text:
Michael Aram Butterfly Ginkgo Tidbit Plate
Michael Aram Butterfly Ginkgo Tidbit Plate Single
Call Us
Speak with a design specialist
Monday - Friday 9am-6pm, Saturday 10am-6pm(888) 432-4477
Chat With Us
The quickest way to get an answer to your questions is to chat with us.
Follow the link on the bottom right corner of your screen.
Michael Aram Butterfly Ginkgo Tidbit Plate Single
Michael Aram Butterfly Ginkgo Tidbit Plate Single
Michael Aram Butterfly Ginkgo Tidbit Plate Single
Product Details
Warning California Residents This product can expose you to chemicals including Wood Dust which is known to the State of California to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. Please click here for more information.
- The Butterfly Ginkgo Collection celebrates the representation of flora as fauna.
- Michael's fascination with a particular type of ginkgo tree, the ginkgo Biloba, or "Butterfly ginkgo", which grows with a double leaf reminiscent of a butterfly's wings, gave rise to a fantasia image of the plant.
- Executed at the highest level of handcraftsmanship, each piece is rendered in solid brass with etched cocoon-shaped vessels.
- The pieces in the collection are a tour de force of Indian craft and capture the poetic spirit that is so deeply indicative of Michael's work.
- "The first time I saw this tree, it literally looked like it had been completely overtaken by butterflies...as if they would all take flight the moment I walked too close or made a noise.
- The idea that the leaves could evoke the beauty of butterflies was magical to me, like trees that can metamorphose from flora to fauna in the blink of an eye."
- Dinner Plate 11" Dia.
- Salad Plate 8.5" Dia.
- Mug 5.1"L X 3.5"H, 4" Dia.
- Porcelain
- Microwave and Dishwasher Safe
Weights and Dimensions
Item NumberBrand Michael AramDimensions Single, 6.5W 6.5D Set of 4, 6.5W 6.5D
About the Brand
Learn More
Michael Aram is an award-winning American Armenian artist who has dedicated his career to craft-based design. Inspired by a trip to India at age 25, he established a second home and studio there, where he continues to draw creative inspiration today.
Shipping & Returns
Standard Shipping (Estimated 7 - 10 business days in transit)
Standard Shipping includes an appointment and delivery to the nearest dry area of your home. Item will be left in the box, without unpacking any shipping materials. A signature will be required upon delivery, unless your order is shipped with UPS or other small parcel carrier. Small parcel carriers do not make appointments prior to delivery. Please note that stairs are not included with this delivery service.
Standard delivery is $99 for most items. Free standard delivery is available for orders $1,500+ for delivery within the US, excluding Hawaii and Alaska.
White Glove Delivery (Estimated 7 - 14 business days in transit)
White Glove Delivery is $279 per delivery, excluding remote areas.White Glove Delivery includes a delivery appointment, inside delivery with up to 1 flight of stairs, placement, assembly (if needed), and removal of large packaging materials. White Glove service does not include any modifications to the existing home, including but not limited to artwork or lighting. Not all items require assembly.
Return Policy
Grayson Living upholds a very strict return policy. Please make your purchases very, very carefully. If you change your mind about an item, please contact us at email@example.com to initiate a return. Eligible returns are subject to a non-negotiable 35% restocking fee, in addition to outbound and return shipping and delivery charges.
How do I change my order?
Cancellation requests and changes must be made within 24 hours of placing your order. Changes after the grace period are subject to our standard return policy. If you change your mind about an item, please note that eligible returns are subject to a non-negotiable 35% restocking fee, in addition to outbound and return shipping and delivery charges.
Product Reviews
Have a Question?
We're here to help. Contact Us Chat With Us
Call Us
Speak with a design specialist
Monday - Friday 9am-6pm, Saturday 10am-6pm(888) 432-4477
Chat With Us
The quickest way to get an answer to your questions is to chat with us.
Follow the link on the bottom right corner of your screen.
How We Are Different
In-Store Experience
Browse online, then visit our showroom for an immersive shopping experience at our Beverly Hills showroom, backed by a 20+ year history of luxury furniture design.
Designer-Trusted Brands
Our team of designers and buyers research and select only the best and latest in furniture and home decor. The result is a curated collection of quality craftsmanship.
Largest Selection
With a long history as a traditional brick and mortar showroom, we offer you access to the largest selection of designer brand furniture from the most-trusted names in home decor.


text:
By Caitlin Kelly
Have any of you seen the new film "Gone Girl"?
Or read that best-selling book by Gillian Flynn?
Some readers loathed "Gone Girl" once they realize what appalling people Nick and Amy really are. We discussed it in our small book club and I was the only person to have any feeling for these two, and only really because both are such deeply damaged people.
But I came home from the film, which is 2.5 hours, worn out from how terrifyingly toxic Amy became on screen, played by Rosamund Pike, a British actress who usually plays gorgeous, flirty ingenues (as in "An Education.") Not here!
Have you watched the Emmy-nominated Netflix series "House of Cards"? It stars Robin Wright, as a tall, lean, stiletto-strutting, icy, power-mad NGO director, Claire Underwood. She lives in a red brick townhouse in D.C. with her husband, Francis, whose own ambitions are jaw-dropping, and which — over the first two seasons — ultimately prove successful.
I watched House of Cards again recently, after binge-watching it in one bleary-eyed weekend a few months ago. It's a real struggle to find even one character you'd choose to spend five minutes with, let alone marry, have an affair with, promote or manage. I can think of only two, really: Adam Galloway, a talented New York-based photographer and Freddy, whose hole-in-the-wall barbecue joint is Frank's secret escape hatch. Both are used whenever helpful to Claire and Frank, and their essential humanity and warmth offer a needed counterpoint to their nastiness.
So, what's the appeal? Some people like to hate-watch, eagerly awaiting the downfall, literally, of that scheming, ruthless young reporter, Zoe Barnes, or the drunk young congressman, Pete Russo, or the naive NGO director Claire hires, then soon screws over.
I can't think of many books I've read where I've been able to sympathize with or remain compelled by a difficult, nasty, ruthless character — and there are plenty out there!
Oddly, perhaps, one of my husband's favorite books, and mine, is non-fiction, "My War Gone By, I Miss it So," by British journalist Anthony Loyd, who spends much of his time in that narrative addicted to heroin — but the rest of it covering war, and doing so brilliantly.
I also loved, (and these are very dark books!), the Patrick Melrose novels, whose characters are almost all truly horrible. They're written by Edward St. Aubyn, also British, and offer some of the most powerful and best writing I've read in ages. He, too, was addicted to heroin, and one book in the series — impossibly grim — details his life in those years.
Can you read or watch — or enjoy — fictional or non-fictional characters who disgust and repel you?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Jennifer Convertibles
Jennifer Furniture, formerly called Jennifer Convertibles, supplies high-quality furnishings in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Shoppers can find an assortment of home necessities to complement designs from classic to modern. This full-line furniture retailer takes pride in offering stylish pieces at affordable prices.
Living Room
Lounge in style with furniture from Jennifer Convertibles. The store has discounts on essentials such as couches, sofa beds, loveseats, and recliners as well as complete sets. Additionally, the brand features sales on coffee tables, ottomans, entertainment consoles, and decor.
Dining Room
The company sells items for both dining rooms and kitchenettes. Buyers can shop for cohesive sets, as well as dinettes and barstools. For additional storage, Jennifer Furniture provides deals on servers and buffets.
Bedroom, Kids, and Teens
From dressers and nightstands to bunks and daybeds, Jennifer Furniture showcases bedroom furniture for all ages. Customers can find sales on mattresses ranging from twin to king in a variety of comfort levels and models such as:
- Innerspring
- Memory foam
- Hybrid
- Plush
- Firm
Jennifer Convertibles also features ads on bedding, pillows, and bases fit for a master suite or a child's room.
Stay organized with Jennifer Furniture's selection of home office items. Store textbooks and note pads on bookcases, or shop writing desks and swivel chairs to create a new workspace. Shoppers can also find deals on accents such as desk lamps and file cabinets.


text:
WIBORG v. U S(1896)
[163 U.S. 632, 633] Wiborg, the captain, and Petersen and Johansen, the mates, of the steamer Horsa, were indicted in the district court of the United States for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, under section 5286 of the Revised Statutes. The indictment charged that defendants, 'mariners, at the district aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this court, did, within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, to wit, at the port of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, within the district aforesaid, begin, set on foot, and provide and prepare the means for a certain military expedition and enterprise to be carried on from thence against the territory and dominions of a foreign prince, to wit, against the Island of Cuba, the said Island of Cuba being then and there the territory and dominions of the king of Spain, the said United States being then and there at peace with the king of Spain, contrary to the form of the act of congress in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States of America.' They were tried before Judge Butler and a jury, and convicted. Motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial were severally made and overruled, and defendants were sentenced to pay fines and to serve terms in the state penitentiary. This writ of error was thereupon sued out, and defendants admitted to bail.
