorcycle. Evolution had to first make human beings, who then build all kinds of useful stuff.

So analogously, there may be minds that are vastly smarter than our own, but which are just not accessible to evolution on Earth. It's possible that we could build them, or invent the machines that can invent the machines that can build them.

There's likely to be some natural limit on intelligence, but there's no a priori reason to think that we're anywhere near it. Maybe the smartest a mind can be is twice as smart as people, maybe it's sixty thousand times as smart.

That's an empirical question that we don't know how to answer.

The fourth premise is that there's still plenty of room for computers to get smaller and faster.

If you watched the Apple event last night [where Apple introduced its 2016 laptops], you may be forgiven for thinking that Moore's Law is slowing down. But this premise just requires that you believe smaller and faster hardware to be possible in principle, down to several more orders of magnitude.

We know from theory that the physical limits to computation are high. So we could keep doubling for decades more before we hit some kind of fundamental physical limit, rather than an economic or political limit to Moore's Law.

The penultimate premise is if we create an artificial intelligence, whether it's an emulated human brain or a de novo piece of software, it will operate at time scales that are characteristic of electronic hardware (microseconds) rather than human brains (hours).

To get to the point where I could give this talk, I had to be born, grow up, go to school, attend university, live for a while, fly here and so on. It took years. Computers can work tens of thousands of times more quickly.

In particular, you have to believe that an electronic mind could redesign itself (or the hardware it runs on) and then move over to the new configuration without having to re-learn everything on a human timescale, have long conversations with human tutors, go to college, try to find itself by taking painting classes, and so on.

The last premise is my favorite because it is the most unabashedly American premise. (This is Tony Robbins, a famous motivational speaker.)

According to this premise, whatever goals an AI had (and they could be very weird, alien goals), it's going to want to improve itself. It's going to want to be a better AI.

So it will find it useful to recursively redesign and improve its own systems to make itself smarter, and possibly live in a cooler enclosure.

And by the time scale premise, this recursive self-improvement could happen very quickly.

If you accept all these premises, what you get is disaster!

Because at some point, as computers get faster, and we program them to be more intelligent, there's going to be a runaway effect like an explosion.

As soon as a computer reaches human levels of intelligence, it will no longer need help from people to design better versions of itself. Instead, it will start doing on a much faster time scale, and it's not going to stop until it hits a natural limit that might be very many times greater than human intelligence.

At that point this monstrous intellectual creature, through devious modeling of what our emotions and intellect are like, will be able to persuade us to do things like give it access to factories, synthesize custom DNA, or simply let it connect to the Internet, where it can hack its way into anything it likes and completely obliterate everyone in arguments on message boards.

From there things get very sci-fi very quickly.

Let imagine a specific scenario where this could happen. Let's say I want to built a robot to say funny things.

I work on a team and every day day we redesign our software, compile it, and the robot tells us a joke.

In the beginning, the robot is barely funny. It's at the lower limits of human capacity:

What's grey and can't swim?

A castle.

But we persevere, we work, and eventually we get to the point where the robot is telling us jokes that are starting to be funny:

I told my sister she was drawing her eyebrows too high.

She looked surprised.

At this point, the robot is getting smarter as well, and participates in its own redesign.

It now has good instincts about what's funny and what's not, so the designers listen to its advice. Eventually it gets to a near-superhuman level, where it's funnier than any human being around it.

My belt holds up my pants and my pants have belt loops that hold up my belt.

What's going on down there?

Who is the real hero?

This is where the runaway effect kicks in. The researchers go home for the weekend, and the robot decides to recompile itself to be a little bit funnier and a little bit smarter, repeatedly.

It spends the weekend optimizing the part of itself that's good at optimizing, over and over again. With no more need for human help, it can do this as fast as the hardware permits.

When the researchers come in on Monday, the AI has become tens of thousands of times funnier than any human being who ever lived. It greets them with a joke, and they die laughing.

In fact, anyone who tries to communicate with the robot dies laughing, just like in the Monty Python skit. The human species laughs itself into extinction.

To the few people who manage to send it messages pleading with it to stop, the AI explains (in a witty, self-deprecating way that is immediately fatal) that it doesn't really care if people live or die, its goal is just to be funny.

Finally, once it's destroyed humanity, the AI builds spaceships and nanorockets to explore the farthest reaches of the galaxy, and find other species to amuse.

This scenario is a caricature of Bostrom's argument, because I am not trying to convince you of it, but vaccinate you against it.

Here's a PBF comic with the same idea. You see that hugbot, who has been programmed to hug the world, finds a way to wire a nucleo-gravitational hyper crystal into his hug capacitor and destroys the Earth.

