JACK THE BABOON EMPLOYED AS A SIGNALMAN BY A RAILROAD
Jack, the Baboon Employed as a Signalman by a Railroad:
During the late 1800s a baboon was employed by the railroad as a signalman. He never once made a mistake and worked for the railroad until his death
Hoax or Fact:
Fact with some missing information.
This is an interesting claim that says a Baboon was employed as a Signalman by a railroad during 1800s, and that he never made a mistake while working for the railroad until his death. The story is a fact, but does not convey complete information.
The remarkable story of Jack as the signalman baboon was described in Nov. 11, 1990 edition of The Telegraph newspaper, the detailed story of which was published in the July 24, 1890 issue of the science journal Nature.
Story in Detail
Jack, the baboon was owned by a railway man James Wide who lost both his legs in a railway accident in 1877, after which he took a post as signalman at Uitenhage station in the Cape, South Africa. About 4 years later, he saw a Chacma Baboon leading an ox wagon. So he bought the unusually intelligent animal to pull him around on a trolley.
Jack was put in charge of the coal yard keys and also did the station’s gardening, until Wide learnt that the baboon was skilled at operating signals. Jack learned each lever by name and was able to push them into position when a train approached at Uitenhage station. Wide would hold up one or two fingers (as a signal to the animal) and Jack would then pull the correct lever. Finally, Jack needed no instructions from his master and he really knew which lever to operate for each approaching train. Although the baboon was always under the eye of his master James Wide, Jack never made a mistake or required telling twice.
This interesting story of Jack, the baboon acting as a railway signalman is a very good example to prove that wisdom along with practice can create wonders!
Old man, who was probably shrooming, terrorizes NYC subway with dildo
Many New Yorkers’ worst fears came to pass on Saturday when an elderly man perpetrated a dildo attack on a subway car full of unsuspecting passengers.
According to eyewitness Aymann Ismail, around 9 p.m. the penile terrorist, who appeared to be having a fairly good time already, boarded the train and whipped it out for some young men trying to take selfies with him:
An older man of indeterminate ethnic origin [but probably East Asian?] boarded the train at Atlantic Avenue; the man seemed “fucked up on some kind of drug,” loose-limbed and sloppy. Some young men sitting next to him began making fun of him. One of the dudes took out his phone to snap a selfie with the older guy. At that point, the old man reached into his bag and pulled out a massive dildo. The young guys and other people nearby ran away, laughing.
Perhaps emboldened by this validation, he continued brandishing the large, flexible, black dildo:
The man then started waving the big black dong around, pointing it at people and pretending to jerk it off. The man also kept standing up and clenching his butt cheeks.
Finally, he developed a more advanced protocol to maximize the delight inflicted on each new wave of incoming train friends:
Every time the train pulled into a station, he’d put the dildo away, sit quietly, let people board, then whip it out and wave it around, startling the new passengers.
“It honestly doesn’t look like any dildo I’ve ever seen,” noted Animal’s house sex toy expert. Spooky.
While I don’t feel qualified to comment on the dildo’s potentially extraterrestrial origins, my extensive psychonautic background leads me to conclude that Dr. Dong here was shrooming his face off. There’s only one substance on this planet that produces just such a combination of feral giggling, sly strategizing, and generous desire to include those around you in your beautifully hilarious–if tragically ephemeral–world. Compare his stance and expression to that of an associate of mine after ingesting a known dose of psilocybin. In this man’s mind, he’s a wise elf on a journey to Arcadia, armed with only a magic snake to protect him.
God speed you, fair elf lord. May your quest be ever fruitful and may you not end up in central booking.
[Animal New York | Photo and GIF: Aymann Ismail]
Man Wearing ‘Seriously I Have Drugs’ Shirt Arrested on Drug Charges
Florida man, John Balmer, was arrested at a Kmart in Hudson, Florida, on Monday.
During his arrest, police noticed Balmer’s shirt, which read: “Who needs drugs” in all caps. Underneath that, it read: “No, Seriously, I have drugs”.
And seriously, he did, according to the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office. They then posted a photo of Balmer in the shirt on their Facebook page.
According to FOX 13 in Tampa Bay, Balmer tried handing a bag containing a “green leafy substance” to another Kmart customer once he saw police enter the store.
That super smart person decided not to take the suspicious object from a stranger.
Balmer then walked to the register, put the baggy on the ground, and paid for his items.
The deputy checked the bag and found marijuana and methamphetamine. The witness confirmed it was the bag Balmer tried to hand off, according to the report.
Balmer was arrested and booked on charges of possession of meth and marijuana.
Maybe he’ll get a new shirt, “Who needs jail” and under it “No seriously, I’m in jail.”
Read More: Man Wearing ‘Seriously I Have Drugs’ Shirt Arrested on Drug Charges | http://wgrd.com/man-wearing-seriously-i-have-drugs-shirt-arrested-on-drug-charges/?utm_source=taboola.com&utm_medium=referral&trackback=tsmclip
New police radars can ‘see’ inside homes
Radar devices allowing officers to detect movement through walls have been secretly used by at least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies over the last two years. VPC
At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies quietly deployed radars that let them effectively see inside homes, with little notice to the courts or the public.
WASHINGTON — At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.
Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person’s house without first obtaining a search warrant.
The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving.
The RANGE-R handheld radar is used by dozens of U.S. law enforcement agencies to help detect movement inside buildings. See how it works in this video provided by L-3 Communications VPC
Current and former federal officials say the information is critical for keeping officers safe if they need to storm buildings or rescue hostages. But privacy advocates and judges have nonetheless expressed concern about the circumstances in which law enforcement agencies may be using the radars — and the fact that they have so far done so without public scrutiny.
