Search Episodes (Potential Solutions)

Bill Gates Pours Millions Into Geoengineering: Infowars Nightl...

Added 02/07/12
0 Views

Added 01/15/12
0 Views

Technology and the Human Body - Bionics

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:00 01/15/12
TEDxSF - Berkeley Bionics - Merging Technology and the Human Body More than anything else, Eythor Bender is a team builder. You want to be on his team. And that's good news for bionics, a nascent industry that Eythor has championed and grown, taking bionic prosthetics from unconventional approaches to sustainable, approved products that merge man and machine, and enhance individuals' participation in their community. Today and as CEO of Berkeley Bionics -- developer and maker of wearable robots - Eythor is leading his company's charge to boost everyone's potential through personal bionics. This year, Berkeley Bionics is introducing two new exoskeletons to the market that augment mobility, strength and endurance: eLEGS powers wheelchair users up to get them standing and walking again; and HULCTM (Human Universal Load Carrier) enables users to carry up to 200 lbs. for hours and over all terrains, while reducing the likelihood of back-injuries. Eythor is a native of Iceland, with a Masters in Business and Economics from Germany, where he began his career with Hewlett Packard in medical diagnostics and computer imaging. He went on to join Nordic-European Ossur, which pioneered the field of commercial bionics. Eythor led Ossur's Americas division, taking it from a start-up to a world leader in the field of wearable, non-invasive technologies designed for amputees, injury prevention, rehabilitation and pain relief. He lives in San Francisco and most recently spoke at TED2011 in Long Beach, California. event video by: repertoireproductions.com Background information Bionics (also known as biomimicry, biomimetics, bio-inspiration, biognosis, and close to bionical creativity engineering) is the application of biological methods and systems found in nature to the study and design of engineering systems and modern technology. The word bionic was coined by Jack E. Steele in 1958, possibly originating from the technical term bion (pronounced bee-on) (from Ancient Greek: Î˛ÎŻÎżĎ), meaning 'unit of life' and the suffix -ic, meaning 'like' or 'in the manner of', hence 'like life'. Some dictionaries, however, explain the word as being formed as a portmanteau from biology + electronics. It was popularized by the 1970s television series The Six Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman, which were influenced by Steele's work, and feature humans given superhuman powers by electromechanical implants. The transfer of technology between lifeforms and manufactures is, according to proponents of bionic technology, desirable because evolutionary pressure typically forces living organisms, including fauna and flora, to become highly optimized and efficient. A classical example is the development of dirt- and water-repellent paint (coating) from the observation that the surface of the lotus flower plant is practically unsticky for anything (the lotus effect). The term "biomimetic" is preferred when reference is made to chemical reactions. In that domain, biomimetic chemistry refers to reactions that, in nature, involve biological macromolecules (for example, enzymes or nucleic acids) whose chemistry can be replicated using much smaller molecules in vitro. Examples of bionics in engineering include the hulls of boats imitating the thick skin of dolphins; sonar, radar, and medical ultrasound imaging imitating the echolocation of bats. In the field of computer science, the study of bionics has produced artificial neurons, artificial neural networks, and swarm intelligence. Evolutionary computation was also motivated by bionics ideas but it took the idea further by simulating evolution in silico and producing well-optimized solutions that had never appeared in nature. It is estimated by Julian Vincent, professor of biomimetics at the University of Bath's department of mechanical engineering (Biomimetics group), that "at present there is only a 12% overlap between biology and technology in terms of the mechanisms used". (Source Wikipedia)

