View allAll Photos Tagged obfuscation
science.nasa.gov/mission/msl-curiosity/location-map/
(9 of 9) This is the satellite view showing the locations of the rover and the variance in parallax. Note that MSL 3703 is far from the target (1.2 mi.) and yet, back to my original point, there is a wide shadow on the face of the formation. It seems to me that the opposite should be the case if the rover is so far away and off to the side. And now, once the rover is close to the formation (MSL 4217) with a nearly square, head-on view, all the sharp details and shadows disappear. It goes back to the question: If NASA obtained pictures of a structure, would they allow us to see it? Or would they obfuscate it in accordance with the recommendations from the Brookings Report?
.
' .
. .
.
.
~ .
.. c t: .
~ .
___r ., .
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' UNION.
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES .
~ UNITE AGAINST THE POLITICS OF HATRED I.
Friends, 21.08.2002.
The Election Commission deserves the highest praise from all the secular and democratic people of our country for bringing to.
an halt, at least for the time being, the Sangh Giroh's dangerous designs in Gujarat. The Gujarat carnage -involving violence against.
the minority community on a scale not seen since the days of Partition -took place with the acUve connivance and support of the state ,..
.
administration under the leadership of Chief Minister Narendra Modi. After having presided over the state-sponsored genocide, the BJPis now hoping to convert it into electoral gains through early polls.What the people of Gujarat think of the Narendra Modi government had been quite clear after the panchayat polls and.
assembly by-elections in which the BJP had been thoroughly routed. However given the present situation in the state -hundreds of ".
thousands displaced from their homes and an atmosphere of fear and intimidation still being prevalent with the perpetrators of the riots.
going unpunished-a free and fair elections would hardly have been possible. And that was what the BJP was banking on. .
.
Frustrated in their attempt, the RSS-BJP is now trying to denigrate the institution of the EC, with the BJP even making official.
statements attributing a political bias to it. Now, the government has decided to make a Presidential reference to the Supreme Court..
This new found respect for the law comes from a political formation vvhich was openly hurling defiance at the apex court on the Ayodhyaissue afew months back and it is just another attempt to obfuscate the issue.While the upright stand taken against the Sangh Glroh's fascistic designs by institutions like the NHRC and the EC gives.
cause for optimism, the struggle for democracy and secularism in our country cannot be won without popular mobilizations. As a part ofthis effort the JNUSU is organizing a public meeting tomorrow on the Gujarat elections. We would like to invite all members of thestudent community to this meeting. .
PUBLIC MEETING.
GUJARAT ELECTIONS.
Reaping the Harvest of Hatred .
.
Speakers: Prof. C.P. Bhambri, Prof. Utsa Patnaik, Pr.of. Ghanshyam Shah, Prof. Dipankar Gupta \.
22.08.2002 (Thursday) .
2.30 p.m. .
SSS Auditorium .
Sd/-~ Abdus S~lam, Chandan Chaudhary, Harish Wankhede, Mahesh Sarma, Subhanil Choudhury .'· Councillors, SSS-JNUSU . . .. .
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' UNION.
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES.
UNITE AGAINST THE POLITICS OF HATRED !.
Friends, 21.08.2002.
The Election Commission deserves the highest praise from all the secular and democratic people of our country for bringing to '.
an halt. at least for the time being, the Sangh Giroh's dangerous designs in Gujarat. The Gujarat carnage -involving violence against.
the minority community on a scale not seen since the days of Partjtion -took place with the active connivance and support of the stateadministration under the leadership of Chief Minister Narendra Modi. After having presided over the state-sponsored genocide, the BJP.
is now hoping to convert it into electoral gains through early polls..
I 'A'hat the people of Gujarat think of the Narendra Modi government had been quite clear after the panchayat polls and.
.
assembly by-elections in which the BJP had been thoroughly routed. However given the present situation in the state -hundreds of.
thousands displaced from their homes and an atmosphere of fear and intimidation still being prevalent with the perpetrators of the riots.
going unpunished -a free and fair elections would hardly have been possible. And that was what the BJP was banking on. .