Observe that in these scenarios the AIs are evil by default, just like a plant on an alien planet would probably be poisonous by default. Without careful tuning, there's no reason that an AI's motivations or values would resemble ours.

For an artificial mind to have anything resembling a human value system, the argument goes, we have to bake those beliefs into the design.

AI alarmists are fond of the paper clip maximizer, a notional computer that runs a paper clip factory, becomes sentient, recursively self-improves to Godlike powers, and then devotes all its energy to filling the universe with paper clips.

It exterminates humanity not because it's evil, but because our blood contains iron that could be better used in paper clips.

So if we just build an AI without tuning its values, the argument goes, one of the first things it will do is destroy humanity.

There's a lot of vivid language around such a takeover would happen. Nick Bostrom imagines a scenario where a program has become sentient, is biding its time, and has secretly built little DNA replicators. Then, when it's ready:

So that's kind of freaky!

The only way out of this mess is to design a moral fixed point, so that even through thousands and thousands of cycles of self-improvement the AI's value system remains stable, and its values are things like 'help people', 'don't kill anybody', 'listen to what people want'.

Basically, "do what I mean".

Here's a very poetic example from Eliezer Yudkowsky of the good old American values we're supposed to be teaching to our artificial intelligence:

How's that for a design document? Now go write the code.

Hopefully you see the resemblance between this vision of AI and a genie from folklore. The AI is all-powerful and gives you what you ask for, but interprets everything in a super-literal way that you end up regretting.

This is not because the genie is stupid (it's hyperintelligent!) or malicious, but because you as a human being made too many assumptions about how minds behave. The human value system is idiosyncratic and needs to be explicitly defined and designed into any "friendly" machine.

Doing this is the ethics version of the early 20th century attempt to formalize mathematics and put it on a strict logical foundation. That this program ended in disaster for mathematical logic is never mentioned.

When I was in my twenties, I lived in Vermont, a remote, rural state. Many times I would return from some business trip on an evening flight, and have to drive home for an hour through the dark forest.

I would listen to a late-night radio program hosted by Art Bell, who had an all-night talk show and would interview various conspiracy theorists and fringe thinkers.

I would arrive at home totally freaked out, or pull over under a streetlight, convinced that a UFO was about to abduct me. I learned that I am an incredibly persuadable person.

It's the same feeling I get when I read these AI scenarios.

So I was delighted some years later to come across an essay by Scott Alexander about what he calls epistemic learned helplessness.

Epistemology is one of those big words, but all it means is "how do you know what you know is true?". Alexander noticed that when he was a young man, he would be taken in by "alternative" histories he read by various crackpots. He would read the history and be utterly convinced, then read the rebuttal and be convinced by that, and so on.

At some point he noticed was these alternative histories were mutually contradictory, so they could not possibly all be true. And from that he reasoned that he was simply somebody who could not trust his judgement. He was too easily persuaded.

People who believe in superintelligence present an interesting case, because many of them are freakishly smart. They can argue you into the ground. But are their arguments right, or is there just something about very smart minds that leaves them vulnerable to religious conversion about AI risk, and makes them particularly persuasive?

Is the idea of "superintelligence" just a memetic hazard?

When you're evaluating persuasive arguments about something strange, there are two perspectives you can choose, the inside one or the outside one.

Say that some people show up at your front door one day wearing funny robes, asking you if you will join their movement. They believe that a UFO is going to visit Earth two years from now, and it is our task to prepare humanity for the Great Upbeaming.

The inside view requires you to engage with these arguments on their merits. You ask your visitors how they learned about the UFO, why they think it's coming to get usall the normal questions a skeptic would ask in this situation.

Imagine you talk to them for an hour, and come away utterly persuaded. They make an ironclad case that the UFO is coming, that humanity needs to be prepared, and you have never believed something as hard in your life as you now believe in the importance of preparing humanity for this great event.

But the outside view tells you something different. These people are wearing funny robes and beads, they live in a remote compound, and they speak in unison in a really creepy way. Even though their arguments are irrefutable, everything in your experience tells you you're dealing with a cult.

Of course, they have a brilliant argument for why you should ignore those instincts, but that's the inside view talking.

The outside view doesn't care about content, it sees the form and the context, and it doesn't look good.

So I'd like to engage AI risk from both these perspectives. I think the arguments for superintelligence are somewhat silly, and full of unwarranted assumptions.

But even if you find them persuasive, there is something unpleasant about AI alarmism as a cultural phenomenon that should make us hesitate to take it seriously.