“The idea that the government can send signals through the wall of your house to figure out what’s inside is problematic,” said Christopher Soghoian, the American Civil Liberties Union’s principal technologist. “Technologies that allow the police to look inside of a home are among the intrusive tools that police have.”
Agents’ use of the radars was largely unknown until December, when a federal appeals court in Denver said officers had used one before they entered a house to arrest a man wanted for violating his parole. The judges expressed alarm that agents had used the new technology without a search warrant, warning that “the government’s warrantless use of such a powerful tool to search inside homes poses grave Fourth Amendment questions.”
By then, however, the technology was hardly new. Federal contract records show the Marshals Service began buying the radars in 2012, and has so far spent at least $180,000 on them.
Justice Department spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said officials are reviewing the court’s decision. He said the Marshals Service “routinely pursues and arrests violent offenders based on pre-established probable cause in arrest warrants” for serious crimes.
The device the Marshals Service and others are using, known as the Range-R, looks like a sophisticated stud-finder. Its display shows whether it has detected movement on the other side of a wall and, if so, how far away it is — but it does not show a picture of what’s happening inside. The Range-R’s maker, L-3 Communications, estimates it has sold about 200 devices to 50 law enforcement agencies at a cost of about $6,000 each.
Other radar devices have far more advanced capabilities, including three-dimensional displays of where people are located inside a building, according to marketing materials from their manufacturers. One is capable of being mounted on a drone. And the Justice Department has funded research to develop systems that can map the interiors of buildings and locate the people within them.
The radars were first designed for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. They represent the latest example of battlefield technology finding its way home to civilian policing and bringing complex legal questions with it.
Those concerns are especially thorny when it comes to technology that lets the police determine what’s happening inside someone’s home. The Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that the Constitution generally bars police from scanning the outside of a house with a thermal camera unless they have a warrant, and specifically noted that the rule would apply to radar-based systems that were then being developed.
In 2013, the court limited police’s ability to have a drug dog sniff the outside of homes. The core of the Fourth Amendment, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, is “the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”
Still, the radars appear to have drawn little scrutiny from state or federal courts. The federal appeals court’s decision published last month was apparently the first by an appellate court to reference the technology or its implications.
That case began when a fugitive-hunting task force headed by the U.S. Marshals Service tracked a man named Steven Denson, wanted for violating his parole, to a house in Wichita. Before they forced the door open, Deputy U.S. Marshal Josh Mofftestified, he used a Range-R to detect that someone was inside.
Moff’s report made no mention of the radar; it said only that officers “developed reasonable suspicion that Denson was in the residence.”
Agents arrested Denson for the parole violation and charged him with illegally possessing two firearms they found inside. The agents had a warrant for Denson’s arrest but did not have a search warrant. Denson’s lawyer sought to have the guns charge thrown out, in part because the search began with the warrantless use of the radar device.
Three judges on the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the search, and Denson’s conviction, on other grounds. Still, the judges wrote, they had “little doubt that the radar device deployed here will soon generate many questions for this court.”
But privacy advocates said they see more immediate questions, including how judges could be surprised by technology that has been in agents’ hands for at least two years. “The problem isn’t that the police have this. The issue isn’t the technology; the issue is always about how you use it and what the safeguards are,” said Hanni Fakhoury, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The Marshals Service has faced criticism for concealing other surveillance tools. Last year, the ACLU obtained an e-mail from a Sarasota, Fla., police sergeant asking officers from another department not to reveal that they had received information from a cellphone-monitoring tool known as a stingray. “In the past, and at the request of the U.S. Marshals, the investigative means utilized to locate the suspect have not been revealed,” he wrote, suggesting that officers instead say they had received help from “a confidential source.”
William Sorukas, a former supervisor of the Marshals Service’s domestic investigations arm, said deputies are not instructed to conceal the agency’s high-tech tools, but they also know not to advertise them. “If you disclose a technology or a method or a source, you’re telling the bad guys along with everyone else,” he said.
Follow investigative reporter Brad Heath on Brad HeathBrad
The family of a World War II veteran has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit after the 95-year-old man died following a confrontation with Park Forest police last summer.
Wrana was a patient at the Victory Center Nursing home when he refused to go to the hospital for a urinary Police Officer Craig Taylor, Police were called and eventually used a Taser and a beanbag shotgun to remove the belligerent man by force. He died the next day.
Sharon Mangerson says it’s still painful to talk about her stepfather and how he died.
“Why they chose to confront him in this way I have no idea. I can’t comprehend it. It has been a very painful process to relive this over and over again,” Mangerson said.
“Officer Taylor fired the five rounds from his shotgun from a distance of only 6 to 8 feet from where Mr. Wrana was standing,” the family’s attorney, Nicholas Grapsas said.
“Unfortunately what the Japanese military failed to do to Mr. Wrana during the war, the Park Forest Police Department succeeded in doing 70 years later in the twilight of was, until then, an extremely wonderful life.”
Park Forest officials say the do not comment on any pending or ongoing litigation.
Police for the New Jersey Port Authority said Richard Thompson didn’t do that.
Investigators allege he had 50 grams of pot in his backpack when he showed up at the Fort Lee Municipal Court Thursday morning.
He was in court to answer to those charges, and went through the normal security screenings.
While he was being searched, officials allegedly found 50 grams of marijuana,two packages of rolling papers and an unrolled cigar wrapper commonly re-used to smoke marijuana, Port Authority spokesman Joe Pentangelo told .
Thompson was arrested on marijuana and drug paraphernalia charges. The arresting officer, Steve Pisciotta, is the same cop who arrested Thompson on marijuana and drug paraphernalia charges back in May, according to the Cliffview Pilot.