(PAR, CRWE, RTLX) CRWENewswire Stocks to Watch

Added 01/12/12
1 Views

(PAR, RTLX) CRWENewswire Stocks to Watch for Friday Jan. 13, 2012

Added 01/12/12
0 Views

(PAR, RTLX) CRWENewswire Stocks to Watch for Friday Jan. 13, 2012

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 15:46:01 01/12/12
Welcome to CRWENewswire, Stocks to Watch for Friday January 13th, 2012. I am Shalika Jayasekera PAR Technology Corporation - symbol PAR - reported that it has completed the asset sale of its subsidiary, PAR Logistics Management Systems to ORBCOMM, for a total selling price valued at approximately $6 million, comprised of cash and ORBCOMM common stock plus with a potential additional earn-out of $4 million. Retalix Limited - symbol RTLX - announced that Target Corporation has selected the Retalix 10 Store Suite as its next-generation store platform for Target's new retail operations in Canada. and finally; The Board of Directors of Crown Equity Holdings Incorporated - symbol CRWE - has adopted a resolution to a dividend consisting of one common share of its subsidiary Crown Tele Services Inc., a provider of affordable, world class (VoIP) communications solutions, for every 100 shares of Crown Equity Holdings' common shares. Thanks for joining me and have a great day! For CRWE Newswire, Stocks to watch, I'm Shalika Jayasekera ********************************* THIS IS NOT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY SECURITY! Disclaimer: Never invest in any stock featured on our site or emails unless you can afford to lose your entire investment. crwenewswire.com publisher and its affiliates and contractors are not registered investment advisers or broker/dealers.Our disclaimer (Read more at http://www.crwenewswire.com/disclaimer) is to be read and fully understood before using our site, reading our newsletter or joining our email list. Release of Liability: Through use of this website viewing or using, you agree to hold crwenewswire.com report and Crown Equity Holdings Inc. CRWE, its operators, shareholders, employees and/or contractors harmless and to completely release them from any and all liability due to any and all loss (monetary or otherwise), damages (monetary or otherwise) that you may occur. Rule 17B requires disclosure of payment for investor relations. Crown Equity Holdings Inc. (CRWE.OB) is a media-advertisement and newswire company. Crown Equity Holdings Inc. (CRWE.OB), in some cases, provides media advertising and public awareness for both public and private companies, as well as disseminating news. As such, in some cases, when Crown Equity Holdings Inc. (CRWE.OB) advertises for a particular client, Crown Equity Holdings Inc. (CRWE.OB) charges an advertising fee which it must disclose under 17B. The fee may be in cash, in free trading stock or in restricted stock. Crown Equity Holdings Inc. (CRWE.OB), if paid in stock, can and may sell those securities during the advertising period.

(PAR, RTLX) CRWENewswire Stocks to Watch for Friday Jan. 13, 2012

Added 01/12/12
0 Views

(PAR, RTLX) CRWENewswire Stocks to Watch for Friday Jan. 13, 2012

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 15:46:01 01/12/12
Welcome to CRWENewswire, Stocks to Watch for Friday January 13th, 2012. I am Shalika Jayasekera PAR Technology Corporation - symbol PAR - reported that it has completed the asset sale of its subsidiary, PAR Logistics Management Systems to ORBCOMM, for a total selling price valued at approximately $6 million, comprised of cash and ORBCOMM common stock plus with a potential additional earn-out of $4 million. Retalix Limited - symbol RTLX - announced that Target Corporation has selected the Retalix 10 Store Suite as its next-generation store platform for Target's new retail operations in Canada. and finally; The Board of Directors of Crown Equity Holdings Incorporated - symbol CRWE - has adopted a resolution to a dividend consisting of one common share of its subsidiary Crown Tele Services Inc., a provider of affordable, world class (VoIP) communications solutions, for every 100 shares of Crown Equity Holdings' common shares. Thanks for joining me and have a great day! For CRWE Newswire, Stocks to watch, I'm Shalika Jayasekera ********************************* THIS IS NOT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY SECURITY! Disclaimer: Never invest in any stock featured on our site or emails unless you can afford to lose your entire investment. crwenewswire.com publisher and its affiliates and contractors are not registered investment advisers or broker/dealers.Our disclaimer (Read more at http://www.crwenewswire.com/disclaimer) is to be read and fully understood before using our site, reading our newsletter or joining our email list. Release of Liability: Through use of this website viewing or using, you agree to hold crwenewswire.com report and Crown Equity Holdings Inc. CRWE, its operators, shareholders, employees and/or contractors harmless and to completely release them from any and all liability due to any and all loss (monetary or otherwise), damages (monetary or otherwise) that you may occur. Rule 17B requires disclosure of payment for investor relations. Crown Equity Holdings Inc. (CRWE.OB) is a media-advertisement and newswire company. Crown Equity Holdings Inc. (CRWE.OB), in some cases, provides media advertising and public awareness for both public and private companies, as well as disseminating news. As such, in some cases, when Crown Equity Holdings Inc. (CRWE.OB) advertises for a particular client, Crown Equity Holdings Inc. (CRWE.OB) charges an advertising fee which it must disclose under 17B. The fee may be in cash, in free trading stock or in restricted stock. Crown Equity Holdings Inc. (CRWE.OB), if paid in stock, can and may sell those securities during the advertising period.