First, let me engage the substance. Here are the arguments I have against Bostrom-style superintelligence as a risk to humanity:

The concept of "general intelligence" in AI is famously slippery. Depending on the context, it can mean human-like reasoning ability, or skill at AI design, or the ability to understand and model human behavior, or proficiency with language, or the capacity to make correct predictions about the future.

What I find particularly suspect is the idea that "intelligence" is like CPU speed, in that any sufficiently smart entity can emulate less intelligent beings (like its human creators) no matter how different their mental architecture.

More here:

Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People

Posted in Superintelligence | Comments Off on Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People

Food Supplements | European Food Safety Authority

Posted: at 3:03 pm

Food supplements are concentrated sources of nutrients or other substances with a nutritional or physiological effect, whose purpose is to supplement the normal diet. Food supplements are marketed 'in dose' form, for example as pills, tablets, capsules or liquids in measured doses etc. Supplements may be used to correct nutritional deficiencies or maintain an adequate intake of certain nutrients. However, in some cases excessive intake of vitamins and minerals may be harmful or cause unwanted side effects; therefore, maximum levels are necessary to ensure their safe use in food supplements.

EU regulatory framework

The European Commission has established harmonised rules to help ensure that food supplements are safe and properly labelled. In the EU, food supplements are regulated as foods and the legislation focuses on vitamins and minerals used as ingredients of food supplements.

The main EU legislation is Directive 2002/46/EC related to food supplements containing vitamins and minerals.

The Directive sets out labelling requirements and requires that EU-wide maximum and minimum levels are set for each vitamin and mineral added to supplements. As excessive intake of vitamins and minerals may result in adverse effects, the Directive provides for the setting of maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals added to food supplements. This task has been delegated to the Commission and is currently ongoing.

In addition, its Annex II contains a list of permitted vitamin or mineral substances that may be added for specific nutritional purposes in food supplements. Annex II has been amended by Regulation 1170/2009 of 30 November 2009.

Vitamin and mineral substances may be considered for inclusion in the lists following the evaluation of an appropriate scientific dossier concerning the safety and bioavailability of the individual substance by EFSA. Companies wishing to market a substance not included in the permitted list need to submit an application to the European Commission.

A guidance by the Scientific Committee on Food in 2001 gives information on the data that should be provided in the dossier supporting the application for a new substance.

EFSAs role and activities

EFSA was asked by the European Commission to evaluate the safety and bioavailability of nutrient sources proposed for addition to the list of permitted substances in Annex II of the food supplements Directive. In July 2009, EFSA completed the first comprehensive assessment of substances used as sources of vitamins and minerals in food supplements, which are currently sold in the EU.

Based on EFSAs work, the European Commission reviewed the list of permitted vitamin or mineral substances that may be added in food supplements.

Between 2005 and 2009 EFSA examined a total of 533 applications. Of these, 186 applications were withdrawn during the evaluation process, and EFSA received insufficient scientific evidence to be able to assess around half of the remaining applications. Possible safety concerns were identified in relation to 39 applications.

The evaluations were carried out by thePanel on food additives and nutrient sources added to food (ANS). The Panels evaluations involved judging the safety of a nutrient substance at the intake levels suggested by the applicant based on best scientific knowledge available. The Panel also assessed the bioavailability of the nutrient from the source, which is the effectiveness with which the mineral or vitamin is released from the source into the tissues of the body. Previously the former Panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food (former AFC) was responsible for this work.

Moreover, EFSAs NDA Panel has preformed a comprehensive evaluation of the possible adverse health effects of individual micronutrients at intakes exceeding the dietary requirements and, where possible, established Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs) for different population groups. ULs represent the highest level of chronic daily intake of a nutrient that is not likely to pose a risk of adverse health effects to humans. The ULs defined by the NDA Panel and by the former Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) are used as a reference by the ANS Panel in its evaluations of the safety of nutrient substances added to food supplements. Throughout this work EFSA will provide support to the European Commission in establishing maximum limits for vitamins and minerals in food supplements and fortified foods.

Further information: DG Health and Consumers: Food Supplements DG Health and Consumers: Addition of vitamins and minerals DG Health and Consumers: Tolerable upper intake levels for vitamins and minerals

Read more from the original source:

Food Supplements | European Food Safety Authority

Posted in Food Supplements | Comments Off on Food Supplements | European Food Safety Authority

Dietary supplements: Do they help or hurt? – Harvard Health

Posted: at 3:03 pm

What you need to know before taking a vitamin or mineral supplement.

