Unless the design of the robot requires that doing her job (adjusting processes) can only be done in the danger zone with the robots powered up - in which case it seems likely the robot manufacturers do have a portion of liability. In theory this is what a lawsuit will determine.
Lock-Out Tag-Out is a good practice in many cases.
It isn't always possible, however.
Note this portion of the description from the summary:
routinely inspected and adjusted processes
- there are many times when the design of the machine is such that adjusting and calibrating requires the machine to be energized; and sometimes safety interlocks must be disabled (generally with vendor provided tools) in order to make those adjustments.
An injury or death (sadly more specifically the high dollar value lawsuit following it) may provide sufficient incentive for the vendor to redesign the machine to allow for routine adjustments in a safer manner.
Even though plenty of people will dismiss this as a matter of a careless worker (which it might or might not be true in the specific instance), the fact is that some jobs are dangerous but necessary. Personally, I won't take a dangerous job; but I know that a modern lifestyle requires that someone does dangerous jobs. Workers, managements and equipment vendors all must work together to minimize the number of injuries and deaths involved with doing dangerous work. Ideally robotics are able to reduce the number of workers exposed to 'dangerous but necessary' conditions; but until we have robots that are able to fully adjust and repair other robots people will be involved in this kind of work.
Is it impossible for anyone to see a situation that they believe causes problems (for example - too many humans consuming resources on the planet) and promote both a reduction in the current size of the problem (reducing the number of humans living - aka promoting killing people) and in the future size of the problem (reducing the number of humans born - aka discouraging sex)?
I'm not saying this is my approach, I'm just not sure it's as hypocritical as you seem to think it is.
I suspect (but don't and can't know) that your perception of "since the 80's" is more about the timeline of your own awareness of reporting than it is about any broad change in what is being written.
Journalistic Objectivity was created in the early 1800s so that the Associated Press could sell the same product (news) to all their customers (newspapers) because they didn't feel it was economically viable to produce a product that was individualized for each customer.
That origin doesn't mean that there is no value to 'just the facts' news from the point of view of the consumer of news - but do understand that what you 'always thought' is a standard that is impossible to actually reach for a practical news stream.
As far as I can see, English is a 'bastardised half-breed language'; in some cases speakers of English are proud of this fact, in other cases they are embarrassed of it and in yet other cases they are ignorant of it.
If you wish to argue that 'American' (USian?) is a distinct language from English (even though speakers of 'American' when asked what language they speak will say 'English' - the simple solution to this of course is to say that the American word for American is 'English' and that American's don't know the word for what the rest of the world refers to as English), then who are you to say that the American idiom 'I could care less' is not the correct translation of the English phrase 'I couldn't care less'? Note the distinction between idiom and phrase.
I am willing to bet that most (not all) people that complain that "people today don't know how to fix a faucet" haven't spent hours under a sink, trying to wrestle the stupid plastic (why plastic, since that means it will deform under the least misalignment) nut that's corroded (yeah, neither the plastic nor the brass significantly corroded in the years it's been there, but gunk has migrated into those threads) into place up inside a space you can barely see, using a crappy-ass specialty tool which keeps pinching your fingers better than said corroded slippery worn plastic nut. Have I mentioned the under-sink cabinet space is not nearly big enough to fit your body comfortably into? Have I mentioned that the edge of the cabinet is digging into your kidney or rib the whole time? And did i forget the drip drip of water and sweat and grime making the whole thing even more of a pain in the ass? Oh, and the space you have to work with? Take a look at your kitchen sink. Eyeball the distance between the back of the sink-well and the wall behind it. Notice how deep the sink-well is. Guess what, there is no magic cavern inside - you have to get your hand, tool, light and vision up inside that space to reach the nut. The task itself is simple - "unscrew these two plastic nuts". If it was on my workbench, it would be a 5 second task. Where it is, it's a multiple hour struggle with horribly awkward angles and mystery filth dripping in your eyes.
For those that think I must be incompetent, I'll have you know it took a matter of minutes to put the NEW faucet & nuts in place once I had the old one out and it works like a charm.
It's no wonder people hire someone else. It isn't because we don't know HOW to turn a wrench. It's because getting the job done is a pain in the ass and it is worth the cost to avoid it. If I did the task all the time, I'd work out the little tricks to make it go smoother, and I'd just learn to get used to the filth of it. In the end, I respect the plumbers that do the work, and I say "better them than me".
You have this backwards, it's much easier to discard waste heat in a car than it is in space. Consider - you have a multi-year mission, surrounded by an insulator that does not allow convective or conductive cooling. In fact, the only practical cooling methods are A.) heating part of your mass and shedding it, and B.) radiating it (as signal or as noise) at some EM frequency.
