. : About me : .
. : Recent Posts : .
. : Archives : .
Dec 5, 2006
. : Spare : .
. : Links : .
. : Spare : .
. : Credits : .
. : Spare : .
More blogs about puretics.
nsw recruitment Counter
Thursday, September 20, 2007Do giraffe talk?
Do giraffe talk? - Bio-acoustician, Elizabeth von
Muggenthaler would answer yes
more precisely, she believes that they communicate
such things as warning and location; information that
has survival value
further, they communicate with sounds in a manner
that is consistent with their anatomy
at her website, animalvoice.com, von Muggenthaler
defines bio-acoustics as a,
branch of science concerned with the production
of sound and its effects on living systems. In
particular, animal communication, deals with the
production, meanings (animal linguistics and
cognition), and effects of sounds generated by
animals. There are different ways animals commun-
icate, including scent (pheromones) and by body
language. However the most effective type of
communication for most species is sound.
in the case of the giraffe, von Muggenthaler states,
we believe that giraffe are forcing large volumes
of air out their long, long trachea and out a small
opening which is actually their larynx and that is
creating the sound
as a result of the giraffe’s anatomy, these sounds
have frequencies that fall below the range of human
these low-pitched sounds are called infrasounds;
and as such, they can travel farther through the air
and earth than can higher pitched sounds audible
this makes possible long-distance communication,
of several miles; an ability with survival value for
animals, like the giraffe, that wander vast plains.
Supermarket staff refused to sell alcohol to a white-haired 72-year-old man - because he would not confirm he was over 21.
Check-out staff at Morrisons in West Kirby, Wirral, demanded Tony Ralls prove he was old enough to buy his two bottles of Cabernet Sauvignon.
Mr Ralls asked to see the manager who put the wine back on the shelf.
The grandfather-of-three said he had refused to confirm he was over 21 as it was a "stupid question."
Mr Ralls, a retired insurance firm regional manager, said he expected the store manager to resolve the situation but he was disappointed.
"I felt like saying 'What do I look like? Are you a fool?'
It's bureaucracy gone mad
"He picks up the wine and, in the manner of a child taking home his ball, says 'Well, we won't serve you'."
The pensioner abandoned his shopping on the conveyor belt and left the store - but not before demanding a complaints form and phone number for Morrisons' headquarters.
Mr Ralls said: "It is bureaucracy gone mad. If the check-out lady, who was about 40, had asked me with a twinkle in her eye perhaps I would not have been so tetchy.
"But she asked me the question with a perfectly straight face and I said I wouldn't dignify the question with an answer.
"And if the manager had explained that all the staff had to ask everyone because they had previously been fined, but said I was clearly over 21, it would have been fine - but he showed no sense of humour."
Mr Ralls added that he felt embarrassed to return to the supermarket and wanted an apology for "the stupid and unnecessary confrontation."
He added: "I applaud any efforts to stop kids being served and standing on street corners getting drunk. But this was just totally stupid."
A Morrisons spokesman said: "We take our responsibility with regard to selling alcohol very seriously and all our stores operate the Task 21 scheme, which addresses the difficulties our staff face in being able to determine if a customer is legally old enough to buy alcohol.
"To further limit any element of doubt staff at the West Kirby store are required to ask anyone buying alcohol to confirm that they are over 21."
Las Vegas police charged O.J. Simpson with 10 felonies and one misdemeanor in connection with an alleged armed robbery in a room at the Palace Station Hotel & Casino last Thursday evening. Simpson says he was only engaged in a "sting operation" to retrieve sports memorabilia that belonged to him. He claimed that he had the right to self-help because the items were wrongfully taken from him. Yesterday, Yale Galanter, Simpson's defense lawyer, previewed his legal strategy, saying that you "can't rob something that is yours." Would Simpson really have the right to steal back something that was stolen from him?
Maybe, but it depends on Nevada law. Simpson's claim that he had the right to take back his own property is a defense to theft and robbery charges under the common law developed over the years by the courts. This "claim of right" defense provides that you can't be found to have the intent necessary to steal if you have a good faith belief that the property you take belongs to you, even if that belief is mistaken. Simply put, without intent there can be no crime.
It's unclear, however, whether this common-law tradition applies in the state of Nevada. Its law doesn't appear to spell out whether claim of right is available to those charged with crimes. But local lawmakers seem to have incorporated it into their burglary statute. That crime is defined as the theft under specific circumstances of personal goods or property "owned by another person." If the memorabilia that Simpson took did, in fact, belong to him, he may well have a solid defense, since he would not have taken anything owned by another person. Having done so while in the possession of a deadly weapon, however, may complicate the matter.