'{ Frustrated in their attempt, the RSS-BJP is now trying to denigrate the institution of the EC, with the BJP even making official.
statements attributing a political bias to it. Now, the government has decided to make a Presidential reference to the Supreme Court.
.
' This new found respect for the law comes from a political formation which was openly hurling defiance at the apex court on the Ayodhyaissue a few months back and it is just another attempt to obfuscate the issue.While the upright stand ta~n against the Sangh Giroh's fascistic designs by institutions like the NHRC and the EC givest) cause for optimism, the struggle for democracy and secularism in our country cannot be won without popular mobilizations. As apart of.
this effort the JNUSU is organizing a public meeting tomorrow on the Gujarat elections. We would like to invite all members of the.
student community to this meeting. .
.
I. PUBLIC MEETING.
GUJARAT ELECTIONS.
Reaping the Harvest of Hatred.
.
.
-t .
Speakers: Prof. C.P. Bhambri, Prof. Utsa Patnaik, Prof. Ghanshyam Shah, Prof. Dipankar Gupta22.08.2002 (Thursday) 2.30 p.m. SSS Auditorium.
Sd/-.
Abdus Salam, Chandan Chaudhary, Harish Wankhede, Mahesh Sarma, Subhanll Choudhury.
Councillors, SSS-JNUSU .
.
'\.
.,..,.
~ t ....
\ \. .,. .
II' ' 4" .
~-~--..· ....... ,.
.
"" .-. .
... .
' :.~ .
.
.
... .
. .
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
.. .
.
.
.
.
AHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' UNION .
19.11.05 b:l:::iorli.~ctfle.NJSU. 1raised these questions because certain members ofthe current JNUSU had clearly violated the democratic norms oftheespec~itregardtothe.JNUSU's position regarding the Prime Minister's visit. In response to my pamphlet, yesterday apamphlet wascertain representatives ofthe JNUSU, ostensibly to respond to my claims. However, the pamphlet issue by the aforementioned .
uo~=""""" 171'2005,1 issued apan tpbleti1 my official capacity as an elected Councilor in the JNUSU, raising questions about the democratic .
re;esentatives failed to address the issues raised in my pamphlet, and in fact seeks to avoid or obfuscate on several of the major questions·.
The pamphlet avoids addressing the fact that,because itwas called less than 24 hours in advance, the "Emergency Meeting" calledon November 13th was INVALID according to the JNUSU constitution. The pamphlet seeks to deflect attention towards the JNUSU.
President and the circumstances in which the meeting was called, thus avoiding the central issue. NOWHERE does it address the fact thatthe .
2 Joint Secretary and Vice President broke the rules ofthe JNUSU Constitution when they called the meeting.In regard to the above-mentioned violation, the pamphlet states that "The SL councilor should have actually refused to attend the meeting ifthis.
seemedto him asawryserious matter... In fact, wtien anothercouncilor raised the issue ofthe meeting being constitutionally invalid, he was.
told oy the Vice President that in orderto present any such statement, he would first have to sign the attendance sheet and thus "officially attend".
the meeting. In other words, the Vioe President told those of us who objected that we could not even express our opinion that the meeting was.
invalid unless we "officially attended" the meeting! Thus the Vioe President foroed us to either agree to his organization's terms, or be kicked.
out ofthe council meeting entirely! .
3. .
The pamphlet also erron~states at "the SL Councilorhas falsely stated thatthe two memoranda submitted to the PM and HRD Minister.
were not voted upon and passed unilaterally in the Council." On the contrary, Idid not state that the memoranda were not voted on. Istated,quite correctly, that THE "DECISION" TO SUBMITA MEMO IN LIEU OFAPROTESTWAS NOT DEBATED OR VOTED UPON BY THEJNUSU, BUT RATHER WAS UNILATERALLY DECLARED BY THE VICE PRESIDENT AND HIS ORGANIZATION. The pamphlet does noteven address this issue. .