Felix TV: How to clean up the muddy mortgage mess

Added 01/09/12
0 Views

Felix TV: How to clean up the muddy mortgage mess

Added 01/09/12
0 Views

Felix TV: How to clean up the muddy mortgage mess

Added 01/09/12
0 Views

Felix TV: How to clean up the muddy mortgage mess

Added 01/09/12
0 Views

Baucus Presses Regulators to Find Answers for Montana Farmers,...

Added 12/01/11
0 Views

Baucus Presses Regulators to Find Answers for Montana Farmers, Ranchers Hurt By MF Global

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 19:16:14 12/01/11
Baucus Presses Regulators to Find Answers for Montana Farmers, Ranchers Hurt By MF Global December 1, 2011 ***For Immediate Release*** Baucus Presses Regulators to Find Answers for Montana Farmers, Ranchers Hurt By MF Global Senator Calls on CFTC, SEC to Find Quickest Solution to Repay Montanans Money that is Rightfully Theirs (Washington, DC) -- Montana's senior US Senator Max Baucus today called on regulators to find the quickest solution to fully repay Montana farmers and ranchers hurt by the irresponsible, and potentially illegal, practices of international investment firm MF Global. Baucus questioned representatives from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) at a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing this morning after hearing from several Montana farmers and ranchers whose customer accounts are now frozen amid the MF Global bankruptcy scandal where upwards of $1.2 billion in customer funds are missing. Most recently, members of Baucus' staff have heard from several attendees at this week's Montana Grain Growers Association Convention in Great Falls. Baucus highlighted the story of Fairfield farmer Marty Klinker at today's hearing. "I want you to understand this hearing isn't just an academic exercise," Baucus said to the regulators. "We're talking about real Montana farmers and ranchers who engaged in good, legitimate business practices, and they have been hurt by unchecked greed. Marty Klinker, for example, a farmer out of Fairfield, Montana, may be out thousands of dollars because he trusted the ... From: SenatorBaucus Views: 420 0 ratings Time: 06:43 More in News & Politics

Baucus Presses Regulators to Find Answers for Montana Farmers,...

Added 12/01/11
3 Views

Baucus Presses Regulators to Find Answers for Montana Farmers, Ranchers Hurt By MF Global

[LESS INFO] 3 VIEWS | ADDED 19:16:14 12/01/11
Baucus Presses Regulators to Find Answers for Montana Farmers, Ranchers Hurt By MF Global December 1, 2011 ***For Immediate Release*** Baucus Presses Regulators to Find Answers for Montana Farmers, Ranchers Hurt By MF Global Senator Calls on CFTC, SEC to Find Quickest Solution to Repay Montanans Money that is Rightfully Theirs (Washington, DC) -- Montana's senior US Senator Max Baucus today called on regulators to find the quickest solution to fully repay Montana farmers and ranchers hurt by the irresponsible, and potentially illegal, practices of international investment firm MF Global. Baucus questioned representatives from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) at a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing this morning after hearing from several Montana farmers and ranchers whose customer accounts are now frozen amid the MF Global bankruptcy scandal where upwards of $1.2 billion in customer funds are missing. Most recently, members of Baucus' staff have heard from several attendees at this week's Montana Grain Growers Association Convention in Great Falls. Baucus highlighted the story of Fairfield farmer Marty Klinker at today's hearing. "I want you to understand this hearing isn't just an academic exercise," Baucus said to the regulators. "We're talking about real Montana farmers and ranchers who engaged in good, legitimate business practices, and they have been hurt by unchecked greed. Marty Klinker, for example, a farmer out of Fairfield, Montana, may be out thousands of dollars because he trusted the ... From: SenatorBaucus Views: 420 0 ratings Time: 06:43 More in News & Politics