The Horsa was a Danish steamer, sailing under the Danish flag, and defendant Wiborg, its captain, was a subject of the king of Denmark, as were also his co-defendants, as claimed by their counsel. [163 U.S. 632, 634] The Horsa was engaged in the fruit business for John D. Hart & Co., of Philadelphia, and on November 9, 1895, cleared from Philadelphia for Port Antonio, Jamaica. She had on board but little cargo, consisting of two lifeboats, a lot of empty boxes and barrels, two horses, some horse feed, bales of hay, and boxes of corm, all of which were entered on her manifest. Just before sailing, Capt. Wiborg received a message (in writing, but not produced), which, he said, was: 'After I passed the Breakwater, to proceed north near Barnegat, and await further orders.' The Horsa sailed between 6 and 7 p. m., and, after passing the Delaware Breakwater, her proper course would be southward. She turned, however, to the northward, went up the Jersey coast to Barnegat Light, and anchored on the high seas, between three and four miles off the shore. Between 10 and 11 the same evening, the steam lighter J. S. T. Stranahan sailed from Brooklyn, carrying some cases of goods and two lifeboats, which had been put on board by the crew of the lighter during the evening. On the lower bay of New York, below Staten Island, during the night, she took on board between 30 and 40 passengers, mostly dark-complexioned men, speaking a foreign language, apparently Cubans or Spaniards. The lighter then ran down to Barnegat, where she saw the Horsa under a white flag. She also ran up a white flag, went alongside, and put aboard her passengers, with the cases of goods and the lifeboats. They brought authority in writing from John D. Hart & Co., which was not produced. Capt. Wiborg saw the transfer made, and assented to it. His firemen complaining, he answered: 'I told them, if anybody had to hang for this, I would be the man to hang for it.' He testified that the man on the lighter brought him a message from John D. Hart & Co. 'He told me to take those men and lug age and whatever they had aboard the Horsa, and let them off whenever they called for it to be let off. I shipped two boats at the same time, and the order of my message was to deliver those two boats to those men, and the two boats that I had shipped here in Philadelphia. ... The only order was they had a colored man there that they [163 U.S. 632, 635] called the 'pilot,' and, whenever he called for them to be let off, I should let them off, and give them the boats.' As to the boats taken on at Philadelphia and those taken on off Barnegat, he was 'to deliver them to these men as soon as they called for them. ... The pilot did not tell me where he was going. I did talk to him, but he could talk very little English.' The captain testified that the writing from J. D. Hart & Co. 'to take whatever was in the tug, the men and their luggage and boxes, and let them off whenever they called for it to be let off,' did not strike him as an unusual thing. It did not strike him as unusual 'that these men were to be taken on board, and turned out on the sea with the boats.' It appeared and was admitted that there was an insurrection in Cuba. The captain was informed that the party was going to Cuba, and believed the men were going to fight for Cuba, but was careful to ask no questions, and testified that he considered his own part in the affair to be lawful. The charter party was not produced.
After boarding the Horsa, these persons broke open the boxes which they had brought with them, and took out rifles, swords, and machetes, and one cannon. They also had cartridge belts, medicines, and bandages with them. They were not in uniform, but there was evidence that some of them had caps with a little flag, which they said was a Cuban flag. They brought their own food with them. The evidence tended to show that, when these men divided up the arms, every man had a rifle; that certain of them, understood to be officers, had swords and revolvers; that one seemed to be in command of them; and that this commander asked some of the crew whether they would fight if attacked by a Spanish gunboat. There was also some evidence that there were military exercises in the nature of drilling by from three to seven men at a time; that these persons stated that they were going to Cuba to fight the Spaniards; that, on the second day out, they made small canvas bags to put cartridges in, and unpacked a bale of blankets which they had brought with them, wrapped 150 spare rifles in these blankets in small bundles, about 5 in each, and threw the [163 U.S. 632, 636] boxes overboard in which the rifles had come, taking a rifle, sword, and machete apiece, and practicing with them and the cannon. There were three kinds of cartridges and two kinds of rifles. One witness stated that, as he was informed by them, there were small Winchesters for the cavalry, and big rifles for the infantry; big revolvers for the officers; and that the cannon was a Maxim gun, in charge of a French Canadian. This machine gun was worked with a slot and a crank, and had its own cartridges. The witness saw it worked, and saw them practicing with it, and the man in charge showed him how they were doing it. Some testimony was introduced on behalf of defendants to the effect that a machete is generally carried by the inhabitants of the West Indies, and has many peaceful uses. One of the defendants' witnesses admitted that it was a formidable weapon, and, moreover, that he had never seen citizens carry guns in Cuba. It is unquestioned that the machete is used for both war and peace, it being described in the Century Dictionary as a 'heavy knife or cutlass, used among Spanish colonists and Spanish American countries, both as a tool and as a weapon,' and by Webster as 'a large, heavy knife, resembling a broadsword, often two or three feet in length, used by the inhabitants of Spanish America as a hatchet to cut their way through thickets, and for various other purposes.'
After leaving Barnegat, the Horsa took the usual course for Jamaica, which follows he Cuban coast for about six hours. The usual color of her funnel was yellow below with red above and black on top, and it was so painted when she left Philadelphia. While she was at sea, the funnel was repainted red and black, and, when she returned to Philadelphia, it was black, red, and yellow. The name of the Horsa was painted out amidships, but her name was on the stern in brass letters and on the bow, and those letters were not painted over to the captain's knowledge. About six miles off the coast of Cuba, the colored pilot gave orders to disembark. This was about 11 o'clock at night, and the disembarkation was conducted under the supervision of Capt. Wiborg, who had the lights of the vessel put out. The two boats [163 U.S. 632, 637] were launched which had come on board at Philadelphia, and also those which had come with the lighter, and Capt. Wiborg sold the men one of the ship's boats. As one of the boats leaked, another was lowered from the ship. The passengers took to the boats, taking with them all the ammunition and arms they could carry. The steamer then undertook to tow the boats, but a strange light was seen in the distance, and, at the request of the men, the captain cut the boats loose, and started away at full speed. Some 40 boxes of cartridges had been left on the Horsa, because there was no room for them on the boats; and Capt. Wiborg directed that these should be thrown overboard. He said this was to avoid getting into trouble at Port Antonio, since the boxes were not manifested for that port. The Horsa then completed her voyage to Port Antonio. The captain said he told the collector there he had lost two boats, 'to put him off his guard.'
Defendants' counsel requested the court to give to the jury 13 points or instructions, of which the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and eleventh were as follows:
The court charged the jury, explaining the indictment, and then continued as follows:
The court then further recapitulated and commented on the evidence, and, in the course of doing so, said:
73 Fed. 159.
No motion or request was made that the jury be instructed to find for defendants, or either of them.
Defendants excepted 'to that part of the charge of the court giving the definition of a military expedition'; to the refusal of the court 'to read the points that were not read to the jury,' 'to affirm all the points without qualification,' and 'to affirm each point without qualification'; to 'the statement of the court that, in its opinion, this was a military expedition,' and 'that the men were armed'; to 'the failure of the court to comment on the evidence on behalf of the defendants'; to the statements 'of the court in reference to the reasons, motives, purposes, and acts of the defendants,' 'that the defendants did not express surprise that the men came on the vessel off Barnegat,' and 'that the declarations of the men on the ship to the witnesses for the government were evidence against the defendants'; also, to the statements 'that even if an agreement to furnish and provide the means of transportation was made within the jurisdiction of the United States to carry on a military expedition, which was not consummated until they got outside of the three-mile [163 U.S. 632, 646] limit, that constituted an offense against the laws of the United States,' and 'that the acts and declarations of the Cubans themselves were evidence against them all as to the nature of the expedition.'
The motion in arrest was based on the alleged want of jurisdiction of the court. Errors were assigned to the giving, refusing, and qualification of instructions; to the admission in evidence of declarations of some of the party, during the voyage, as to their destination; and to the overruling of defendants' motion in arrest of judgment, for want of jurisdiction.
W. Hallett Phillips and W. W. Kerr, for plaintiffs in error.
Atty. Gen. Harmon, Sol. Gen. Conrad, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for the United States.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court:
Title 67 of the Revised Statutes, headed 'Neutrality,' embraces 11 sections, from 5281 to 5291, inclusive. Section 5281 prohibits the acceptance of commissions from a foreign power by citizens of the United States within our territory to serve against any sovereign with whome we are at peace. Section 5282 prohibits any person from enlisting in this country as a soldier in the service of any foreign power, and from hiring or retaining any other person to enlist or to go abroad for the purpose of enlisting. Section 5283 deals with fitting out and arming vessels in this country in favor of one foreign power as against another foreign power with which we are at peace. Section 5284 prohibits citizens from the fitting out or arming, without the United States, of vessels to cruise against citizens of the United States; and section 5285, the augmenting of the force of a foreign vessel of war serving against a friendly sovereign. Sections 5287 to 5290 provide for the enforcement of the preceding sections; and section 5291, that the provisions set forth shall not be construed to prevent the enlistment of certain foreign citizens in the United States. [163 U.S. 632, 647] Section 5286 is as follows:
This section was originally section 5 of an act approved June 5, 1794 ( 1 Stat. 381, c. 50), carried forward as section 6 of an act of April 20, 1818 (3 Stat. 347, c. 88), and differs therefrom in no respect material here. The language of the section closely follows the recommendation of President Washington in his annual address December 3, 1793, when he said: 'Where individuals shall ... enter upon military expeditions or enterprises within the jurisdiction of the United States, ... these offenses cannot receive too early and close an attention, and require prompt and decisive remedies.' Annals Cong. 1793-95, p. 11. The legislation is historically considered in Dana's Wheat. Int. Law, 439, note. The statute was undoubtedly designed, in general, to secure neutrality in wars between two other nations, or between contending parties recognized as belligerents, but its operation is not necessarily dependent on the existence of such state of belligerency. 13 Ops. Attys. Gen. 177, 178. Section 5286 defines certain offenses against the United States, and denounces the punishment therefor; but, although a penal statute, it must be reasonably construed, and not so as to defeat the obvious intention of the legislature. U.S. v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624, 628 , 10 S. Sup. Ct. 625.
The offense is defined disjunctively as committed by every person who, within our territory or jurisdiction, 'begins, or ets on foot, or provides or prepares the means for, any military expedition or enterprise, to be carried on from thence.'
This indictment charged that defendants did 'begin, set on [163 U.S. 632, 648] foot, and provide and prepare the means for, a certain military expedition and enterprise.'
Defendants' counsel did not seek to compel an election, nor in any manner, by their motion in arrest or otherwise, to raise the question of duplicity, nor do they now make objections to the proceedings on this ground. The district judge instructed the jury that the evidence would not justify a conviction 'of anything more than providing the means for or aiding such military expedition by furnishing transportation for their men, their arms, baggage,' etc. Under these circumstances, the verdict cannot be disturbed on the ground that more than one offense was included in the same count of the indictment, but it must be applied to the offense to which the jury were confined by the court. Crain v. U.S., 162 U.S. --, 16 Sup. Ct. 952.
We think that it does not admit of serious question that providing or preparing the means of transportation for such a military expedition or enterprise as is referred to in the statute is one of the forms of provision or preparation therein denounced. Nor can there be any doubt that a hostile expedition dispatched from our ports is within the words 'carried on from thence.' The officers of the Horsa were concerned in providing the means of transportation.