But the claim of right defense won't necessarily get Simpson off the hook. In addition to burglary, he's also charged with robbery, which Nevada law classifies as a crime against a person, as opposed to a crime against property (like burglary). Robbery focuses on the act of physically taking property from the "person of another," so a claim of right to the property isn't likely to apply. Even if it does, it surely won't work as a defense to the litany of other serious crimes Simpson has been charged with, including first-degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon and assault with a deadly weapon.
William J. Barnes shot and partly paralyzed a Philadelphia police officer in 1966, and he served 20 years for it and related offenses.
Rosalyn Barclay Harrison at the August funeral of her brother Walter T. Barclay Jr., a former police officer who died of an infection that a prosecutor said stemmed from being shot in 1966.
But last month, 41 years after the shooting, the district attorney filed new charges of murder after the officer, Walter T. Barclay Jr., died of an infection she says stems from the shooting. Mr. Barnes, now 71, was sent back to prison.
“The law is that when you set in motion a chain of events,” District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham said, “a perpetrator of a crime is responsible for every single thing that flows from that chain of events, no matter how distant, as long as we can prove the chain is unbroken.”
She plans to prove that the bullet that lodged near Mr. Barclay’s spine in 1966 led to the urinary tract infection that led to his death last month.
The case has drawn national attention as most legal experts say they have never seen an attempt to stretch causation medically across four decades, and some say they worry about the precedent the case could set concerning double jeopardy.
Moreover, establishing an unbroken chain could be difficult in light of Mr. Barclay’s medical history.
After his initial paralysis, his condition improved significantly After his initial paralysis, his condition improved significantly and he regained motion in his legs, walking with braces and riding short distances on a stationary bicycle. But he reinjured his spine repeatedly, in two car accidents and in a fall from his wheelchair, according to interviews with relatives and news reports from the era.
While paralyzed, Mr. Barclay also contracted hepatitis, according to his family, which medical experts say could have weakened his ability later to fight off infections. The district attorney’s office has also confirmed that although the coroner’s office ruled his death a homicide, no autopsy was done on Mr. Barclay, who was buried last month.
Mr. Barclay himself even spoke of the role his own actions played in worsening his medical condition.
“The guy started spraying bullets around, and I caught two of them in the back,” Mr. Barclay said in a 1978 interview about the night he was shot. “I got over that pretty much, but then I had a car accident and hurt my back again. Then I had another and hurt my back some more.”
Allen M. Hornblum, an urban studies professor at Temple University who researched Mr. Barclay’s history and invited Mr. Barnes to speak to his class about having turned his life around after a career in crime, said the new charges were “vindictive, pure and simple.”
“Barnes served his time, but the police and the city want him to pay extra because he shot one of their own,” he said, adding that even if the charge is dismissed, the case will probably take so long to get to that stage that Mr. Barnes, who has had two heart attacks in the last three years, will die waiting. Ms. Abraham has denied that the victim’s being a police officer played any role in her decision to file new charges.
Ms. Abraham also argues that double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be charged twice for the same crime, does not apply in this case because the original crime was aggravated assault and the current crime — now that Mr. Barclay is dead — is murder. Mr. Barnes’s court-appointed lawyer has not decided whether to challenge that view.
William Barclay, 59, the slain officer’s brother, feels the prosecution is justified. “Barnes deserves to be back in prison,” he said “He is 71, and that’s seven more years of life than my brother had.”
“This was murder delayed,” Mr. Barclay added, recounting his brother’s bouts of pneumonia, painful and constant bedsores and the full-body muscle spasms that threw him from bed. “The length of time since the shooting shouldn’t matter.”
Asked about the car accidents, Mr. Barclay, who has lived in California since the 1970s, said he was not aware of them.
Mr. Barnes is being held without bond, and he will not see a judge until his first court date in December, said his lawyer, Bobby Hoof.
In many states, the year-and-a-day rule, a 19th-century common law rule, prevents new charges from being filed if a victim dies more than 366 days after the initial injury. But Paul Wright, editor of Prison Legal News, an independent monthly, said that as medical advancements have prolonged the lives of injured people, at least 20 states, including Pennsylvania, have eliminated the rule. Medical and forensic advancements, however, have also increased the burden of proof on prosecutors to clearly show how an injury led directly to a victim’s later death, he said.
Read Full text:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/19philadelphia.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=d726672bc9bbb7b0&ex=1347854400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1190261666-ZU+d6ybNZibkPIbP2XfDLQ