Wicker Discusses Deficit Reduction on WTVA

Added 11/23/11
1 Views

Occupy's A**hole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie

Added 11/08/11
6 Views

Occupy's A**hole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie

[LESS INFO] 6 VIEWS | ADDED 03:00:00 11/08/11
During Tuesday's Occupy Oakland General Strike, the so-called "Black Block" vandalized stores and buildings as peaceful Occupiers try desperately to stop them. [Caution: Strong Language-- NSFW] Guest Editorial by Sara Robinson , Senior Fellow, Campaign for America’s Future I wish I could say that the problems that the Occupy movement is having with infiltrators and agitators are new. But they’re not. In fact, they’re problems that the Old Hippies who survived the 60s and 70s remember acutely, and with considerable pain. As a veteran of those days — with the scars to prove it — watching the OWS organizers struggle with drummers, druggies, sexual harassers, and racists brings me back to a few lessons we had to learn the hard way back in the day, always after putting up with way too much over-the-top behavior from people we didn’t think we were allowed to say no to. It’s heartening to watch the Occupiers begin to work out solutions to what I can only indelicately call the a**hole problem. In the hope of speeding that learning process along, here are a few glimmers from my own personal flashbacks — things that it’s high time somebody said right out loud. 1. Let’s be clear: It is absolutely OK to insist on behavior norms. Occupy may be a DIY movement — but it also stands for very specific ideas and principles. Central among these is: We are here to reassert the common good. And we have a LOT of work to do. Being open and accepting does not mean that we’re obligated to accept behavior that damages our ability to achieve our goals. It also means that we have a perfect right to insist that people sharing our spaces either act in ways that further those goals, or go somewhere else until they’re able to meet that standard. 2. It is OK to draw boundaries between those who are clearly working toward our goals, and those who are clearly not. Or, as an earlier generation of change agents put it: You’re either on the bus, or off the bus. Are you here to change the way this country operates, and willing to sacrifice some of your almighty personal freedom to do that? Great. You’re with us, and you’re welcome here. Are you here on your own trip and expecting the rest of us to put up with you? In that case, you are emphatically NOT on our side, and you are not welcome in our space. Anybody who feels the need to put their own personal crap ahead of the health and future of the movement is (at least for that moment) an a**hole, and does not belong in Occupied space. Period. This can be a very hard idea for people in an inclusive movement to accept — we really want to have all voices heard. But the principles Occupy stands for must always take precedence over any individual’s divine right to be an a**hole, or the a**holes will take over. Which brings me to…. 3. The consensus model has a fatal flaw, which is this: It’s very easy for power to devolve to the people who are willing to throw the biggest tantrums. When some a drama king or queen starts holding the process hostage for their own reasons, congratulations! You’ve got a new a**hole! (See #2.) You must guard against this constantly, or consensus government becomes completely impossible. 4. Once you’ve accepted the right of the group to set boundaries around people’s behavior, and exclude those who put their personal rights ahead of the group’s mission and goals, the next question becomes: How do we deal with chronic a**holes? This is the problem Occupy’s leaders are very visibly struggling with now. I’ve been a part of a**hole-infested groups in the long-ago past that had very good luck with a whole-group restorative justice process. In this process, the full group (or some very large subset of it that’s been empowered to speak for the whole) confronts the troublemaker directly. The object is not to shame or blame. Instead, it’s like an intervention. You simply point out what you have seen and how it affects you. The