1. The first and the main question in the present case is whether the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury in respect of what constitutes a 'military expedition or enterprise' under the statute. The question is one of municipal law, and the writers on international law afford no controlling aid in its solution. They deal principally with the status of belligerents, and the rights and obligations of neutral nations when the existence of such a status is formally recognized or accepted as existing de facto.
Calvo defines a military expedition as being an armed enterprise against a country, and he gives the expedition of Xerxes as an illustration. Dict. de Droit Int., verbo 'Expedition Militaire.'
Professor Lawrence (Prin. Int. Law, 1895, p. 508) is quoted by counsel to the effect that, to constitute a warlike expedi- [163 U.S. 632, 649] tion, 'it must go forth with a present purpose of engaging in hostilities; it must be under military or naval command; and it must be organized with a view to proximate acts of war. But it need not be in a position to commence fighting the moment it leaves the shelter of neutral territory; nor is it necessary that its individual members should carry with them the arms they hope soon to use. When a belligerent attempts to organize portions of his combatant forces on neutral soil or in neutral waters, he commits thereby a gross offense against the sovereignty of the neutral government, and probably involves it in difficulties with the other belligerent, who suffers in proportion to his success in his unlawful enterprise.'
In Hall, Int. Law, 222, it is said: 'In the case of an expedition being organized in and starting from neutral ground, a violation of neutrality may take place without the men of whom it is composed being armed at the moment of leaving. ... On the other hand, the uncombined elements of an expedition may leave a neutral state in company with one another, provided they are incapable of proximate combination into an organized whole.'
Boyd, in his edition of Wheat. Int. Law, 439aa, says: 'It is impossible to lay down any hard and fast line separating commercial transactions in munitions of war, and the organizing of hostile expeditions. International law is necessarily incapable of being defined and laid down with the precision attainable by municipal law. The question is one of intent, and it is the duty of a neutral government to exercise due diligence in ascertaining what the real character of the transaction may be. The elements of a hostil expedition are thus described by Professor Bernard: 'If, at the time of its departure, there be the means of doing any act of war,-if those means, or any of them, have been procured and put together in the neutral port,-and if there be the intention to use them (which may always be taken for granted when they are in the hands of the belligerents), the neutral port may be justly said to serve as a base or point of departure for a hostile expedition,' Montague Bernard, Neutrality of Great Britain, p. 399.' [163 U.S. 632, 650] But this statute is to be construed as other domestic legislation is, and its meaning is to be found in the ordinary meaning of the terms used. The definitions of the lexicographers substantially agree that a military expedition is a journey or voyage by a company or body of persons, having the position or character of soldiers, for a specific warlike purpose; also the body and its outfit; and that a military enterprise is a martial undertaking, involving the idea of a bold, arduous, and hazardous attempt. The word 'enterprise' is somewhat broader than the word 'expedition'; and, although the words are synonymously used, it would seem that, under the rule that its every word should be presumed to have some force and effect, the word 'enterprise' was employed to give a slightly wider scope to the statute.
The phrase 'military expedition or enterprise' has been variously construed by the district courts, but apparent differences in expression may be largely attributable to the differences in the facts under consideration in the particular case.
In U.S. v. O'Sullivan, 2 Whart. Cr. Law, 2802, note, Fed. Cas. No. 15,975, Judge Judson charged the jury that, before they could 'convict on this indictment, it must be proved to their satisfaction that the expedition or enterprise was in its character military; or, in other words, it must have been shown by competent proof that the design, the end, the aim, and the purpose of the expedition or enterprise, was some military service, some attack or invasion of another people or country, state, or colony as a military force. ... But any expedition or enterprise in matters of commerce, or of business of a civil nature, unattended by a design of an attack, invasion, or conquest, is wholly legal, and is not an expedition or an enterprise within this act. ... The term 'expedition' is used to signify a march or voyage with martial or hostile intentions. The term 'enterprise' means an undertaking of hazard,-an arduous attempt.'
Judge Maxey, in U.S. v. Ybanez, 53 Fed. 536, concurred in this view, and further said: 'This statute does not require any particular number of men to band together to constitute the expedition or enterprise one of a mili- [163 U.S. 632, 651] tary character. There may be divisions, brigades, and regiments, or there may be companies or squads of men. Mere numbers do not conclusively fix and stamp the character of the expedition as military or otherwise. A few men may be deluded with the belief of their ability to overturn an existing government or empire, and, laboring under such delusion, they may enter upon the enterprise. ... The proof must establish in your minds the fact that the expedition or enterprise was of a military character; and, when the evidence shows that the end and object were hostile to or forcible against the republic of Mexico, then it would be, to all intents and purposes, a military expedition. ... Evidence showing that the end and objects were hostile to or forcible against a nation at peace with the United States characterizes it, to all intents and purposes, as a military expedition or enterprise.'
Judge Brawley, in U.S. v. Hughes, 75 Fed. 267, applied the test suggested by Mr. Hall as to capability of proximate combination of the uncombined elements of an expedition into an organized whole; and he said in reference to the passengers in that case: 'But if, after they got aboard, they took the arms from the boxes, and organized into a company or organization, if they we e drilled or went through the manual of arms under the leadership or direction of one man or more, if they themselves became a military organization by reason of such coming together, and of such drill or instruction, then, from that time forth, they would be a military organization or enterprise, within the moaning of this statute.'
In U.S. v. Pena, 69 Fed. 983, Judge Wales, and in U. S. v. Hart, 74 Fed. 724, not yet reported, Judge Brown, of the Southern district of New York, considered the statute as exacting a high degree of organization, but Judge Brown said: 'I do not say that in order to constitute a military expedition to be 'carried on from this country,' as the statute reads, it must be complete at the start, or possess all the elements of a military body. It is sufficient if there was a combination by the men for that purpose, with the agreement and [163 U.S. 632, 652] the intention of the body that embarks that it should become a military body before reaching the scene of action. Such a combination and agreement, if means for effecting it were provided, followed by embarkation in pursuance of the agreement, would show such a partial execution of the design on our soil as to bring the case within our statute, as 'a military enterprise begun and carried on from the United States."
It is argued that as persons are not prohibited from going abroad for the purpose of enlisting in the service of a foreign army, and as the transportation of arms, ammunition, and munitions of war from this country to any other foreign country is not unlawful (3 Whart. Int. Law Dig. 388 et seq.; The Itata, 15 U.S. App. 1, 5 C. C. A. 608, and 56 Fed. 505, and authorities cited), therefore no offense was committed in the transportation of these men, the arms and munitions; and reference is made to an opinion of Mr. Secretary Fish on this subject, during the Franco- German war of 1870. A statement of that matter is given in Hall, Int. Law , 222, and in a letter of Sir Edward Thornton to Lord Granville, dated September 26, 1870 (61 State Papers, 1870-71, p. 822), and elsewhere. It seems to have been an informal communication to the Prussian minister, who had complained of the fact that the transatlantic steamer Lafayette was carrying a large cargo of arms and ammunition for sale to the French, while at the same time she was carrying several hundred French passengers, all of whom, as was generally supposed, intended to enlist in the army of France on their arrival. These passengers, however, appear to have been all traveling as individuals, without any concert of action; and they had no access to the arms and ammunition, any more than an ordinary passenger on an ocean steamer has access to any part of the cargo. Sir Edward Thornton wrote that 'Mr. Fish replied to the district attorney that he was to be guided by the neutrality laws of the United States, and that with regard to the ship it could not be alleged that she was intended for hostile purposes against North Germany. As for the arms and ammunition, they were articles of a legitimate commerce, with which the United States would not interfere, although the vessel might [163 U.S. 632, 653] run the risk of being detained by the cruisers of North Germany on her voyage to France.'
The district judge ruled nothing to the contrary, and charged the jury in this case that it was not a crime or offense against the United States, under the neutrality laws of this country, for individuals to leave the country with intent to enlist in foreign military service, nor was it an offense against the United States to transport persons out of this country, and to land them in foreign countries, when such persons had an intent to enlist in foreign armies; that it was not an offense against the laws of the United States to transport arms, ammunition, and munitions of war from this country to any foreign country, whether they were to be used in war or not; and that it was not an offense against the laws of the United States to transport persons intending to enlist in foreign armies and m nitions of war on the same trip. But he said that if the persons referred to had combined and organized in this country to go to Cuba, and there make war on the government, and intended, when they reached Cuba, to join the insurgent army, and thus enlist in its service, and the arms were taken along for their use, that would constitute a military expedition, and the transporting of such a body from this country for such a purpose would be an offense against the statute. The judge also charged the jury as follows:
It appears to us that these views of the district judge were correct as applied to the evidence before him. This body of men went on board a tug loaded with arms, were taken by it 30 or 40 miles, and out to sea, met a steamer outside the 3-mile limit by prior arrangement, boarded her with the arms, opened the boxes, and distributed the arms among themselves, drilled to some extent, were apparently officered, and then, as preconcerted, disembarked, to effect an armed landing on the coast of Cuba. The men and the arms and ammunition came together. The arms and ammunition were under the control of the men. The elements of the expedition were not only 'capable of proximate combination into an organized whole,' but were combined or in process of combination. There was concert of action. They had their own pilot to the common destination. They landed themselves and their munitions of war together by their own efforts. It may be that they intended to separate when they reached the insurgent headquarters, but the evidence tended to show that, until that time, they intended to stand together, and defend themselves if necessary. From that evidence the jury had a right to find that this was a military expedition or enterprise under the statute, and we think the court properly instructed them on the subject. This conclusion disposes of most of the errors assigned to the instructions given, qualified, or refused. Some of the points requested on defendants' behalf were incorrect; some were covered by the general charge; and others were properly qualified. [163 U.S. 632, 655] 2. The second material question is whether, if a military expedition or enterprise was made out, the court erred in its instructions in respect of defendants' knowledge or notice of the facts. And this involves the jurisdictional question which is raised by the exception to the qualification of the twelfth point. In that qualification and elsewhere, the district judge specifically and clearly instructed the jury that, alth ugh this was a military expedition or enterprise, nevertheless the defendants were not criminally responsible unless they were aware of its nature before they sailed from Philadelphia. 'To convict the defendants,' said the district judge, 'it is necessary that the government shall have satisfied your minds beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a military enterprise, and that the defendants when they started knew it; otherwise, they are not guilty.' 'The question, therefore, is: Did the defendants understatnd that they were to carry this expedition, and had provided for it, and understand what the expedition was before leaving here [ Philadelphia]?' It is true that the expedition started in the Southern district of New York, and did not come into immediate contact with defendants at any point within the jurisdiction of the United States, as the Horsa was a foreign vessel; but the Horsa's preparation for sailing, and the taking aboard of the two boats at Philadelphia, constituted a preparation of means for the expedition or enterprise; and, if defendants knew of the enterprise, when they participated in such preparation, then they committed the statutory crime upon American soil, and in the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, where they were indicted and tried.