4. .
The tally ofvotes given in the pamphlet fails to mention that IDID NOT VOTE on either ofthe memoranda,because as Istated in my previous.
pamphlet, Iviewed both as constitutionally invalid and not democratically representing the sentiments ofthe JNU student body..
5. .
The authors ofthe pamphlet have also stated that they would like to "enlig~ten"me ofthe ."fact that there has ber.n no such norm in the JNUSU.
ofsubmitting proposals to the Chairpersonally without allowing all the members ofthe Council an opportunity to debate on it. This is precisely.
why resolutions are tabled, debated and passed/rejected in the Council." This is my point exactly. Ifirst gave amotion verbally, sa~ngthatthe meeting was constitutionally invalid and that any vote on the memorandum would be similarly invalid, and proposed that instead individualrepresentatives sign on the memorandum in their own names, not in the name ofthe JNUSU, and gave my suggestions for demands to be.
included in such amemorandum. The Vice President, who was chairing the meeting, told me to put the proposal in writing, which Idid before.
any voting started. STILL, THE VICE PRESIDENT DID NOT PUT MY PROPOSAL FORWARD FOR DEBATE OR VOTE. HE IMMEDIATELY.
PUT THE MEMORANDA TO VOTE AND ADJOURNED THE MEETING. Iwould like to ask the Vioe President and other signatories ofthat.
pamphlet to "enlighten" me, what else must aJNUSU representative do to have their proposals recognized by the chair? Iwould also like to.
point out that the proposals ofseveral other councilors present at the meeting, both written and verbal,were similarly ignored by the Vice.
President .
6. .
The following issues put forward in my pamphlet were also not addressed by the authors ofthe above-mentioned pamphlet:.
Why did the Vice President unilaterally declare both in the meeting with the Vice ChancelloronNbvember 2nd and during the meeting ofJNUSU.
representatives on November 13111 that amemorandum would be submitted to the Prime Minister in lieu of aprotest, WITHOUT ASKING FOR.
ADEBATE OR VOTE ON THE ISSUE, OR EVEN CONSULTING ALL THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COLLECTIVE JNUSU?.
Why did the Vice President state in the All Organization Meeting on November 1311 that the JNUSU opposed any protest during the visit ofthe.
Prime Minister, when THIS WAS NOT ADECISION TAKEN BY THE COLLECTIVE JNUSU?·.
Why did the Vice President attempt to preventstudents from using certain slogans during the JNUSU protest march on November 13111, saying.
that the JNUSU had decided against using such slogans, when in actuality NO SUCH DECISION WAS TAKEN BY THE COLLECTIVE BODY.
OFTHEJNUSU? .
Why did the Vice President refuse to allow an elected JNUSU representative speak during aJNUSU public meeting, while allowing an SFI.
activist who is NOT amember ofthe JNUSU to speak for more than ten minutes?.
.
Far from being an "assault" on the JNUSU, as the authors of that pamphlet would like the student community to believe, my.
questions are an attempt to ensure that the JNUSU remains atransparent, democratic, and representative body that represents the.
demands and aspirations OF ALL THE STUDENTS OF JNU. Ibelieve that in order to do so, decisions taken in the JNUSU MUST BE MADE.
THROUGH ADEMOCRATIC VOTING PROCESS, NOT BY THE UNILATERALLY DIKTATS OF INDIVIDUAL OFFICE BEARERS. Irespectfully.
challenge the authors and signatories ofthat pamphlet to address the questions and issues Ihave raised,ifthey are indeed committed to ademocratic.
JNUSU. .
And this is more than just aquestion of parliamentary points oforder. As the aforementioned pamphlet implies, Ido believe that the mobilization of.
the common people in an actual protest, especially in front ofthe highest-ranking individual ofthe establishment, is more effective than submitting a.
pieoe of paper that can be easily ignored or tossed away. What Ifind issue with is that this option ofprotest was never discussed and actually.
suppressed by certain members of the JNUSU. Ialso feel that the undemocratic suppression ofthis option to prote:st on the partofthose members reveals not only their capitulation to and complicity with the JNU Administration, but also their complicity with.
the current government in power, and their willful intention NOT to protest its policies. .