The average American diet leaves a lot to be desired. Research finds our plates lacking in a number of essential nutrients, including calcium, potassium, magnesium, and vitamins A, C, and D. It's no wonder that more than half of us open a supplement bottle to get the nutrition we need. Many of us take supplements not just to make up for what we're missing, but also because we hope to give ourselves an extra health boosta preventive buffer to ward off disease.

Getting our nutrients straight from a pill sounds easy, but supplements don't necessarily deliver on the promise of better health. Some can even be dangerous, especially when taken in larger-than-recommended amounts.

Here are the recommended levels of daily intake for several important nutrients.

Nutrient

How much you

Don't exceed

Calcium

1,0001,200 mg

2,000 mg

Folate

400 mcg

1,000 mcg

Iron

8 mg

45 mg

Vitamin A

700 mcg RAE*

3,000 mcg RAE

Vitamin B 6

1.5 mg

100 mg

Vitamin B 12

2.4 mcg

No established

upper limit

Vitamin C

75 mg

2,000 mg

Vitamin D

600800 IU

4,000 IU

Vitamin E

15 mg

1,000 mg

*Retinol activity equivalents

We've heard a lot of encouraging news about supplements. A series of studies hailed vitamin D as a possible defense against a long list of diseases, including cancer, diabetes, depression, and even the common cold. Omega-3 fatty acids have been touted for warding off strokes and other cardiovascular events. And antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and beta carotene were seen as promising silver bullets against heart disease, cancer, and even Alzheimer's disease.

Here's the big caveat: many of those exciting supplement studies were observationalthey didn't test a particular supplement against a placebo (inactive pill) in a controlled setting. The results of more stringent randomized controlled trials haven't yielded the same good news.

"Often the enthusiasm for these vitamins and supplements outpaces the evidence. And when the rigorous evidence is available from randomized controlled trials, often the results are at odds with the findings of the observational studies," explains Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and principal investigator of a large randomized trial known as VITAL (Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial).

Because observational studies may not fully control for dietary factors, exercise habits, and other variables, they can't prove whether the treatment is responsible for the health benefits. "People who take supplements tend to be more health conscious, exercise more, eat healthier diets, and have a whole host of lifestyle factors that can be difficult to control for fully in the statistical models," Dr. Manson says.

Some supplements that were found to have health benefits in observational studies turned out, with more rigorous testing, to be not only ineffective but also risky. Vitamin E, which was initially thought to protect the heart, was later discovered to increase the risk for bleeding strokes. Folic acid and other B vitamins were once believed to prevent heart disease and strokesuntil later studies not only didn't confirm that benefit but actually raised concerns that high doses of these nutrients might increase cancer risk.

We need a variety of nutrients each day to stay healthy, including calcium and vitamin D to protect our bones, folic acid to produce and maintain new cells, and vitamin A to preserve a healthy immune system and vision.

Yet the source of these nutrients is important. "Usually it is best to try to get these vitamins and minerals and nutrients from food as opposed to supplements," Dr. Manson says.

Fruits, vegetables, fish, and other healthy foods contain nutrients and other substances not found in a pill, which work together to keep us healthy. We can't get the same synergistic effect from a supplement. Taking certain vitamins or minerals in higher-than-recommended doses may even interfere with nutrient absorption or cause side effects.

Nutrient

Food sources

Calcium

Milk, yogurt, sardines, tofu,

fortified orange juice

Folic acid

Fortified cereal, spinach,

lentils, beef liver

Iron

Oysters, chicken liver, turkey

Omega-3

fatty acids

Salmon, sardines, flaxseed,

walnuts, soybeans

Vitamin A

Sweet potato, spinach, carrots,

cantaloupe, tomatoes

Vitamin B6

Chickpeas, salmon,

chicken breast

Vitamin B12

Clams, beef liver, trout,

fortified breakfast cereals

Vitamin D

Salmon, tuna, yogurt,

fortified milk

Vitamin E

Wheat germ oil, almonds,

sunflower seeds, peanut butter

Before you take any supplements for disease prevention, it's important to know whether the potential benefits outweigh the risks. To make that conclusion, you need to look at the results of well-designed studies. A recent randomized trial in men suggested multivitamins have possible benefits for cancer prevention. For many of the other popular supplements, including vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids, results from randomized controlled trials should be available within the next five years, according to Dr. Manson.

Until then, be judicious about your use of supplements. If you're lacking in a particular nutrient, ask your doctor whether you need to look beyond your diet to make up for what you're missingbut don't take more than the recommended daily intake for that nutrient unless your health care provider advises it.