I recently went through a round of attempting to use OpenSolaris on my work laptop (damn I want that ZFS juju)... and there were a couple of things that drove me back to Debian - one of them was the horrible performance of Firefox under OpenSolaris. Under VirtualBox on OpenSolaris host, Firefox was faster on either a Debian or a WinXP guest than it was on the host... the difference between usable and not. The specific application that really showed this was Zimbra (pretty heavily AJAXy). In trying to track this issue down, the general feedback on OpenSolaris forums was "Firefox on OpenSolaris kinda sucks, sorry". My personal experience with Firefox is that under Linux or Windows it's subjectively close enough not to worry about (on a variety of hardware, not just the laptop that I tested OpenSolaris on).
Assuming you aren't a felon, you CAN purchase them. Full auto. Machine guns. The real deal. All it will cost you is a $200 tax stamp and (usually) a background check (which entails a delay of variable length). Well, and the cost of the gun itself.
Mind you, nobody (at all) can MAKE new ones for ownership by the general public in the US - but that isn't what you asked about. Because nobody can make new ones (this has been the case since 1986), the existing ones are getting more and more expensive - in fact, the $200 tax stamp is chump change compared to the cost of the gun itself - it's not uncommon to see cheap nasty full auto guns (that are in the $500 or less range w/o the full auto serial number) go for $5,000 or more.
Your state may limit things above and beyond this - but since you mentioned Second Amendment, I'm limiting my comment to the Federal situation.
Was it actually sold (I mean, as a catalog item from Marshall or any other amp manuf prior to the movie)? I had that pegged for a prop-shop-chop-n-drop when I saw it originally.
Depending on if you mean the recently expired AWB (1994-2004 'progun POV', 'antigun POV' )or the dictionary/legal definition of the crime assault (as in assault and battery) or the military term 'assault rifle', your comment of "It's hard to imagine what non-nefarious uses assault weapons have." displays a lack of understanding of the weapon you have decided to slander. I say slander in that you've implied there is no imaginable legitemite use for the weapon.
From the legal POV, any weapon at all (including a Mac PowerBook or even bare hands) can be used to threaten someone. I think it's fair to say that 'a reasonable person' can imagine uses for a PowerBook or bare hands other than the crime of assault. There is also, on the linked page, the idea that certain weapons, can be used to commit the crime of assault even if the victim isn't aware they have been targetted. I'd hazard a guess that the same 'reasonable person' would include bow & arrow under the same type of logic - namely, any reasonably accurate ranged weapon can be used to commit assault. Are you really implying that there is no imaginable use of a bow & arrow which is non-nefarious?
In the context of the military definition of 'assault rifle', there are plenty of imaginable uses for a rifle that is chambered for an intermediate caliber round (intermediate, if you didn't follow the link means a round in between a typical pistol round and a typical long rifle [generally speaking a long rifle is the longest/heaviest/most powerfull type of rifle that is practical for a single soldier to use] round) beyond human combat at intermediate ranges. This list may include marginally nefarious uses as well as marginally silly uses, but should also include uses which really are innocent. Just a few off the top of my head: "target shooting", "hunting", "rodent control", "propping open a window", "collecting", "investment", "historical re-enactment", "sunflower support", "mixing concrete", "opening a jar of peach preserves".
In the context of the AWB, which is what I guess you really mean in the context of your message, the same list of imagined non-nefarious uses applies as was given for the military term. In order to truely understand what you seem to be calling for (renewal of the AWB), you should understand first that it was about having more than one of a narrowly defined list of features, and second that it only applied to the sale of weapons made during the time it was in place. On the progun side of the debate, it was generally assumed that the intent of the ban was to reduce the sale of 'scary looking' weapons. As an example, a rifle could be sold with either a bayonet mount or a grenade launcher alone, but couldn't be sold with both. I'm having a hard time imagining a nefarious use for both those features which would be foiled by allowing only one.
A "score" in the context of 'how many?' is 20. If you aren't sure what units a score represents, I'm curious as to the thought process that led you to assume it ment 'ten'.
So you are the one that keeps sending me VisualPDP32++ viruses. I just want to know why you had to use such an accurate 132col mode... I can hardly read it.
It renders poorly for me on Firefox/0.10.1. How you do or should view the impact of that reflection on you is a matter I leave as an exercise for the student.
Does anyone know how to find the list of writeins? Especially the obviously joke/fake ones? I honestly think that the number of times people put down Mickey Mouse is a significant statistic that should be published.
Money and threats? Like... blackmail? On troubled-teens? Oh please. For an analogy, do you really think graffiti teens are likely to give two seconds thought to the consequences of doublecrossing someone that is trying to blackmail them? Blackmail works based on the victim being afraid of the consequences of coming forward - in properly structured blackmail it is the consequence applied by 'the good guys' to the victom, not by the blackmailer. Someone with nothing to lose is quite difficult to blackmail. And 'punk', 'troubled-teen', 'script kiddy', those generally seem to me to refer to young persons that feel themselves that they have nothing to lose.