Sd/-Tyler Williams,Councillor, SLL&CS .
.
Purposely obfuscated. You'll know what it is if you're meant to know. I've kept it since 2005, and I hope to take it out again in 2014.
.
.. --I ATC:..4' 6.12.05.
.
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY .
STUDENTS' UNION.
Union, especially in regard to the JNUSU's position regarding the Prime Minister's visit. Inresponse tomy pamphlet yesterday apamphlet wa~ .
51 issued bycertain representatives of the JNUSU, ostensibly to respond to my claims. However, the pamphlet issue by the aforemAntinnarfl .
on November 17" 2005,Iissued apamphlet inmy official capacity as an eleCted Councilor inthe JNUSU, raising questions aboutthe rtanvv-r~~.
-functioning ofthe JNUSU. 1raised these questions because certainmembers ofthe currentJNUSU had clear1yviolated the demoaaticnormsFn .
I We 1.the The pamphlet avoids addressing the fact that, because it was called less than 24 hours In advance, the "Emergency Meeting" called .
to<ou all representatives failedto address the issues raised In my pamphlet, and in fact seeks to avoid or obfuscate onseveral ofthe major questionsno iss1 Presidentand the circumstances In which the meeting was called, thus avoiding the central Issue. NOWHERE does tt address the fact that the re\ on November 13111 was INVALID according to the JNUSU constitution. The pamphletseeks to deflect attention towards the JNUSU .
2..
im rer In regard to the above-mentioned violation, the pamphletstates that"The SLcouncilor should have actually refused to attend the meeting ifthis .
. Joint Secretary and Vice President broke the rules ofthe JNUSU Constitution when they called the meeting..
is~/ .
Frier .
Ac jttWI .
the meeting. In otherwords, the Vice Presidenttold those ofus who objectedthatwe could not even express ouropinion that the meeting was .
th rhe invalid unless we officially attended" the meetingI Thus the VIce President forced us to either agree to his organization's terms, or be kjcked seemed tohim as avery serious matter..." In fact, wtien anothercouncilor raised the issue ofthe meeting beingconstitutionally invalid, he was .
told by the Vice Presidentthat in orderto present anysuch statement, he would first have to sign the attendance sheetand thus officiallyattend .
st.
bt ISSU 3. out ofthe council meeting entirely!.
The pamphletalso erroneouslystates that "the SL Councilor has falsely stated thatthe two memoranda submitted to the PM and HRD Minister .
were notvoted upon and passed unilaterally In the Council." On the contrary, Idid not state thatthe memoranda werenotvoted on. 1stated, .
ll .
quite correctly, that THE "DECISION" TO SUBMITA MEMO IN LIEU OFA PROTESTWAS NOT DEBATED ORVOTED UPONBY THE .
s.
t" JNUSU, BUT RATHER WAS UNILATERALLY.
even address this issue..
t .
4..
r DECLARED BY THE VICE PRESIDENT AND HIS ORGANIZATION..
pamphlet, Iviewed both as constitutionaUy invalid and not democratically representing the sentiments ofthe JNU student body. 5. The pamphletdoesnot.
\ of submitting proposals to the Chairpersonally without allowing all the members ofthe Council an opportunity to debate on ~. This is precisely The tally ofvotes given in the pamphletfails to mention that I DID NOTVOTEon eitherofthe memoranda, because asIstated inmy previous The authors ofthe pamphlet have also stated thatthey would like to "enlig'":ten" me ofthe .,actthat there has bec:1 no such norm inthe JNUSU why resolutions are tabled, debated and passed/rejected in the Council." This is my point exactly. Ifirst gave amotionverbally,sayingthat .
the meeting was constitutionally invalid and that any vote on the memorandum would be similarly invalid, and proposed that instead individual .
representatives sign on the memorandum in theirown names, not in the name ofthe JNUSU, and gave my suggestions fordemandsto be .
induded in such amemorandum. The Vice President, who was chairing the meeting, told me to putthe proposal in writing, whichIdid before .