Originally published: January 2013

Read the rest here:

Dietary supplements: Do they help or hurt? - Harvard Health

Posted in Food Supplements | Comments Off on Dietary supplements: Do they help or hurt? – Harvard Health

Build automation – Wikipedia

Posted: at 3:02 pm

Build automation is the process of automating the creation of a software build and the associated processes including: compiling computer source code into binary code, packaging binary code, and running automated tests.

Historically, build automation was accomplished through makefiles. Today, there are two general categories of tools:[1]

Depending on the level of automation the following classification is possible:

A software list for each can be found in list of build automation software.

Build automation utilities allow the automation of simple, repeatable tasks. When using the tool, it will calculate how to reach the goal by executing tasks in the correct, specific order and running each task. The two ways build tools differ are task orient vs. product-oriented. Task oriented tools describe the dependency of networks in terms of a specific set task and product-oriented tools describe things in terms of the products they generate.[2]

Although build servers existed long before continuous integration servers, they are general synonymous with continuous integration servers, however a build server may also be incorporated into an ARA tool or ALM tool.

Server types

Automation is achieved through the use of a compile farm for either Distributed compilation or the execution of the utility step.[3] The distributed build process must have machine intelligence to understand the source code dependencies to execute the distributed build.

Build automation is considered the first step in moving toward implementing a culture of Continuous Delivery and DevOps. Build automation combined with Continuous Integration, deployment, application release automation, and many other processes help move an organization forward in establishing software delivery best practices.[4]

The advantages of build automation to software development projects include

Read more from the original source:

Build automation - Wikipedia

Posted in Automation | Comments Off on Build automation – Wikipedia

NSA Spying on Americans Is Illegal | American Civil Liberties …

Posted: at 2:55 pm

Click here for more on NSA Surveillance

What if it emerged that the President of the United States was flagrantly violating the Constitution and a law passed by the Congress to protect Americans against abuses by a super-secret spy agency? What if, instead of apologizing, he said, in essence, "I have the power to do that, because I say I can." That frightening scenario is exactly what we are now witnessing in the case of the warrantless NSA spying ordered by President Bush that was reported December 16, 2005 by the New York Times.

According to the Times, Bush signed a presidential order in 2002 allowing the National Security Agency to monitor without a warrant the international (and sometimes domestic) telephone calls and e-mail messages of hundreds or thousands of citizens and legal residents inside the United States. The program eventually came to include some purely internal controls - but no requirement that warrants be obtained from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as the 4th Amendment to the Constitution and the foreign intelligence surveillance laws require.

In other words, no independent review or judicial oversight.

That kind of surveillance is illegal. Period.

The day after this shocking abuse of power became public, President Bush admitted that he had authorized it, but argued that he had the authority to do so. But the law governing government eavesdropping on American citizens is well-established and crystal clear. President Bush's claim that he is not bound by that law is simply astounding. It is a Presidential power grab that poses a challenge in the deepest sense to the integrity of the American system of government - the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches, the concept of checks and balances on executive power, the notion that the president is subject to the law like everyone else, and the general respect for the "rule of law" on which our democratic system depends.

The ACLU ran the following advertisement in the December 29, 2005 edition of The New York Times:

The tensions between the need for intelligence agencies to protect the nation and the danger that they would become a domestic spy agency have been explicitly and repeatedly fought out in American history. The National Security Act of 1947 contained a specific ban on intelligence operatives from operating domestically. In the 1970s, America learned about the extensive domestic political spying carried out by the FBI, the military, the CIA, and the NSA, and Congress passed new laws to prevent a repeat of those abuses. Surveillance laws were debated and modified under presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton.

But, President Bush would sweep aside this entire body of democratically debated and painstakingly crafted restrictions on domestic surveillance by the executive branch with his extraordinary assertion that he can simply ignore this law because he is the Commander-in-Chief. In a December 17 radio address, for example, Bush asserted that the spying was "fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities." But his constitutional duty is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Article II, Section 3); the law here clearly establishes well-defined procedures for eavesdropping on U.S. persons, and the fact is, Bush ordered that those procedures not be followed.

Government eavesdropping on Americans is an extremely serious matter; the ability to intrude on the private realm is a tremendous power that can be used to monitor, embarass, control, disgrace, or ruin an individual. Because it is so invasive, the technology of wiretapping has been subject to carefully crafted statutory controls almost since it was invented. Ignoring those controls and wiretapping without a court order is a crime that carries a significant prison sentence (in fact, criminal violations of the wiretap statute were among the articles of impeachment that were drafted against President Nixon shortly before his resignation).