The jurisdictional point was again presented by the motion in arrest, but its disposition calls for no further observations.
We repeat that on the second material question, namely, whether the defendants aided the expedition with knowledge of the facts, the jury were instructed that they must acquit unless satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that defendants, when they left Philadelphia, had knowledge of the expedition and its objects, and had arranged and provided for its transporta- [163 U.S. 632, 656] tion. We hold that defendants have no adequate ground of complaint on this branch of the case.
3. An exception was taken to the statement of the court that the men were armed. The court said: 'They were armed, having rifles and cannon, and were provided with ammunition and other supplies.' This statement was based on uncontradicted testimony, and occurring, as it did, in a recapitulation of the evidence, no rule of law being incorrectly stated, and the matters of fact being specifically submitted to the determination of the jury, we do not regard the exception as tenable. Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 137 U.S. 568, 574 , 11 S. Sup. Ct. 185.
4. Objection is also made because the court expressed its opinion that this was a military expedition. But what the court said was that this 'would seem to the court to be free from reasonable doubt. The question, however, is one for your determination alone; and I submit it to you as such, reminding you that the responsibility of deciding it rests upon you only. If you find that this was not a military expedition, or, rather, if you are not fully satisfied that it was, your verdict will be for defendants, without going further.' Clearly, the observation of the court thus guarded did not so trespass on the province of the jury as to constitute reversible error. Simmons v. U. S., 142 U.S. 148, 155 , 12 S. Sup. Ct. 171.
5. Again, it urged that the court erred, when referring to the captain's testimony that 'he was ignorant of the service required of him until he reached the point near Barnegat,' in saying: 'You must judge whether he should be believed or not, and from all the evidence must determine whether the defendants left here with the knowledge of, and provision for, what they were about to do.' No exception was taken to this part of the charge; but, if there had been, we cannot say that the trial judge was not justified in that remark, in view of all the facts and circumstances.
Nor was any exception taken to the closing observations by the court as to the importance of faithfulness in the execution of the law, although they are now assigned for error. We see [163 U.S. 632, 657] in them nothing which could properly be regarded as prejudicial to the defendants.
6. Other assignments of error relate to the admissibility of declarations of members of the party, during the voyage, as to their destination. One of the witnesses for the prosecution testified on cross- examination 'that he had spoken to a couple of those young fellows there, and they said they were going to Cuba.' On redirect examination he was asked: 'Did they tell you where they were going?' The answer, which was objected to, was: 'They told me they were going to Cuba. They did not say what they were going to do.' It was uncontroverted in the case that the party meant to go, and did go, to Cuba, and the evidence was not material. Another witness for the government was asked: 'Q. Did you have any talk with any of those men? (Objected to, unless it was in the presence of these defendants. Objection overruled. Exception by defendants.) A. Yes, sir; I was going in the forecastle one night, and he told us, 'I go down to Cuba to fight.' Q. To fight who? A. The Spanish.'
There was no objection to the second question, or to either answer, and no motion to strike out. It does not appear who made the statement, or how many persons were present, or that defendants were not present. These assignments are without merit.
There was other evidence of declarations of members of the party as to their purposes, and the district judge, in commenting thereon, said that, 'if these men were in combination to do an unlawful act, what was said by any of them at the time in carrying out their purpose was evidence against them all as to the nature of the expedition,' and to this an exception was taken. The general rule was stated in American Fur Co. v. U. S., 2 Pet. 358, 365, by Mr. Justice Washington, speaking for the court, that, 'where two or more persons are associated together for the same illegal purpose, any act or declaration of one of the parties, in reference to the common object, and forming a part of the res gestae, may be given in evidence against the others.' The declarations must be made in furtherance of the common object, or must constitute a part [163 U.S. 632, 658] of the res gestae of acts done in such furtherance. Assuming a secret combination between the party and the captain or officers of the Horsa had been proven, then, on the question whether such combination was lawful or not, the motive and intention, declarations of those engaged in it explanatory of acts done in furtherance of its object, came within the general rule, and were competent. St. Clair v. U. S., 154 U.S. 134 , 14 Sup. Ct. 1002; People v. Davis, 56 N. Y. 102; Lincoln v. Claflin, 7 Wall. 132, 139; 1 Greenl. Ev. 111; Starkie, Ev. 466.
The extent to which evidence of this kind is admissible is much in the discretion of the trial court, and we do not consider that that discretion was abused in this instance. Clune v. U. S., 159 U.S. 590, 592 , 16 S. Sup. Ct. 125.
7. No motion or request was made that the jury be instructed to find for defendants, or either of them. Where an exception to a denial of such a motion or request is duly saved, it is open to the court to consider whether there is any evidence to sustain the verdict, though not to pass upon its weight or sufficiency. And, although this question was not properly raised, yet if a plain error was committed in a matter so absolutely vital to defendants, we feel ourselves at liberty to correct it.
The Horsa was bound for Jamaica, and her course carried her along the coast of Cuba for about six hours. She took on board at Philadelphia two boats entered on the monifest as for Port Antonio, but intended for, and ultimately devoted to the use of, the party sae transported. The captain received at the wharf written instructions, which he did not produce on the trial, and says he did not keep when he left the vessel, but in accordance with which he went north off Barnegat, anchored outside the three-mile limit, and awaited orders. The inference was not unjustifiable that he was thus and then informed that safety required that whatever was to take place off Barnegat should take place beyond the jurisd ction of the United States; in other words, that a transgression of the laws of the United States was contemplated. The Horsa was boarded on the high seas off Barnegat, as heretofore described, and the captain testified that he did not regard the occurrence, [163 U.S. 632, 659] as anything unusual or important. But the firemen said that they went to the chief engineer when these men came aboard, and told him they would not go along. 'We won't go down there and get shot.' 'We did not sign for that.' The chief engineer bade them keep quiet, and the captain 'told them, if anybody had to hang for this, I would be the man to hang for it. I told them they had better go below, and mind their own business.' The written instructions the captain there received were not produced, but he said he was to take the men and whatever they had, and let them off when told to do so, delivering the two boats shipped at Philadelphia, and the two shipped from the tug, to them as soon as called for; and that this did not strike him as singular. The evidence shows that the nature of the enterprise was apparent at this time, and the jury may not unreasonably have inferred that the captain received the men and their arms, entered upon the hazards of the voyage, and quieted the complaints of the firemen, with an equanimity springing from a mind previously made up on the subject. We deem it unnecessary to go over the evidence. We cannot say as matter of law that there was no evidence tending to sustain the verdict against the captain.
But we think the case as to Petersen and Johansen stands on different ground, and that we may properly take notice of what we believe to be a plain error, although it was not duly excepted. These men were the mates of the vessel, and they proceeded on the voyage under the captain's orders. This would not excuse them if there were proof of guilty knowledge or participation on their part in assisting a military expedition or enterprise when they left Philidelphia. We are of opinion that adequate proof to that effect is not shown by the record, and that, as the case stood, the jury should have been instructed to acquit them. The captain testified that the mates 'had nothing to do with this ship or with its business. They listened to my orders. They were under my orders. I was the master of that vessel. I am responsible for all that was done.' The order he received to go north and await orders beyond the three-mile limit does [163 U.S. 632, 660] not appear to have been communicated to them; and, whatever they must have known after the Horsa was boarded off Barnegat, there is nothing sufficiently justifying a presumption of knowledge when the vessel left the wharf.
It is not necessary to enlarge upon the public importance of the neutrality laws. This case is a criminal case, arising on an indictment under a section of the Revised Statutes; and we dispose of it on what we deem to be the proper construction of that section, and after subjecting the correctness of the rulings of the court below to that careful examination which the discharge of our duty requires.
The judgment against defendant Wiborg is affirmed; the judgment against defendants Petersen and Johansen is reversed; and the cause remanded, with instructions to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial as to them.
Mr. Justice HARLAN dissents from the affirmance.
[ Footnote 1 ] For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, see 16 Sup. Ct. 1197.


text:
Earlier this month I noted the National Archives' new retention policy on "non-trial" federal district court records created since 1970. The Associated Press reporter Michael Tarm published a story on the policy last Friday, entitled Millions of US Court Records Bound For Shredder. Here is an additional report, relating to criminal case files, which I can make thanks to some communications from Michael J. Churgin, a professor at the University of Texas Law School and chair of the Committee on Documentary Preservation of the American Society for Legal History.
The policy in question, N1-21-11-1, is being considered by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in consultation with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. It would treat all court files in federal criminal cases created between the 1776 and 1970 as permanent records. It does the same for (1) "case files dated 1970 or later which were terminated during or after trial"; (2) "any criminal case file determined by court officials or by NARA to have historical value"; and (3) "non-trial criminal cases relating to treason and national security or to embezzlement, fraud, or bribery by a public official." (The national security and treason offenses include alien registration, treason, espionage, sabotage, sedition, Smith Act, and exportation of war materials.)
Two classes of records are deemed temporary. First, under an earlier policy (N1-021-86-1), "misdemeanor and petty offense proceedings conducted by U.S. magistrate judges in cases not assigned a district court docket number" will be destroyed five years after closing. An appraisal conducted for NARA last May explained that the records "document minor routine offenses, such as traffic offenses on Federal property, that have no historical value."