person is given a clear choice: make some very specific changes in their behavior, or else leave. This requires some pre-organization. You need three to five spokespeople to moderate the session (usually as a tag team) and do most of the talking. Everybody else simply stands in a circle around the offender, watching silently, looking strong and determined. The spokespeople make factual we statements that reflect the observations of the group. We have seen you using drugs inside Occupied space. We are concerned that this hurts our movement. We are asking you to either stop, or leave. When the person tries to make excuses (and one of the most annoying attributes of chronic a**holes is they’re usually skilled excuse-makers as well), then other members of the group can speak up — always with I messages. I saw you smoking a joint with X and Y under tree Z this morning. We’re all worried about the cops here, and we think you’re putting our movement in danger. We are asking you to leave. Every statement needs to end with that demand — We are asking you to either stop, or else leave and not come back. No matter what the troublemaker says, the response must always be brought back to this bottom line. These interventions can go on for a LONG time. You have to be committed to stay in the process, possibly for a few hours until the offender needs a restroom break or gets hungry. But eventually, if everybody stays put, the person will have no option but to accept that a very large group of people do not want him or her there. Even truly committed a**holes will get the message that they’ve crossed the line into unacceptable behavior when they’re faced with several dozen determined people confronting them all at once. Given the time this takes, it’s tempting to cut corners by confronting several people all at once. Don’t do it. Confronting more than two people at a time creates a diffusion-of-responsibility effect: the troublemakers tell themselves that they just got caught up in a dragnet; the problem is those other people, not me. The one who talks the most will get most of the heat; the others will tend to slip by (though the experience may cause them to reconsider their behavior or leave as well). This process also leaves open the hope that the person will really, truly get that their behavior is Not okay, and agree to change it. When this happens, be sure to negotiate specific changes, boundaries, rules, and consequences (if we see you using drugs here again, we will call the police. There will be no second warning), and then reach a consensus agreement that allows them to stay. On the other hand: if the person turns violent and gets out of control, then the question is settled, and their choice is made. You now have a legitimate reason to call the cops to haul them away. And the cops will likely respect you more for maintaining law and order. Clearing out a huge number of these folks can be a massive time suck, at least for the few days it will take to weed out the worst ones and get good at it. It might make sense to create a large committee whose job it is to gather information, build cases against offenders, and conduct these meetings. And finally: 5. It is not wrong for you to set boundaries this way. You will get sh-t for this. But…but…it looks a whole lot like a Maoist purge unit! No. There is nothing totalitarian about asking people who join your revolution to act in ways that support the goals of that revolution. And the Constitution guarantees your right of free association — which includes the right to exclude people who aren’t on the bus, and who are wasting the group’s limited time and energy rather than maximizing it. After all: you’re not sending these people to re-education camps, or doing anything else that damages them. You’re just getting them out of the park, and out of your hair. You’re eliminating distractions, which in turn effectively amplifies the voices and efforts of everyone else around you. And, in the process, you’re also modeling a new kind of justice that sanctions people’s behavior without sanctioning their being — while also carving out safe space in which the true potential of Occupy can flourish.