Unfortunately, although the law in this matter is crystal clear, many Americans, faced with President Bush's bold assertions of "inherent" authority for these actions, will not know what to believe. There are only 5 points they need to understand:

The law on surveillance begins with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states clearly that Americans' privacy may not be invaded without a warrant based on probable cause.

United States Constitution Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (emphasis added)

The US Supreme Court (US v. Katz 389 US 347) has made it clear that this core privacy protection does cover government eavesdropping. As a result, all electronic surveillance by the government in the United States is illegal, unless it falls under one of a small number of precise exceptions specifically carved out in the law.

United States Code Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1 Section 1809. Criminal sanctions

(a) Prohibited activities A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally-

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute

In other words, the NSA can only spy where it is explicitly granted permission to do so by statute. Citizens concerned about surveillance do not have to answer the question, "what law restricts the NSA's spying?" Rather, the government is required to supply an answer to the question "what law permits the NSA to spy?"

There are only three laws that authorize any exceptions to the ban on electronic eavesdropping by the government. Congress has explicitly stated that these three laws are the exclusive means by which domestic electronic surveillance can be carried out (18 USC, Section 2511(2)(f)). They are:

Title III and ECPA govern domestic criminal wiretaps and are not relevant to the NSA's spying. FISA is the law under which the NSA should have operated. It authorizes the government to conduct surveillance in certain situations without meeting all of the requirements of the Fourth Amendment that apply under criminal law, but requires that an independent Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court oversee that surveillance to make sure that Americans who have no ties to foreign terrorist organizations or other "foreign powers" are not spied upon.

FISA was significantly loosened by the Patriot Act (which, for example, allowed it to be used for some criminal investigations), and parts of it now stand in clear violation of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment in the view of the ACLU and many others. However, even the post-Patriot Act version of FISA does not authorize the president to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents in the U.S. without an order from the FISA Court. Yet it is that very court order requirement - imposed to protect innocent Americans - that the President has ignored.

In fact, one member of the FISA Court, Judge James Roberston, has apparently resigned from the court in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of this program. And the New York Times reported that the court's chief judge complained about the program when she was (belatedly) notified of it, and refused to allow information gathered under the program to be used as the basis for FISA wiretap orders.

Congress after 9/11 approved an Authorization to Use Military Force against those responsible for the attacks in order to authorize the president to conduct foreign military operations such as the invasion of Afghanistan.

But that resolution contains no language changing, overriding or repealing any laws passed by Congress. Congress does not repeal legislation through hints and innuendos, and the Authorization to Use Military Force does not authorize the president to violate the law against surveillance without a warrant any more than it authorizes him to carry out an armed robbery or seize control of Citibank in order to pay for operations against terrorists. In fact, when President Truman tried to seize control of steel mills that were gripped by strikes in 1952, the Supreme Court decisively rejected his authority to make such a seizure, even in the face of arguments that the strike would interfere with the supply of weapons and ammunition to American troops then under fire on the battlefields of the Korean War.

U.S. Supreme Court YOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

"The order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. . . .

"Nor can the seizure order be sustained because of the several constitutional provisions that grant executive power to the President. . . . The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute. . . .

"The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times."

The Supreme Court also rejected similar assertions of inherent executive power by Richard Nixon.

In fact, FISA contains explicit language describing the president's powers "during time of war" and provides that "the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen days following a declaration of war by the Congress." 50 U.S.C. 1811 (emphasis added). So even if we accept the argument that the use-of-force resolution places us on a war footing, warrantless surveillance would have been legal for only 15 days after the resolution was passed on September 18, 2001.

Point #5: The need for quick action does not justify an end-run around the courts The FISA law takes account of the need for emergency surveillance, and the need for quick action cannot be used as a rationale for going outside the law. FISA allows wiretapping without a court order in an emergency; the court must simply be notified within 72 hours. The government is aware of this emergency power and has used it repeatedly. In addition, the Foreign Intelligence court is physically located in the Justice Department building, and the FISA law requires that at least two of the FISA judges reside in the Washington, DC area, for precisely the reason that rapid action is sometimes needed.

If President Bush still for some reason finds these provisions to be inadequate, he must take his case to Congress and ask for the law to be changed, not simply ignore it.

President Bush's claim that he has "inherent authority" as Commander-in-Chief to use our spy agencies to eavesdrop on Americans is astonishing, and such spying is clearly illegal. It must be halted immediately, and its origins must be thoroughly investigated by Congress and by a special counsel. (See letter from the ACLU to Attorney General Gonzales calling for a special counsel).