The second class of temporary records are non-magistrate criminal cases from 1970 on that never reached the trial stage, aren't deemed to have historical value, and don't relate to sedition or public corruption. According to the NARA's appraisal, these case "are generally routine in nature and do not contain the substantive documentation that might make them useful for research." If they cannot be donated, NARA will dispose of them 15 years after a file was closed. Trial cases, the appraisal opined, "will provide sufficient documentation of the operation of the criminal judicial system." The largest categories of offenses in this class involve drugs (about 25 percent), immigration (about 25 percent), and property and firearms (about 30 percent).
This summer, Professor Churgin, on behalf of the ASLH's committee, asked that NARA sample and permanently preserve files from this second class of temporary records. Churgin contrasted the proposed policy for criminal cases with that instituted for bankruptcy cases. Initially, many bankruptcy records created after 1940 were to be destroyed, but after Churgin assured NARA that "bankruptcy records certainly are not regarded as of limited interest by historians," sampling was instituted. The precedent of the Harvard's Bankruptcy Data Project doubtless was influential. The project had already published several studies based on a random sample of 1500 to 2500 individual bankruptcies filed under Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 from ten districts for 1981, 1991, and 2001. The procedures NARA ultimately adopted will create a much larger and broader sample. For each district and every year, 2.5 percent of the "temporary" files will be preserved.
Churgin commented that "the strength of the bankruptcy schedule . . . is the use of sampling" and asked that non-trial criminal cases be sampled as well. After all, he observed, drug and immigration cases speak to "major issues of national policy." He directed NARA's attention to California Rule of Court 10.855, which provides for the sampling of the trial and non-trial files of the state's superior courts.
Churgin also suggested that more immediate interests than those of historians and their readers were at stake. This summer the U.S. Sentencing Commission unanimously voted to give retroactive effect to a proposed amendment of the sentencing guidelines to reduce the sentences of federal crack cocaine offenders "who meet certain criteria established by the Commission and considered by the courts." Had the NARA's proposed policy been in place, Churgin remarked, "the case file records of countless inmates still in federal custody, who originally pled guilty, would already be destroyed."


text:
Chores never end. That's why they're chores. You would think, after a long night scrubbing pots and pans until the skin begins to peel off your hands, that such an effort would absolve you from ever having to wash another dish again. YOU ARE WRONG. There will be more dishes to rinse or clean mere MINUTES later. When I think I'm finished washing dishes, my wife will often bus in MORE shit for me to wash, which never fails to break me spiritually. I am Sisyphus, only with sippy cups instead of a boulder. It's bullshit.
And chores get worse as you get older. There's a blissful moment between ages 18 and—oh I dunno—25, where chores are for suckers. If you go to some fancy dipshit college, you don't have to wash your dishes. You just bring your food tray to the magic conveyor belt and PRESTO! Your meal is over. And when you're fresh out of college, you eat takeout almost every night. You CRUSHKILL a carton of Singapore rice noodles and then throw that shit in the apartment trash heap. You still bring your piss-stained laundry to your poor mom once a month. You are still free to be the laziest, most worthless lump of shit in the world.
But then marriage and kids come and all that goes out the window. Leaving a dirty dish in the sink overnight becomes grounds for divorce. The chores keep piling up until life is just one bullshit task after another: dishes, composing thank-you notes, pulling dead rats out of the drain, etc. It goes on and on and on, and it made reader Pierzy ask the following question:
Is cleaning the bathroom the worst (regular) household chore?
My friend, it's up there. If you have a bad back like me, getting down on a hard tile floor to scrub old piss out from behind the toilet is excruciating. There shouldn't even be an empty area behind the toilet. Nothing good can come from such a place. But is it the worst chore?
It's time we ranked all household chores in order, so that we can know for certain. Starting with the worst:
Drew Magary writes for Deadspin and Gawker. He's also a correspondent for GQ. Follow him on Twitter @drewmagary and email him at email@example.com.
Apple AirPods Pro (2nd Generation)
Hit the gym this new year with new earbuds
Featuring 2x stronger active noise cancellation, longer battery life granting up to 6 hours of listening time with ANC enabled.
1. Vacuuming*. Vacuuming is awful, especially if you hate your vacuum as much as I do. Lugging a fucking vacuum around everywhere is awful. And, as a bonus, the vacuum never reaches every spot in your home without requiring a re-plug job. And God forbid the vacuum have ONE PART that can vacuum every surface: rugs, hardwood floors, Field Turf, etc. No no, you have to switch out parts and then switch them back after you realize you forgot to clean up the Honey Nut Cheerio that the 3-year-old ground into the carpet. The best part of vacuuming is that no vacuum can operate at anything less than "Space Shuttle Taking Off On Your Face" decibel levels. Just switch it on and you can drown out any nearby air raid siren. Goddamn vacuums.
(*NOTE: I do not count dustbusting as vacuuming. Dustbusting kicks ass. Lint balls are no match for my alien gamma death ray gun.)
2. Cleaning the bathroom. Every time I take my son to use the pisser, I have to remind him to make sure his pee hits the water. Because if I don't, he looks all around and lets his piss go wherever the wind may take it. OH HEY LOOK! A BIRD! NOW I'M PISSING ON THE TOILET BRUSH. My home is COATED in urine. It's like primer on the walls. Cleaning it off the bathroom floor is brutal, as is discovering any number of "surprises" around the toilet: pubes, bit of turd, dead insects, and such and such.
3. Pulling weeds. I will never understand people who enjoy gardening. Maybe you get a kick out of WORKING THE LAND, having your hands deep in the soil and communing with Mother Nature and experiencing the joy of watching things grow. That's all well and good if you happen to be a hobbit. I personally find spending more than five minutes hunched over a driveway crack in 90-degree heat and trying to pull out a weed whose roots extend down into the Earth's iron core to be fucking AGONY.
4. Dishes. One day, I would like to know the total number of dishes I have washed in my lifetime. It must be in the tens of thousands, and that's not even counting the dishwashing gig I had at Little Caesars when I was in school. I've had to wash every kind of nightmare dish: cookie sheets with burnt cheese, Pyrex dishes with spattered chicken fat, colanders coated in potato paste that NEVER comes off, pasta bowls encrusted with days-old tomato sauce, baby bottles separated into 17 different tiny parts (some of which require a special brush to clean), butter dishes, graters, big serving plates that don't fit in the goddamn sink ... all of it sucks. I drink seltzer right from the bottle and eat beef stew with my hands specifically so that I won't have to deal with any cups or dishes.
The only good thing about doing dishes is that it absolves you from kid duty, which says a lot about how difficult kid duty can be. But all that work—the rinsing and scraping and GODDAMMIT THIS SHIT WILL NEVER COME OFF—eats away at your soul, until you feel nothing at all. When I wash dishes now, I'm half dead.
5. Laundry. Sorting shit and throwing it into a washing machine isn't the worst thing in the world. I also ignore detergent measurements because I like to live dangerously. I GO BY FEEL. Sure, the fact that every dryer door rests three inches off the ground and forces you to contort your spine into a question mark just to get at the last sock isn't fun, but there are worse things, such as FOLDING that laundry. Especially kiddie laundry. I have three kids, which means all their tiny dollhouse clothing gets mixed together and I have to spend eight years figuring out whose garment is whose and how the fuck you're supposed to fold a onesie. Folding my own laundry is a breeze by comparison. I have one pair of jeans and a sweatshirt. BOOM. Done. Easy. Meanwhile, Little Junior smeared cake on 60 different t-shirts today. Enjoy folding them for the next eight years.
6. Picking up everyone's crap. In a perfect world, kids would pick up their own crap. It's not like there's any question whose crap it is. They leave a trail of Legos and old Goldfish behind them. But any experienced parent knows that it usually takes more effort to get the kids to pick up their shit than it does to just get down and do it yourself. My kids are pretty good at picking up after themselves these days. But once in a while they'll just tear a playroom to bits and leave me to clean up the wreck. I've seen hurricane cleanups that are less daunting. Why is this plastic baby's head stuck in the ceiling fan? What is this wet spot?
7. Emptying the dishwasher. This is the first thing I have to do every morning. Every morning, I make a bowl of cereal, then I go to get a spoon, realize there are no spoons in the drawer, and realize that the dishwasher needs emptying. It's one of those handy reminders that your day will suck. I pull open the racks, and half the glasses are still wet. Teacups have water pooled in their bottoms. A container has turned over during the wash and filled with hot dishwater. And some goddamn spatula has lodged itself in the rack and requires King Arthur to extract. This is every goddamn morning. I know dishwashers are a modern miracle, but fuck emptying them. It's awful.
8. Taking out the trash. Move this up a few spots if the trash includes a diaper pail, which is like a jailbreak by a day's worth of farts. The smell when you open up the little plastic door is overwhelming. You can feel your body being poisoned. Taking out the trash, otherwise, ought to be simple affair. Yet I find it unbearable. Taking out the trash also means taking out the recyclables, and some goddamn yogurt cup will always tumble out of the bin while I'm dumping everything out. Taking out the trash also means pulling the garbage bag out of the trash can (and the garbage bag always resists because it's been overstuffed with old chicken bones) and then replacing the bag, which I always forget to do. This results in me inevitably throwing a bag of spoiled deli ham into an unlined trash can. SHIT SHIT SHIT.
And the trash is ALWAYS full. I could have a 5,000-gallon trash receptacle and it would be full of carrot shavings and boogery tissues five seconds after emptying it. Children are like factories of mass waste. They're the reason we're all gonna die from rising sea levels. They are not our future. They are our demise.
9. Packing lunches. It's 7 a.m., and I haven't eaten breakfast yet. I don't even know what the hell I'm putting in this school lunch bag. Maybe an apple. Maybe a pack of Lipton onion-soup mix. I have no idea. You can't expect me to put together a rational bagged meal that early in the morning. Half the time, my wife checks out my handiwork and replaces the lunch with an entirely different lunch. Why do I even bother, woman? IS A MEAL THAT CONSISTS ENTIRELY OF PRETZEL RODS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU?!
