| Media Search: |
YG - Im 4rm Bompton (Bass Boosted) *HD*
Follow me on all of my social networking sites! Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ExpectBass Like my Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/ExpectBass/385228528155246 Follow...
By: ExpectBass
Uchenna Innocent | credits: File copy
We leave in a world where everything seems to be looking forward to the Internet for interactions, networking, learning, and business, among others. The teens are not out of the trend as the Internet connectivity through smart phones, tablets and Personal Computers have become a part of their lifestyle and daily lives.
The number of young adults, who spend quality time online, continues to be on the increase, hence the need to educate our young ones on the use of the Internet. Therefore, the teaching of social networking etiquette should be a priority, as is with sex education and computer literacy.
It is an unquestionable reality that we are in the digital age, and it is no surprise that most teens operate and familiarise themselves with gadgets faster than most adults do. This, in itself, is not bad, but we all do know there are two sides to a coin. A teens activity on the Internet could be either of a positive or of a negative end, and it all depends on its usage.
Statistics from socialbakers.com shows the age distribution of social media users in Nigeria (Sept. 2013);
There are quite a number of things the Internet could be used for which has both positive and negative sides to it, but with the right orientation the Internet cum social media could be put to a more productive use. I will be mentioning just a few which are;
There are still a number of precautions that could be taken to limit the vices, through a conscious effort by parent/ guardians and the teens alike.
Guide to using the Internet/Social Media
Parental Advice
Before your children attain teenage or young adulthood you owe them the responsibility of forming a bond with them, a relationship that makes them see you as a very important part of their lives; not just as a provider for their basic needs, but as a key part of their spiritual and social lives. In search of feeling in the void of a parental hollow, most teens turn to social networking and the Internet.
Read more:
A teens guide to social networking
Mon, Sep 15, 2014
India's Air Marshall P.P. Reddy has sent a communication to combat flying crews saying that he has serious concerns about the use of social media by pilots and air crews.
Specifically, Reddy says that excessive use of social media may be lead to a lack of sleep and degradation of the ability to focus, which could translate to errors in the cockpit.
The U.K. newspaper The Mail reports that Air Marshall Reddy, who is also a fighter pilot, said in the communication that there is an "unhealthy preoccupation with social networking media and the tools which enable it.
""We need to exercise discretion to maintain a healthy balance between our highly demanding profession and distractions like social networking media, mobiles and laptops to name a few. We can ill-afford to put expensive ac and lives at risk due to excessive indulgence in social networking media and other distractions," he wrote.
According to the IAF, there have been four recent incidents beginning in July, 2012, that have involved pilots who showed up to fly without adequate rest. An informal inquiry showed that they had been online until late into the night on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook.
Reddy stops short of calling for a ban on social media, but he does point out that "Self discipline is of great importance because beyond a point no one can monitor and control your life. We can ill afford to put expensive ac (aircraft) and lives at risk due to excessive indulgence in social networking media and other distractions."
(Image from file)
See the rest here:
Indian Air Force Says Social Media Use May Be Safety Threat To Pilots
Dean Kelly (left) and Justin Parfitt, founders of the HeyLets app.
The idea of walking into a shopping centre on a Saturday afternoon made Dean Kelly's skin crawl.
"I couldn't bear the thought of having to fight crowds to furnish my flat," Kelly says. "I thought what better way of avoiding hordes of people than start an online furniture store."
So the former management consultant came up with the idea of Zanui, an online furniture and homewares store. While building the website, Kelly lived in his flat with his basic furniture bed, fridge, Xbox and beanbag.
"I was determined to see the idea through and I didn't want to go against my beliefs of buying furniture the traditional way. That was back in November 2011 and the business has grown substantially from there."
Advertisement
While in US raising money for Zanui, Kelly came up with his latest project.
"Having built an online furniture business propelled my desire to develop a global internet business," he says. "I didn't want to leave Zanui until it was solid and performing well but creating a social networking app really appealed to me.
"That's where the idea from HeyLets evolved from it is a social networking app that allows people to share their experiences based on their interests and positive experiences."
Kelly met online entrepreneur Justin Parfitt in America in early 2013 and they decided to roll out the app in Australia first to test the market. As far back as 2002 Parfitt had created Fast Impressions, a speed-dating company that had expanded around the world.
View original post here:
Zanui founder takes social networking to a new level with HeyLets
Like my co-blogger Will Baude, I was very interested in the Ninth Circuits recent case, United States v. Dreyer, suppressing evidence as a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. I think the case is interesting because it demonstrates a view of the exclusionary rule that I havent seen in a while.