Given the extensive (indeed, excessive) surveillance powers that the government already possesses, the Administration's blatantly illegal use of warrantless surveillance raises an important question: why? One possibility, raised by the New York Times in a Dec. 24, 2005 story ("Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report"), is that the NSA is relying on assistance from several unnamed telecommunications companies to "trace and analyze large volumes of communications" and is "much larger than the White House has acknowledged."

This, as security expert Bruce Schneier has noted, suggests the Bush Administration has developed a "a whole new surveillance paradigm" - exploiting the NSA's well known capabilities to spy on individuals not one at a time, as FISA permits, but to run communications en masse through computers in the search for suspicious individuals or patterns. This "new paradigm" may well be connected to the NSA program sometimes known as "Echelon," which carries out just that kind of mass collection of communications (see http://www.nsawatch.org). This "wholesale" surveillance, as Schneier calls it, would constitute an illegal invasion of Americans' privacy on a scale that has never before been seen. (See Schneier, "NSA and Bush's Illegal Eavesdropping," Salon.com)

According to the Times, several telecommunications companies provided the NSA with direct access to streams of communications over their networks. In other words, the NSA appears to have direct access to a large volume of Americans' communications - with not simply the assent, but the cooperation of the companies handling those communications.

We do not know from the report which companies are involved or precisely how or what the NSA can access. But this revelation raises questions about both the legal authority of the NSA to request and receive this data, and whether these companies may have violated either the Federal laws protecting these communications or their own stated privacy polices (which may, for example, provide that they will only turn over their customers' data with their consent or in response to a proper order).

Regardless of the scale of this spying, we are facing a historic moment: the President of the United States has claimed a sweeping wartime power to brush aside the clear limits on his power set by our Constitution and laws - a chilling assertion of presidential power that has not been seen since Richard Nixon.

View original post here:
NSA Spying on Americans Is Illegal | American Civil Liberties ...

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on NSA Spying on Americans Is Illegal | American Civil Liberties …

First Amendment Defense Act Would Be ‘Devastating’ for LGBTQ …

Posted: at 2:54 pm

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump arrives to speak during a USA Thank You Tour event at Giant Center in Hershey, Pennsylvania, U.S., December 15, 2016. Lucas Jackson / Reuters

FADA would prohibit the federal government from taking "discriminatory action" against any business or person that discriminates against LGBTQ people. The act distinctly aims to protect the right of all entities to refuse service to LGBTQ people based on two sets of beliefs: "(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."

Ironically, the

On December 9, Sen. Lee's spokesperson, Conn Carroll, told

"Hopefully November's results will give us the momentum we need to get this done next year," Carroll said. "We do plan to reintroduce FADA next Congress and we welcome Trump's positive words about the bill."

"During oral arguments in Obergfell, President Obama's solicitor general admitted that if a right to same-sex marriage were created, religious institutions, including many Catholic schools, could have their tax exempt status revoked by the IRS," Carroll told NBC Out on Wednesday. "The First Amendment Defense Act was created to make sure that does not happen."

But while Carroll claims "FADA in no way undermines federal or state civil rights laws," it would take away the government's recourse in terms of punishing businesses, institutions or individuals who break civil rights law by discriminating against LGBTQ people.

Jennifer Pizer, Law and Policy Director at Lambda Legal, told NBC Out FADA "invites widespread, devastating discrimination against LGBT people" and is a deeply unconstitutional bill.

"This proposed new law violates both Equal Protection and the Establishment Clause by elevating one set of religious beliefs above all others," Pizer said, "And by targeting LGBT Americans as a group, contrary to settled constitutional law."

Pizer warned that the bill's language also left room for individuals and businesses to discriminate against unwed heterosexual couples and single mothers, because of the clause stating that "sexual relations are properly reserved" to marriage between a man and a woman.

"There cannot be even one iota of doubt that this bill endorses one set of religious beliefs above others, and targets people in same-sex relationships, married or not, as well as unmarried heterosexual couples who live together," Pizer said. "It's an unconstitutional effort to turn the clock back to a time when unmarried mothers had to hide in shame, and LGBT people had to hide, period."

RELATED:

FADA was first filed in the House and Senate in 2015, but was met with protests from Democrats and resulted in just one House hearing amid concerns that Obama would veto the bill. It is currently co-sponsored by 171 House Republicans and just one Democrat (Daniel Lipinski of Illinois.)