We used to write notes for my kid at the beginning of the year and tuck them into her lunch. Stuff like, "You're awesome!" and all that. But the novelty wears off after a while. Now I just hand the girl the bag like I'm sending her off to a North Korean labor camp.
10. Making beds. That last corner of the fitted sheet. WHY WON'T IT SLIP ON EASY?! Move making beds up a notch on this list if you factor in bunk beds. Making the top bunk of a bunk bed is like trying to build a shoe factory in midair. This is why no college student ever cleans his sheets.
11. Snow shoveling. Varies by region. Soon enough, none of us will have to shovel snow because it'll never snow. And we owe it all to harmless carbon dioxide!
12. Cooking. Cooking isn't always fun. Chopping vegetables is shitty and horrible. But obviously, it beats cleaning. And you can drink and sample the food and pretend you're cooking on Chopped while you do it. And your mystery basket ingredients are BONELESS CHICKEN BREAST, JARRED TOMATO SAUCE, AND CHEESE. Thirty minutes on the clock ... TIME STARTS NOW! I made prime rib for my family this Christmas and, God, I was so proud of it. So pink and juicy. I was this close to being every jackass who takes pictures of his food, but I resisted. Just kidding. I totally took a picture of that shit. Sometimes, when I'm stuck in traffic, I take it out and look at it. Oh, prime rib. You and I had great times together. I'll never forget you. Only you and I will ever know that your secret ingredient was ORANGE ZEST.
13. Setting the table. Easiest job ever. Want to look as if you contributed to the family while barely lifting a finger? Offer to set the table. Way to go, you! You placed napkins and forks down in a circle. You get a free coloring mat.
14. Washing the car. PEW PEW PEW! Dirt has nothing on my garden hose, which is actually an imaginary flame thrower. BLAZZZZZZEEEEEE ...
Put your best and worst in the discussion below.


text:
Gabriele Grunewald has been reinstated as the 2014 USA Indoor women's 3000-meter champion, USA Track and Field announced Monday.
Grunewald will represent Team USA at the 2014 IAAF World Indoor Championships on March 7-9 in Sopot, Poland. She will be joined on the U.S. squad by Shannon Rowbury.
The race reversal comes as the governing body of track and field faced mounting criticism about its decision to initially declare Grunewald the winner, and then hours later strip her of the title.
More From Runner's World
Grunewald won the 3000 on Saturday in Albuquerque after making a late move to charge past Rowbury and Jordan Hasay. As Grunewald passed Hasay on the bell lap, an on-field official raised a flag, indicating contact had been made between the two runners.
Officials determined shortly after the race no foul had occurred, which prompted Hasay's coach, Alberto Salazar, to protest. The USATF's Jury of Appeals denied the protest, and the results were posted as official, with Grunewald first and Rowbury second. Sara Vaughn was third and Hasay fourth.
Hours later, the Jury of Appeals announced it considered "enhanced video evidence" and overturned its original ruling, stripping Grunewald of the victory and declaring Rowbury the winner.
On Monday, the USATF reversed that decision after Salazar withdrew his protest, according to USATF spokesperson Jill Geer.
Also Monday, Hasay deferred her spot on the U.S. team, opening a place for Grunewald to compete at the world championships.
In announcing the news, the USATF said CEO Max Siegel spoke Monday with Salazar and Paul Doyle, Grunewald's representative. The organization's press release said, "Salazar made it clear that Hasay felt withdrawal was the right thing to do, and with the agreement of all parties, Grunewald was reinstated."
Hasay released a statement on her blog, which was included in the USATF release. She said, "As with all of the competitors who lined up on Saturday, I desperately wanted to make the team to represent the United States at the upcoming World Indoor Track and Field Championships. Since Saturday evening my emotions have ranged from despair to determination to go to Poland and represent my country as best I can. After much thought and consideration, however, I have decided to withdraw my protest as I do not want to make a national team under these circumstances."
Salazar added in the press release: "My intention was what every coach wants - to advocate for my athlete. It was a physical race and when I saw the contact and the flag go up, I filed a protest. I appreciate Max's involvement and wish nothing but the best for Gabe and Shannon in Sopot."
The news is a welcome switch for Grunewald, a two-time cancer survivor who was disqualified in the 2012 Olympic Trials in the 1500. She learned of the DQ hours after the race that time as well. She was reinstated the next day - the day of the finals - and placed fourth.
Monday evening, Grunewald tweeted her reaction: "Just touched down in MN & thrilled to see news of my reinstatement. I hope this unfortunate situation can be avoided in the future."
Grunewald returned home to Minnesota from Albuquerque on Monday night tired but happy after a day of travel and vindication.
"As of (Sunday) and when I woke up early this morning (Monday), I wasn't hopeful," Grunewald said in an interview with Runner's World Newswire. "Everything that happened yesterday was not a good sign."
Grunewald said Monday night that Doyle had told her in the late morning that after arbitration papers were filed earlier in the day, it looked possible that she would regain her spot. But Grunewald was traveling all day, eventually her cell phone went dead, and she still hadn't read the USATF press release confirming that Hasay had withdrawn from her spot on team USA.
Grunewald expressed hope that controversy surrounding the race would spark conversation.
"There's a lot of people out there outraged," Grunewald said. "There's a lot of momentum to turn this around and I hope this isn't the end of the conversation. I hope there will be more communication with the organization and athletes, agents and coaches to look at the process and make sure it doesn't happen again. I hope USATF is part of the process."
Vaughn praised Hasay's withdrawal.
"I think we still need more answers, but we should celebrate this victory," Vaughn said. "All is as it should be as far as results from the Championships. But I hope it doesn't pacify everyone. We need to follow through.
"I'm proud of (Jordan). I think she handled it the right way."
Here is a timeline of how the events played out over the last three days (all times are Mountain Standard Time):
• 3:31 p.m. Women's 3000 starts with 13 participants.
• 3:39 p.m. On the turn after the start of the bell lap, Gabe Grunewald and Jordan Hasay make contact as Grunewald passes to move into second place. Official raises white flag.
• 3:40 p.m. Grunewald crosses finish line in first place, followed by Shannon Rowbury, Sara Vaughn and Hasay.
• 3:45 p.m. Head official meets with official at the turn. They determine no foul has occurred.
• 3:50 p.m. Hasay's coach, Alberto Salazar, protests the race result with USA Track & Field, claiming Hasay was fouled.
• 4:20 p.m. Protest is denied by meet officials. Salazar asks Jury of Appeal to take up the matter.
• 4:50 p.m. Jury of Appeal rules that no foul has occurred. Results posted as official, with Grunewald first and Rowbury second.
• 8:30 p.m. Jury of Appeal considers "enhanced video evidence" and overturns its original ruling. Grunewald representatives protest the Jury of Appeal reversal. USATF says the Jury's verdict is "final."
• 1:53 p.m. Women's 1500 starts with a 15-woman field that doesn't include Rowbury, Grunewald or Hasay.
• 1:58 p.m. After Mary Cain wins race, seven runners leave track hand in hand in silent protest.
• 7 pm. Initial discussions with US Olympic Committee representatives don't resolve situation. USATF decision stands. Grunewald's agent Paul Doyle states he will file for arbitration on Monday morning.
• 9 a.m. Doyle files Section IX arbitration papers with USOC.
• 2:59 p.m. USATF press release announces Grunewald reinstated as 3000 meter champion. Grunewald and Rowbury will represent the U.S. at the IAAF World Championships in Sopot, Poland, March 7-9.
Prior to the announcement, fans and fellow track athletes continued to respond to the controversy.
A petition started by Nathaniel Saviet of New York City, who planned to send it to Siegel, garnered 1,214 signatures in less than seven hours after it was posted Monday morning prior to the announcement of Hasay's withdrawal.
The petition claimed that "The USATF has provided no open and transparent process to support the disqualification of Gabriele Grunewald ... It is absolutely essential that this information be released to the public to allow the sport of track and field to move away from abject corruption and bring the focus back to the athletes."
Saviet, who says he is the boyfriend of runner Lauren Penney, was surprised at the response, saying he decided to start it while eating breakfast this morning. He said the signatures were an expression of frustration by distance-running fans who want what is best for the sport.
Related stories:
Lagat, Rowbury win 3000 titles, Grunewald DQ'd.
Reaction swift to controversy at indoor championships.


text:
I have gained and lost 20-30 pounds at least 3 times in my life. The changes my body went through each time really had nothing to do with the food, it had nothing to do with my body, and the changes were more a reflection of how I was trying to process events in my life. When I felt good about my body this was more because of how I was processing my life and when I felt negative about my body this was also again how I was honoring and paying attention to my feelings.
Have you ever had the experience where you looked in the mirror in the morning and thought, "Damn I look great today!" and then as the day moved on and perhaps you got some bad news or you had a lot of work and a lot of stress arose and suddenly you looked in the mirror again and thought, "Ugh I wish I weighed 5 pounds less." Our body is actually exactly the same. It hasn't changed but what has changed is our connection and compassion toward ourselves and perhaps the heaviness we are feeling is not necessarily because of our body but because of how we are mentally processing external events.
I am guilty of having said in the past, "I feel so fat today." In my process of honoring and embracing my emotions and how deeply I feel things (which will come in another post) I realized that fat is not a feeling. Fat is something that is in our body that we need to be alive. Fat is something we eat. Fat is not a feeling. So when we hear these internal thoughts of I feel fat we get to take a pause, breath, and start to get curious around how we are actually feeling in the moment.
Perhaps we are feeling tired, mentally heavy, sad, frustrated, angry. In just the process of naming how we are feeling in the moment by stating out loud I feel fear, I feel tired, I feel stressed we embrace our human experience exactly the way that it is and we don't have to make our body the battle ground of fighting our emotions. We can separate how we are processing our life from our body image and that no matter what is happening day to day we are still wonderful and beautiful just as we are. When we create more internal space to foster compassion and kindness and self love toward our body then no matter what emotions arise or how we are processing our life we can still take care of our body and discover how we can even increase our level of self care in the moment.