I'd argue the point of 'kids are not stupid'. Some will be bright, some won't. More importantly, even the bright ones won't have a whole heck of a lot of experience in the world. If you are having a hard time with picturing this, perhaps (depending on your awareness of such things) it might be instructive to look at the music industry. Both bright and dim kids get suckered into abusive contracts there constantly. Same kinds of pressures, 'who is going to believe you kid?', but guess what, if you look you can find stories of artists 'spilling the beans'. Mind you only a few of those that decide to walk away from that industry are particularly successful, but that's not the point. And in the end, what the music industry is selling is not 'protection from their own secret product', so if customers know about the abusive contracts it doesn't really change the equation much.
Now, maybe you ment extra-legal threats, but I have to say I find that even less likely as a tactic. The music industry uses lawyers and contracts to abuse the raw talent they consume specifically because that method will hold up in court.
Police brutality also - often unpunished? Sure, but also 'known to happen'. The distinction here is that 'police juristiction' is not really a free-market issue. If I own a mall, and the security staff I hire from service start beating teenagers that are standing around smoking by the dumpsters, I have a choice. I can (and will, as I don't need the negative publicity) cancel the contract and get someone else in. On the other hand, if I decide to stop paying local taxes because I disapprove of the local PD being lax on cracking down on brutality, then I'm the one who will end up with a creek and no paddle. To bring it back to the subject at hand, if a AV, Inc. employee was distributing virus code, and AV, Inc. put him on 'administrative probation' with pay while they investigated it, then moved him to their San Diego office and let it all die - you can bet there would be a significant impact on AV, Inc.'s bottom line.
The question is this: Has anyone ever come out and said 'I got virus code from AV companies to spread around'? I'm not aware of this having happened at all.
If Microsoft can't supress the fact that Windows source code got leaked, I don't see how AV, Inc. can supress ongoing (even if infrequent) leaks.
Your conceptual 'network of decreasing knowledge' is even less likely to hold a secret - it is spreading the 'secret info' (not the code, but the fact of the code being pushed out, and the structure of the shadowy network of people) over more and more people - increasing the chances of a leak, not reducing them. Reducing the culpability, yes, but not the chance of a whistleblower.
As I see it, if the AV companies actually want to feed the virus population with new strains, the ideal situation is one in which all individuals that 'know' feel equally that they will be held accountable in a court of law, and have something significant at risk. So, lets say one highly skilled programmer internal to the AV company and one high level management (CEO, whatever) - the manager provides the 'authority' to go ahead and do it, and the programmer does the work and spreads 'the stuff'. No kid involved that has no real incentive to actually be careful. The fewer involved, the bettter.
Does that mean I don't think it is happening? I don't know - I just really think the idea of AV companies 'seeding' the script kiddy's has no evidence.
While I don't think anyone can deny that there is a certain degree of incentive for AV companies to see more and worse virixes (see how I avoid the common pitfall of the capitolist pigdog swine? Pheer my leet wordage! Word to your maternal unit), I have a little problem with this idea: how exactly do you think the AV Cabal has managed to convince these miscreant troubled-teens to blab away from time to time about their exploits but not one of them has come forward and said "Oh, by the way dude, like, the MAN is just doing you all like Barney on crack, man, cause, like, I stole this code from the super secret MiB headquarters in Virgina dude!"
Slashdot Mirror
Unless the design of the robot requires that doing her job (adjusting processes) can only be done in the danger zone with the robots powered up - in which case it seems likely the robot manufacturers do have a portion of liability. In theory this is what a lawsuit will determine.
It isn't always possible, however.
Note this portion of the description from the summary:
routinely inspected and adjusted processes
- there are many times when the design of the machine is such that adjusting and calibrating requires the machine to be energized; and sometimes safety interlocks must be disabled (generally with vendor provided tools) in order to make those adjustments.
An injury or death (sadly more specifically the high dollar value lawsuit following it) may provide sufficient incentive for the vendor to redesign the machine to allow for routine adjustments in a safer manner.
Even though plenty of people will dismiss this as a matter of a careless worker (which it might or might not be true in the specific instance), the fact is that some jobs are dangerous but necessary. Personally, I won't take a dangerous job; but I know that a modern lifestyle requires that someone does dangerous jobs. Workers, managements and equipment vendors all must work together to minimize the number of injuries and deaths involved with doing dangerous work. Ideally robotics are able to reduce the number of workers exposed to 'dangerous but necessary' conditions; but until we have robots that are able to fully adjust and repair other robots people will be involved in this kind of work.
Why is that hypocritical?
Is it impossible for anyone to see a situation that they believe causes problems (for example - too many humans consuming resources on the planet) and promote both a reduction in the current size of the problem (reducing the number of humans living - aka promoting killing people) and in the future size of the problem (reducing the number of humans born - aka discouraging sex)?