Occupy's A**hole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie

Added 11/08/11
2 Views

Occupy's A**hole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie

[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 03:00:00 11/08/11
During Tuesday's Occupy Oakland General Strike, the so-called "Black Block" vandalized stores and buildings as peaceful Occupiers try desperately to stop them. [Caution: Strong Language-- NSFW] Guest Editorial by Sara Robinson , Senior Fellow, Campaign for America’s Future I wish I could say that the problems that the Occupy movement is having with infiltrators and agitators are new. But they’re not. In fact, they’re problems that the Old Hippies who survived the 60s and 70s remember acutely, and with considerable pain. As a veteran of those days — with the scars to prove it — watching the OWS organizers struggle with drummers, druggies, sexual harassers, and racists brings me back to a few lessons we had to learn the hard way back in the day, always after putting up with way too much over-the-top behavior from people we didn’t think we were allowed to say no to. It’s heartening to watch the Occupiers begin to work out solutions to what I can only indelicately call the a**hole problem. In the hope of speeding that learning process along, here are a few glimmers from my own personal flashbacks — things that it’s high time somebody said right out loud. 1. Let’s be clear: It is absolutely OK to insist on behavior norms. Occupy may be a DIY movement — but it also stands for very specific ideas and principles. Central among these is: We are here to reassert the common good. And we have a LOT of work to do. Being open and accepting does not mean that we’re obligated to accept behavior that damages our ability to achieve our goals. It also means that we have a perfect right to insist that people sharing our spaces either act in ways that further those goals, or go somewhere else until they’re able to meet that standard. 2. It is OK to draw boundaries between those who are clearly working toward our goals, and those who are clearly not. Or, as an earlier generation of change agents put it: You’re either on the bus, or off the bus. Are you here to change the way this country operates, and willing to sacrifice some of your almighty personal freedom to do that? Great. You’re with us, and you’re welcome here. Are you here on your own trip and expecting the rest of us to put up with you? In that case, you are emphatically NOT on our side, and you are not welcome in our space. Anybody who feels the need to put their own personal crap ahead of the health and future of the movement is (at least for that moment) an a**hole, and does not belong in Occupied space. Period. This can be a very hard idea for people in an inclusive movement to accept — we really want to have all voices heard. But the principles Occupy stands for must always take precedence over any individual’s divine right to be an a**hole, or the a**holes will take over. Which brings me to…. 3. The consensus model has a fatal flaw, which is this: It’s very easy for power to devolve to the people who are willing to throw the biggest tantrums. When some a drama king or queen starts holding the process hostage for their own reasons, congratulations! You’ve got a new a**hole! (See #2.) You must guard against this constantly, or consensus government becomes completely impossible. 4. Once you’ve accepted the right of the group to set boundaries around people’s behavior, and exclude those who put their personal rights ahead of the group’s mission and goals, the next question becomes: How do we deal with chronic a**holes? This is the problem Occupy’s leaders are very visibly struggling with now. I’ve been a part of a**hole-infested groups in the long-ago past that had very good luck with a whole-group restorative justice process. In this process, the full group (or some very large subset of it that’s been empowered to speak for the whole) confronts the troublemaker directly. The object is not to shame or blame. Instead, it’s like an intervention. You simply point out what you have seen and how it affects you. The person is given a clear choice: make some very specific changes in their behavior, or else leave. This requires some pre-organization. You need three to five spokespeople to moderate the session (usually as a tag team) and do most of the talking. Everybody else simply stands in a circle around the offender, watching silently, looking strong and determined. The spokespeople make factual we statements that reflect the observations of the group. We have seen you using drugs inside Occupied space. We are concerned that this hurts our movement. We are asking you to either stop, or leave. When the person tries to make excuses (and one of the most annoying attributes of chronic a**holes is they’re usually skilled excuse-makers as well), then other members of the group can speak up — always with I messages. I saw you smoking a joint with X and Y under tree Z this morning. We’re all worried about the cops here, and we think you’re putting our movement in danger. We are asking you to leave. Every statement needs to end with that demand — We are asking you to either stop, or else leave and not come back. No matter what the troublemaker says, the response must always be brought back to this bottom line. These interventions can go on for a LONG time. You have to be committed to stay in the process, possibly for a few hours until the offender needs a restroom break or gets hungry. But eventually, if everybody stays put, the person will have no option but to accept that a very large group of people do not want him or her there. Even truly committed a**holes will get the message that they’ve crossed the line into unacceptable behavior when they’re faced with several dozen determined people confronting them all at once. Given the time this takes, it’s tempting to cut corners by confronting several people all at once. Don’t do it. Confronting more than two people at a time creates a diffusion-of-responsibility effect: the troublemakers tell themselves that they just got caught up in a dragnet; the problem is those other people, not me. The one who talks the most will get most of the heat; the others will tend to slip by (though the experience may cause them to reconsider their behavior or leave as well). This process also leaves open the hope that the person will really, truly get that their behavior is Not okay, and agree to change it. When this happens, be sure to negotiate specific changes, boundaries, rules, and consequences (if we see you using drugs here again, we will call the police. There will be no second warning), and then reach a consensus agreement that allows them to stay. On the other hand: if the person turns violent and gets out of control, then the question is settled, and their choice is made. You now have a legitimate reason to call the cops to haul them away. And the cops will likely respect you more for maintaining law and order. Clearing out a huge number of these folks can be a massive time suck, at least for the few days it will take to weed out the worst ones and get good at it. It might make sense to create a large committee whose job it is to gather information, build cases against offenders, and conduct these meetings. And finally: 5. It is not wrong for you to set boundaries this way. You will get sh-t for this. But…but…it looks a whole lot like a Maoist purge unit! No. There is nothing totalitarian about asking people who join your revolution to act in ways that support the goals of that revolution. And the Constitution guarantees your right of free association — which includes the right to exclude people who aren’t on the bus, and who are wasting the group’s limited time and energy rather than maximizing it. After all: you’re not sending these people to re-education camps, or doing anything else that damages them. You’re just getting them out of the park, and out of your hair. You’re eliminating distractions, which in turn effectively amplifies the voices and efforts of everyone else around you. And, in the process, you’re also modeling a new kind of justice that sanctions people’s behavior without sanctioning their being — while also carving out safe space in which the true potential of Occupy can flourish.