I no longer reach for food when I feel stressed or anxious or sad or depressed. This is a process that took me throughout my 20s to re-learn how to honor my physical and emotional hungers. Give yourself so much compassion on this path. Every moment is a new moment where we get to begin again and to catch our internal thoughts and ask ourselves is this the most loving and nourishing this I could say to myself right now? If the answer is no then the power and choice is within you to re-shape those thoughts to ones that feel more loving to you just the way you are and that you are always doing the best you can to take care of you.


text:
Information and discussion on all aspects of British photographic history
November 20, 2019 to March 22, 2020 – National Gallery of Ireland The first ever travelling exhibition of photographs at the National Gallery of Ireland and the first time this exhibition has been mounted outside the United States. Organized by Bank of America | Type: exhibition
December 4, 2019 at 6pm to February 15, 2020 at 6pm – MMX Gallery, London Stemming from the sacred energy of traditional sculpture halls, The Sialia Marbles (Sigh-ar-lia) is an ode to the artist's fleeting imagination. Created over three years, The Sialia Marbles will be p… Organized by MMX Gallery | Type: exhibition
January 31, 2020 to March 15, 2020 – Street Level Photoworks Oscar MarzaroliStreet Level Photoworks7th December 2019 - 15th March 2020 Please note the gallery is closed on Mondays only. Oscar Marzaroli is arguably Scotland's most notable documentary photogra… Organized by Street Level Photoworks | Type: exhibition
© 2023 Created by Michael Pritchard. Powered by


text:
'Today' Jokes About 'Eco-Mom' Hypocrisy
Soccer moms are trading in Tupperware parties for "Green" parties, according to the NBC "Today" show. But one of the results is a driveway full of gas-guzzling, carbon-emitting SUVs!
"From the plants in her garden to the makeup on her face, Kim Pinkson is all about going green," Janet Shamlian reported on the April 9 broadcast. "The
Pinkson is the founder of the EcoMom Alliance, a non-profit organization that runs environmentalism parties similar in concept to Tupperware or Pampered Chef parties, "without, of course, all the plastic," Shamlian said.
But Shamlian pointed out one of the problems with getting a group of women together to talk about environmentalism: getting there. "We're here talking about turning green," she said to party hostess Michelle Battelle, "and yet the carbon footprint probably on this party is fairly large."
Battelle joked that she "kind of tripped over the 15 SUVs in the driveway as I was coming up the front door." And that was the extent of investigation into whether parties like Pinkson's actually help the environment – or if they're just another excuse to hang out (and burn gas).
"For all the talk about saving the environment, for the women gathered here this evening is as much about socialization as it is about tips to go green," Shamlian said.
Ignoring the ill-effects of green events like EcoMom parties is not the first instance of "Today's" green hypocrisy. The crew has taken carbon-belching flights to the "ends of the earth" for segments on global warming, hired private planes to fly over


text:
I remember seeing a script to recursively drop all user objects (for a specific schema), so if the user want to refresh their own schema, they can use this script to drop all objects they have first, and then using an dump file to refresh.
The script I was seeing uses a 'for cursor' loop to find all objects use owns and drop them on the fly (use 'execute immediate'). But I can't really it anymore, so I wonder anybody can help me on this?


text:
Taliban suicide bomber kills 11 in Pakistan
The attack targeted members of an anti-Taliban militant group.
• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.
A Taliban suicide bomber in Pakistan's restive northwest killed at least 11 members of a rival, pro-government militant group on Thursday. The attack highlights the complicated divisions among militant groups operating in Pakistan, some of which receive support from the government or the powerful intelligence agency.
The Press Trust of India reports that the bomber targeted a roadside restaurant at a hotel in the busy bazaar area in the town of Jandola, in the Tank district just outside South Waziristan.
The bomber killed at least 11 people and wounded 20 others, most of them members of a militant faction opposed to Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. South Waziristan is a stronghold of Mr. Mehsud's movement.
The bomber struck at a hotel in the busy Jandola Bazar in Tank district of Dera Ismail Khan, as scores of anti-Taliban militants sat down for their meals, TV channels quoted officials as saying.
Officials said the roadside restaurant's visitors at the time included some two dozen militants opposed to Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. They were members of the 'Turkestan Bittani' group. However, their leader was not in the group.
The Associated Press reports that the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, calling it revenge for the deaths of Taliban fighters killed in clashes last year with Turkestan Bittani.
The Deccan Herald, of South India, reports that in January Turkestan Bittani joined forces with another faction, the Abdullah Mehsood group, to battle Mehsud's Taliban.
The BBC reports that Bittani had been "helping the military take on Mehsud," who is accused of plotting a string of attacks including the 2007 assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
US and Pakistani forces have turned up the heat on Mehsud, killing seven Arab militants in a South Waziristan drone attack on Wednesday, as well as putting a $5 million bounty on his head, the news service reports.
Also on Thursday, Qatar-based Al Jazeera reports that a possible US drone attack in neighboring North Waziristan killed four people linked to "militant tribal elder Malik Gulab Khan." Some Pakistani officials deny such an attack took place.
Meanwhile, in the adjoining region of North Waziristan, intelligence officials said four people were killed after a suspected US drone aircraft fired two missiles into a house outside the town of Mir Ali.
"Two missiles fired from a suspected US drone hit the compound of a local pro-militant tribal elder Malik Gulab Khan, killing four residents," a local security official told the AFP news agency.
Other Pakistani officials, however, denied there had been an attack.
"There was no missile strike," said Habibullah Khan, an administration official in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, of which North Waziristan is a part.
Residents of Mir Ali said they had heard an explosion in a house, but they had no details about possible casualties."
The Wall Street Journal reports that the US considers the drone program a success, and is currently reviewing it as part of its larger review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan.
But as the US tries to tighten the noose on Mehsud and the Taliban, the relationships between different militant groups and elements of the Pakistani state have proved to be a stumbling block.
In particular, there is evidence that the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, continues to maintain ties with Taliban elements currently active in southern Afghanistan, reports The New York Times. In the past, ISI has promised to sever these ties.
In a report published Wednesday, the Times identifies the S Wing of the Pakistani intelligence service as the source of "money, military supplies and strategic planning guidance to Taliban commanders" who are fighting international forces in southern Afghanistan.
Little is publicly known about the ISI's S Wing, which officials say directs intelligence operations outside Pakistan. American officials said that the S Wing provided direct support to three major groups carrying out attacks in Afghanistan: the Taliban based in Quetta, Pakistan, commanded by Mullah Muhammad Omar; the militant network run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar; and a different group run by the guerrilla leader Jalaluddin Haqqani.
The Times quotes Congressional testimony by Dennis C. Blair, the director of national intelligence, who says Pakistan "draws distinctions" between militant groups useful to the Islamabad regime and those that threaten it.
On the one hand are groups like the Haqqani network, which bombed India's Kabul embassy last summer. It is considered "a strategic asset" to Pakistan, says the Times, and as such its operations in Afghanistan have received ISI support. That is in sharp contrast to Baitullah Mehsud's Taliban, which seeks to overthrow the government of Pakistan.
"There are some they [Pakistan] believe have to be hit and that we should cooperate on hitting, and there are others they think don't constitute as much of a threat to them and that they think are best left alone," Mr. Blair said.


text:
Croton Wall GraphicsView Wall Graphics Gallery
Build your brand with vinyl wall graphics by Columbus Signs & Wraps!
Ideal for corporate purposes, custom graphics add color and excitement to an underutilized wall, can make a bland hallway into a visual timeline of the story of your agency, or can allow you to proudly display your company logo in your business lobby.
No matter what your intended placement, purpose, or size, from directional signage to inspiring custom wall graphics in break rooms, our professionals design, fabricate, and expertly install the perfect signage elements for your brand. Whether you already have a wall graphic design you can clearly envision, or just an empty room that that could better benefit your brand, our experienced and fully-trained Croton sign and graphics staff will assist you with converting the walls and floors of your facility into customer engaging custom works of art.
Call Columbus Signs & Wraps at (614) 634-9434 for a Free Consultation!
Complete Design Control
Our company custom crafts wall graphics exclusively made for your organization, branding, and commercial space. Our Croton, OH sign manufacturers use high-impact and high-value vinyl to produce eye-catching and exciting wall graphics and lettering that can highlight any message, feeling, or story you want. Everything from large-format, high-impact scenery murals to cut wall decals that promote your brand, we take care of everything.
Have a new product or service you want to promote? Great idea! We deliver removable wall graphics that can be taken down whenever you want. They can be either returned to your damage-free surface, or equipped with updated graphics that represent the most current business promotions, seasonal changes, or branding.
Full-Service Wall Vinyl Company
Stuck for the perfect idea? That's what we are for! Our expert sign and graphic designers assist with all aspects of sigan and graphic design. In fact, we manage every aspect of the sign and graphic fabrication process, assisting you from creative design all the way to installing the components in your desired location. If necessary, we perform on-site custom signage evaluations, including measuring your walls to ensure your graphics fit perfectly in your space.
Columbus Signs & Wraps uses the right materials for your job, which means you can be positive that your vinyl graphics will be effective and show-stopping with an eye-catching finish.
Professional Vinyl Graphics Installers
While vinyl can be self-installed, for a smooth finish and professional results, it is best to have a professional vinyl wall graphics installation company to put your artwork in place. Heavy vinyl sheets are usually difficult to implement, from time to time leading to small rips, bubbles, or tears causing a less than professional overall appearance.
When working with Columbus Signs & Wraps, should there be any concerns that occur when performing the installation of your graphics, for example damage to your vinyl, we will switch it for free, as opposed to problems experienced when performing installing your graphics yourself.
Free Wall Graphics Consultation
The specialists at Columbus Signs & Wraps are focused on supplying your Croton business with superb sign and graphic products and knowledgeable support. Our aspiration is to emerge as your one-stop signage company for all your brand signs and graphics needs. With an ample collection of sign and graphic goods and services, we assure that your business keeps looking professional, attractive, and prepared to assist the new customers and clients your signage will draw in day after day.
Call Columbus Signs & Wraps at (614) 634-9434 for a Free Consultation with a Wall Graphics Expert!