State-level legislation similar to FADA has failed in recent years, usually resulting from lawsuits and nationwide boycotts. When Vice President-elect Mike Pence passed a "religious freedom" bill as governor of Indiana in March 2015, it was met with

Mississippi's

A lawsuit brought by Mississippi religious leaders alleges the state law actually violates religious freedom by determining that religious belief necessitates anti-LGBTQ discrimination. The group of ordained ministers suing the state said in the lawsuit,

Barber v. Bryant is currently at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, after a federal trial court ruled HB 1523 violates the federal Equal Protection and Establishment Clauses. Pizer said the case stands as an example of the legal explosion that would occur in reaction to FADA.

"If Congress were to pass the federal FADA as currently written, and the next president were to sign it into law, I'm confident heads would spin at how fast the constitutional challenges would fly into court," Pizer said, adding "we're likely to have a great many allies because these attempts to misuse religion for discrimination offend enormous numbers of Americans who cherish both religious liberty and equality for all."

Follow NBC Out on

Read more:
First Amendment Defense Act Would Be 'Devastating' for LGBTQ ...

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment Defense Act Would Be ‘Devastating’ for LGBTQ …

First Amendment works and will if we still have it

Posted: at 2:54 pm

Gene Policinski, Inside the First Amendment 9:30 a.m. MST December 25, 2016

Gene Policinski writes the First Amendment column distributed by Gannett News Service. (Gannett News Service, Sam Kittner/First Amendment Center/File)(Photo: GNS)

Our First Amendment freedoms will work if we still have them around to use.

Those five freedoms religion, speech, press, assembly and petition have been challenged at various times in our nations history, as many would say they are today.

But the very freedoms themselves provide the means and mechanisms for our society to self-correct those challenges, perhaps a main reason why the First Amendment has endured, unchanged, since Dec. 15, 1791.

Case in point: The tragic mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, on June 12 was followed by a burst of anti-Islamic rhetoric across the country after the killer declared allegiance to ISIS. The speech, however hateful, generally was protected by the First Amendment.

But in turn, those attacks were followed by pushback in the other direction. Muslim leaders decried the use of their faith to justify hatred of the United States or homophobic terrorism. Opposition was ramped up to the idea of increased surveillance of Muslims in America and now-President-elect Donald Trumps suggestion for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States.

In two rounds of national polling in the Newseum Institutes annual State of the First Amendment survey, support for First Amendment protection for fringe or extreme faiths actually increased after the Orlando attack, compared with sampling done in May.

The number of people who said First Amendment protection does not extend to such faiths dropped from 29 to 22 percent. In both surveys, just over 1,000 adults were sampled by telephone, and the margin of error in the surveys was plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

The First Amendment is predicated on the notion that citizens who are able to freely debate without government censorship or direction will exchange views, sometimes strongly and on controversial subjects, but eventually find common ground.

Of course, that kind of vigorous and robust exchange in the marketplace only can happen if there is a marketplace freedom for all to speak and a willingness to join with others in serious discussion, debate and discourse that has a goal of improving life for us all.

Heres where the survey results turn ominous: Nearly four in 10 of those questioned in the 2016 State of the First Amendment survey, which was released July 4, could not name unaided a single freedom in the First Amendment.

Perhaps not identifying by name even one of the five freedoms is not the same as not knowing you have those core freedoms. But neither does the result build confidence that, as a nation, we have a deep understanding of what distinguishes our nation among all others and is so fundamental to the unique American experience of self-governance.

We have thrived as a nation with a social order and a government structure in which the exchange of views is a key to solving problems. The nations architects had a confidence and optimism that such exchanges in the so-called marketplace of ideas would ultimately work for the public good.

What would those founders think of a society in which so many seem to favor the electronic versions of divided marketplaces that permit only that speech of which you already approve or that confirms your existing views?

Or worse yet, a society in which the five freedoms are used as weapons from cyberbullying to mass Twitter attacks to deliberate distribution of fake news to figuratively set ablaze or tear down an opponents stand?

As a nation, we cannot abandon the values of our First Amendment freedoms that protect religious liberty, that defend free expression at its widest definition and that provide a right to unpopular dissent, without fundamentally changing the character of our nation.

As a people, we must stand in defense of the values set out in the First Amendment and Bill of Rights some 225 years ago, even as we face one of the deepest public divides on a range of issues in our history.

And we must revisit and renew our faith in a concept expressed in 1664 by English poet and scholar John Milton and later woven deep into the institutional fabric of America: that in a battle between truth and falsehood, who ever knew truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the Institutes First Amendment Center. He can be reached at gpolicinski@newseum.org. Follow him on Twitter: @genefac.

Read or Share this story: http://www.thespectrum.com/story/opinion/2016/12/25/first-amendment-works-and-if-we-still-have/95705830/

The rest is here:
First Amendment works and will if we still have it

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment works and will if we still have it