.
anyvoting started. STILL,THE VICE PRESIDENT DID NOT PUT MY PROPOSAL FORWARD FOR DEBATE OR VOTE. HE IMMEDIATELY .
pamphlet to enlighten me, what else must aJNUSU representative do to have their proposals recognized by the chair? Iwould also liketo President.
point out that the proposals ofseveral other councilors present at the meeting, both written and verbal, were similarly ignored bytheVice .
6. PUT THE MEMORANDA TO VOTE AND ADJOURNED THE MEETING. Iwould like to ask the Vice President andother signatories ofthat.
Wny did the Vice President unilaterally declare both in the meeting with the Vice Chancellor onNovember 2"d and during the meeting ofJNUSU .
representatives on November 13111 thatamemorandum wouid be submitted to the Prime Minister in lieu ofaprotest Wft'ROOTASKiNGFOR .
The following issues put forward in my pamphlet were also not addressed by the'authors ofthe above-mention·ed pamphlet.
ADEBATE OR VOTE ON fHEfS-SUE~OREvENCONSULTING ALL TH-EREPRESENTAfiVES.
..Y Wny did the Vice President state in the All Organization Meeting on November 13" that the JNUSU opposed any protest during the visitofthe -OF~THECOLLECTIVEJNUSU?Why did the Vice Presidentattempt to preventstudents from using certainslogans during the JNUSU protest march onNovember13",saying .
Prime Minister, when THIS WAS NOTA DECISION TAKEN BY THE COLLECTIVE JNUSU?· ---OFTHEJNI!StR .
that the JNUSU had dedd~dagainst using such slogansJ....w_ben in actyality ~2SUCH DECISION WAS TAKEN BYTHE COLLECTIVE BODY . .
-_ ---__ .
Why did the Vice President refuse to allowan elected JNUSU representative speak during aJNUSU publicmeeting, while allowing an SFI .
activist whois NOT amemberof the JNUSU to speak for more than ten minutes? .
-· .
Far from being an "assault" on the JNUSU, as the authors ofthat pamphlet would like the student community to believe, my .
demands and aspirations OF ALL THE STUDENTS OF JNU. 1believe thatinorderto doso,decisions takeninthe JNUSU MUST BE MADE .
questions arean attempt to ensure that the JNUSU remains atransparent, democratic, and representative body that represents the .
challenge the authors and signatories ofthat pamphletto address the questions and issues Ihave raised, iftheyare indeed committed to ademooatic .
JNUSU. .
'THROUGH ADEMOCRATIC VOTING PROCESS, NOTBY THE UNILATERALLYDIKTATS OF INDIVIDUAL OFFICE BEARERS. IrespectfuDy .
And this is morethan just aquestion ofpar1iamentary points oforder. As the aforementioned pamphlet implies, Ido believe that the mobilization of .
the common peopleinanactual protest, especially infrontofthe highest-rankjng individual ofthe establishment, is more effectivethan submitting a.
the current government in power, and theirwillful intention NOT to protest its policies. .
suppressed by certain members ofthe JNUSU. I also feel that the undemocratic suppression ofthis option toprotest on the part .
piece of paperthatcanbe easilyignoredortossedaway. What Ifind issue with is thatthis option ofprotestwas neverdiscussed and actually ,I .of those members reveals not only their capitulation toand complicity with the JNU Administration, but alsotheircomplicity with .
Sd/-Sd/-Tyler Williams..
Dhaoaojay, Vice-President, Councillor, SLL&CS.
.
JNUSU .
.
via Google announced on Monday that it’ll now be deploying more secure and stricter rules for the Chrome extensions in the Chrome Web Store. The new regulations will come in effect with the forthcoming Chrome 70, while extensions containing obfuscated code will be blocked immediately. ift.tt/2NlT118