text:
When dealing with small spaces, sometimes people are at a loss as to which direction to take when pondering a redesign. Transforming a small space can be challenging endeavor, but it is certainly not a impossible one. What follows is a list of a few tips that can help you rise to the challenge when it comes to redesigning your small space.
Windows are Your Friends
Windows are a great source of natural light and can really help open up a small room.
Try scaling back on cumbersome window treatments and play up the role of windows in your small space. Light, airy curtains or open blinds let the light in and open the room up in the process, so stop covering them up and brighten your room in the process.
Choose Colors Carefully
Depending on the dimensions of your room, the wrong color choice can make the room feel smaller. Choosing cool colors and accent pieces helps eliminate the claustrophobic feeling that can be enhanced by warm, dark colors. Stark white trim helps to establish contrast and cool grey tones can really help to create a sense of openness. Accessorize effectively, using accent colors from a rug or piece of art that brings the room together.
Room Orientation
Rearranging your small space may be just what you need to do to make the place feel a little larger. Try to use your walls with longer dimensions to your advantage to play up the features in your space. Also, if you have decided to change paint colors, stripes can help elongate walls either vertically or horizontally depending on the perception and wish you look to achieve.
Find a Focal Point
Whether it's a fireplace, artwork, or piece of furniture, finding a focal point for the room is a great starting point with which to finish conceiving your design. Using the focal point can help you from selecting everything from paint color to figuring out the exact layout of the room. Figure out what you want to focus on when redesigning your small space.
Remove Excess Items
Often when redesigning a small space, we tend to try and keep everything that we currently have and simply move it around. This isn't always the best idea. Excess furniture, accessories, and other items can give a small space a very cluttered feel, which ultimately makes the room feel smaller. Try and maximize your space's efficiency without filling it completely.
This post was contribulted by Holly McCarthy who writes on the subject of trade schools. She invites your feedback at email@example.com. For a link to her website click on the above post title "Tips for Redesiging a small space"
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Ok I Really Like These Kitchens
I love these kitchens! They are small (ok the first one perhaps not small) but they all prove that you can have GREAT style in a small space. So inspiring!
Posted by Lisa at 12:43 PM 19 comments:
Labels: Kitchens
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text:
Now that Macworld has a few Mac minis in hand, we're learning a lot more about Apple's tiny $499 Mac (see Best Current Price ) than we could glean by making our way through the crowds that surrounded all the minis on display at at Macworld Expo. So once you've read "What You Need to Know About the Mac mini", here are answers to some of the most common questions out there.
I know it's small, but it's not that small.
Look, size is relative. It's small enough that you can stick it under your arm and walk around with it absent-mindedly. We've done it.
And that's not a question.
But when you plug it in, it's got a gigantic power brick, right?
The Mac mini's white power brick isn't small—it measures 6.5-by-2.5-by-1.5 inches and weighs a pound. So it's roughly a third the size and weight of the Mini itself. Is that gigantic? You be the judge. If you have a place to hide the brick, you probably won't care.
Do I need more than 256MB of RAM?
We think so. With 256MB of RAM, your Mac mini will run much more slowly than it should, because its main memory will fill up, forcing the system to off-load excess data to the mini's relatively poky hard drive. 512MB is really the minimum RAM we recommend for any Mac system today, and 1GB is preferable.
So should I buy RAM from Apple or install it myself?
Right now, Apple was charging $75 for 512MB of RAM in the mini, and $425 for 1GB. (The mini only has a single RAM slot, so in essence Apple's charging these prices for individual modules, plus recouping the cost of the 256MB module it doesn't have to install in your system.)
Meanwhile, you can find 512MB modules from other vendors for $66 or even less, and 1GB modules for $165 or even less. So if you want to save money, you should consider swapping Apple's 256MB module for a larger one you purchase yourself, especially if you want 1GB of RAM.
I want to save money but I'm not too technical. Should I just buy Apple's RAM?
Probably. Installing RAM on the Mac mini is the easiest upgrade you can perform on the machine, but it's not for anyone who hasn't installed RAM in a system before. In order to get into the Mac mini, you've got to use a putty knife to pop off the computer's top shell. Then it's a tighter-than-usual squeeze to pull the existing RAM and install the new module.
I want to save money and I've opened up many a computer. Should I be worried about opening the Mac mini?
Probably not, so long as you've got a putty knife handy. If you're comfortable pulling RAM and can look at the exposed guts of a computer without feeling faint, you can do it.
Can I use the Mac mini as a headless server?
Hoo boy, there's a whole article in there. Stay tuned for that one. But yes, you can. You'll need to attach it to a keyboard, mouse, and display to get it set up the first time, and if your Mac mini has Bluetooth, be sure to uncheck the "Open Bluetooth Setup Assistant at startup when no input device is present" option in the Bluetooth System Preferences, or every time your headless Mac boots it's going to complain that it doesn't have a keyboard or mouse. Turning off Sleep in the Energy Saver control panel would be a good idea, too.
Then pay a lengthy visit to the Sharing control panel. At the very least, turn on Apple Remote Desktop, so that you can control you new headless server via a VNC client program (from Mac or PC!) or Apple's own Remote Desktop software. You can turn on file sharing and other stuff, too, although you can always do that later via remote control.
If you're planning on putting your new Mac mini server on a wireless network, be sure to connect it to your network and save the password in the keychain—and for safety's sake, adjust your AirPort preferences (in the Network preference pane) to automatically connect to your wireless network.
Once we managed to do all this, we were able to plug in the tiny Mac mini just about anywhere, press the power button, and within a couple of minutes we had an active, remote-controllable server attached to our network via AirPort. Pretty cool.
Can I add Bluetooth, AirPort, or both to the Mac mini later if I didn't buy my system with any pre-installed wireless options?
Updated 1/24/05: Not easily. The Mac Mini's wireless options live on a small daughtercard attached to the system's motherboard (see photo below). If you order a Mac mini with no wireless options, you don't get a daughtercard or any external antenna. If you ordered a Mac mini with just Bluetooth, you could perform some serious surgery and install an AirPort card later — but you might need to hack your own antenna for it. It's probably not worth the drama. You can always seek professional help from an authorized Apple specialist or an Apple retail store if you need to install either or both after the fact. The good news is, the wireless options are upgradeable on this model, so you're not stuck tomorrow if you opt out of AirPort today.
So the short answer to your question is: sometimes. But even if it is possible, we wouldn't recommend it for the faint of heart. If you're planning on using Bluetooth or AirPort on the Mac mini at any point during its life, just order it now and save yourself the trouble.
Did you really take apart a Mac mini all the way down to the bare motherboard?
Could I rip out the hard drive and install a new one?
Updated 1/24/05: Probably, although it would be a huge amount of work, requiring the removal of the Mini's black plastic drive/fan enclosure, and then some scary removal of items from said enclosure in order to get to the screws on the right side of the drive.
Instead, might we suggest an elegant external FireWire hard drive?
Apple said there were 4200 rpm hard drives in the Mac mini. Is that true?
Updated 1/24/05: Components can vary. For example, the RAM in two of our Mac minis is actually PC3200 running at 333MHz, rather than standard PC2700 RAM. Likewise, the one Mac mini we've deconstructed actually had a 5400 rpm drive inside (a Seagate ST940110A)… but that doesn't mean yours will. Like most computer-makers, Apple doesn't generally talk about the parts it uses and those parts can vary from computer to computer.
Does the Mac mini have an audio-in jack? How about digital audio out?
Updated 1/24/05: No and no. For both, consider an external USB or FireWire device that supports audio input or digital audio output.
Is the Mac mini underpowered?
No, but as our lab tests show, it's also not a G5. It's about as fast as you might expect from a 1.25GHz or 1.42GHz G4 PowerBook, iBook, or eMac. The hard drive is a little poky.
I've got a VGA monitor. Will the Mac mini work with it?
Yes. The Mac mini comes with a DVI-to-VGA adapter. It's a small plastic block you push onto the DVI connector. If you want to attach it tightly, just turn the two plastic wheels on either side of the adapter to turn the screws that will attach it firmly to the back of the Mac mini. Remember, clockwise to tighten, counter-clockwise to loosen.
I've got a USB keyboard and mouse from a PC. Will they work with the Mac mini?
Yes indeed. The mouse's second button (and scroll wheel if it's got one) are natively supported in Mac OS X. You might want to use uControl to swap the Windows and Alt keys, because otherwise you'll keep pressing Option when you mean to press Command.
If I buy a Mac mini, do I get iLife '05?
Yes you do—but at least in these early Mac mini models, iLife '05 doesn't come preinstalled on the hard drive. (iLife '04 is on there.) Instead, you get two iLife '05 discs (one DVD, one CD-ROM) and will need to install it yourself.
Is the Mac mini noisy?
It seems pretty quiet to us. Different people will have different sensitivities to noise, of course. However, the optical drive is a bit noisy, and that when you're heavily working the Mac mini's processor, its fan can really crank up. So the noise of a Mac mini may vary quite a bit, depending on how you're using it.
Isn't the Mac mini just an eMac without a screen?
That's not quite fair, but a lot of the specs are similar. Witness:
Consumer Macs Compared
|Mac mini
|iMac G5
|1.25GHz PowerPC G4
|1.6GHz PowerPC G5
|1.25GHz PowerPC G4
|System bus
|533MHz or 600MHz
|Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet, 56K V.92 modem
|Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet, 56K V.92 modem
|Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet, 56K V.92 modem
|One FireWire 400 port; two USB 2.0 ports; DVI output; VGA output (adapter included)
|Two FireWire 400 ports; three USB 2.0 ports, two USB 1.1 ports (on keyboard); VGA output2; S-video and composite video output2
|Two FireWire 400 ports, three USB 2.0 ports (in computer), two USB 1.1 ports (on keyboard), mini-VGA output port
|Included Display
|17-inch widescreen LCD
|17-inch flat CRT
|ATI Radeon 9200; 32MB dedicated DDR SDRAM video memory
|NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra w/64MB video memory
|ATI Radeon 9200; 32MB dedicated DDR SDRAM video memory
Wait, wait! I have more questions!
We'd be happy to answer them. Ask them by leaving a comment in this thread in the Macworld Forums.
For more on the Mac mini, visit our Mac mini page.