First, some history. Back in the the middle of the 20th Century, the federal courts often found ways to impose an exclusionary rule for statutory violations in federal court. For example, in Nardone v. United States, 302 U. S. 379 (1937) (Nardone I) and Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939) (Nardone II), the Supreme Court adopted an exclusionary rule for violations of the Communications Act. In McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), the Court adopted an exclusionary rule for violations of Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court had a rather free-form approach to the exclusionary rule at the time, in part because suppression was seen as the judiciarys domain. The federal courts had an inherent power to control evidence in their own cases, so the Court could be creative in fashioning what evidence could come in to deter bad conduct. If the government did something really bad, the federal courts had the power to keep the evidence out to deter violations and maintain the integrity of the courts.
By the 1980s, after Warren Court revolution, the Supreme Court had a different view of the exclusionary rule. The scope of the rule had expanded dramatically when it was incorporated and applied to the states. But as a kind of tradeoff for that expansion, the Court cut back on the free-form approach outside core constitutional violations. The Burger and Rehnquist Courts saw suppression as a doctrine that had to be rooted in deterrence of constitutional violations and not just something that courts didnt like or found offensive.
In his post, Will points out a passage from Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon to that effect. And I would add the earlier case of United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), in which investigators had intentionally violated one persons Fourth Amendment rights to get evidence they were holding of the suspects crimes. The Sixth Circuit had suppressed the evidence on the basis of the federal courts supervisory power to punish the blatant abuse even though the suspect did not have Fourth Amendment standing to object to the violation. The Supreme Court reversed, blocking courts from using the supervisory power as an end-run around the limits of Fourth Amendment doctrine.
The new Ninth Circuit case, Dreyer, strikes me as a vestige of the mid-20th century free-form view of the exclusionary rule. The lower courts in the 1960s and 1970s had a few areas where they rejected suppression outside of constitutional law but recognized the hypothetical possibility that they might suppress evidence if the facts were particularly egregious. For example, a bunch of circuits held that the Fourth Amendment does not regulate evidence collection by foreign governments not acting in coordination with the U.S., but that they would suppress evidence if the foreign government conduct shocked the conscience. See, e.g., Birdsell v. United States, 346 F.2d 775, 782 n. 10 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 712 n. 10 (2d Cir. 1975). But see United States v. Mount, 757 F.2d 1315, 1320 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Bork, J., concurring) (arguing based on Payner that lower courts lack supervisory powers to impose an exclusionary rule for searches by foreign governments). The caselaw was never reviewed in the Supreme Court, however, perhaps because those egregious circumstances were not found and the evidence wasnt actually suppressed.
Violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, the issue in the new decision, provides another example. The history seems to run like this. First, in the 1970s, a few courts applied the free-form approach to the exclusionary rule and left open the possibility that violations of the Posse Comitatus Act could lead to exclusion if it were necessary to deter violations. See, e.g.,United States v. Walden, 490 F.2d 372, 37677 (4th Cir. 1974); State v. Danko, 219 Kan. 490 (1976). When the Ninth Circuit reached the issue in 1986, the panel did not focus on the Supreme Courts then-new more skeptical approach to the exclusionary rule. Instead, the Ninth Circuit expanded on the 1970s lower-court cases, indicating that the exclusionary rule would be necessary for violations of the Act if a need to deter future violations is demonstrated. United States v. Roberts, 779 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1986). Again, though, this was just a possibility, and the issue was never reviewed.
Dreyer picks up that 28-year-old invitation and concludes that the need has finally been demonstrated and that the exclusionary rule therefore must be applied. Dreyer cites Roberts, which in turn cited Walden. So on its face, the court is at least drawing on precedent.
But it seems to me that Dreyer is very vulnerable if DOJ thinks it is worth challenging in the Supreme Court. Dreyer appears to rely on a line of thinking about the exclusionary rule that the Supreme Court has long ago rejected. Of course, we can debate the normative question of how the Justices should approach the exclusionary rule, either in the context of constitutional violations or statutory violations. But just as a predictive matter, I suspect that todays Court would have a different view of the question than the circuit court cases from the 1970s on which the Ninth Circuits Dreyer decision ultimately relies.
Orin Kerr is the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School, where he has taught since 2001. He teaches and writes in the area of criminal procedure and computer crime law.
Read more from the original source:
Volokh Conspiracy: The posse comitatus case and changing views of the exclusionary rule