I'm not saying this is my approach, I'm just not sure it's as hypocritical as you seem to think it is.
I suspect (but don't and can't know) that your perception of "since the 80's" is more about the timeline of your own awareness of reporting than it is about any broad change in what is being written.
Journalistic Objectivity was created in the early 1800s so that the Associated Press could sell the same product (news) to all their customers (newspapers) because they didn't feel it was economically viable to produce a product that was individualized for each customer.
That origin doesn't mean that there is no value to 'just the facts' news from the point of view of the consumer of news - but do understand that what you 'always thought' is a standard that is impossible to actually reach for a practical news stream.
If you wish to argue that 'American' (USian?) is a distinct language from English (even though speakers of 'American' when asked what language they speak will say 'English' - the simple solution to this of course is to say that the American word for American is 'English' and that American's don't know the word for what the rest of the world refers to as English), then who are you to say that the American idiom 'I could care less' is not the correct translation of the English phrase 'I couldn't care less'? Note the distinction between idiom and phrase.
I am willing to bet that most (not all) people that complain that "people today don't know how to fix a faucet" haven't spent hours under a sink, trying to wrestle the stupid plastic (why plastic, since that means it will deform under the least misalignment) nut that's corroded (yeah, neither the plastic nor the brass significantly corroded in the years it's been there, but gunk has migrated into those threads) into place up inside a space you can barely see, using a crappy-ass specialty tool which keeps pinching your fingers better than said corroded slippery worn plastic nut. Have I mentioned the under-sink cabinet space is not nearly big enough to fit your body comfortably into? Have I mentioned that the edge of the cabinet is digging into your kidney or rib the whole time? And did i forget the drip drip of water and sweat and grime making the whole thing even more of a pain in the ass? Oh, and the space you have to work with? Take a look at your kitchen sink. Eyeball the distance between the back of the sink-well and the wall behind it. Notice how deep the sink-well is. Guess what, there is no magic cavern inside - you have to get your hand, tool, light and vision up inside that space to reach the nut. The task itself is simple - "unscrew these two plastic nuts". If it was on my workbench, it would be a 5 second task. Where it is, it's a multiple hour struggle with horribly awkward angles and mystery filth dripping in your eyes.
For those that think I must be incompetent, I'll have you know it took a matter of minutes to put the NEW faucet & nuts in place once I had the old one out and it works like a charm.
It's no wonder people hire someone else. It isn't because we don't know HOW to turn a wrench. It's because getting the job done is a pain in the ass and it is worth the cost to avoid it. If I did the task all the time, I'd work out the little tricks to make it go smoother, and I'd just learn to get used to the filth of it. In the end, I respect the plumbers that do the work, and I say "better them than me".
You have this backwards, it's much easier to discard waste heat in a car than it is in space. Consider - you have a multi-year mission, surrounded by an insulator that does not allow convective or conductive cooling. In fact, the only practical cooling methods are A.) heating part of your mass and shedding it, and B.) radiating it (as signal or as noise) at some EM frequency.
Not at all... it is the collapse of ignorance that either did or did not kill the cat!
I recently went through a round of attempting to use OpenSolaris on my work laptop (damn I want that ZFS juju)... and there were a couple of things that drove me back to Debian - one of them was the horrible performance of Firefox under OpenSolaris. Under VirtualBox on OpenSolaris host, Firefox was faster on either a Debian or a WinXP guest than it was on the host... the difference between usable and not. The specific application that really showed this was Zimbra (pretty heavily AJAXy). In trying to track this issue down, the general feedback on OpenSolaris forums was "Firefox on OpenSolaris kinda sucks, sorry". My personal experience with Firefox is that under Linux or Windows it's subjectively close enough not to worry about (on a variety of hardware, not just the laptop that I tested OpenSolaris on).
Assuming you aren't a felon, you CAN purchase them. Full auto. Machine guns. The real deal. All it will cost you is a $200 tax stamp and (usually) a background check (which entails a delay of variable length). Well, and the cost of the gun itself.
Mind you, nobody (at all) can MAKE new ones for ownership by the general public in the US - but that isn't what you asked about. Because nobody can make new ones (this has been the case since 1986), the existing ones are getting more and more expensive - in fact, the $200 tax stamp is chump change compared to the cost of the gun itself - it's not uncommon to see cheap nasty full auto guns (that are in the $500 or less range w/o the full auto serial number) go for $5,000 or more.
Your state may limit things above and beyond this - but since you mentioned Second Amendment, I'm limiting my comment to the Federal situation.
You work in a secure area that allows you to drive your car inside as long as the car is entirely battery powered? Wow... cool!
Was it actually sold (I mean, as a catalog item from Marshall or any other amp manuf prior to the movie)? I had that pegged for a prop-shop-chop-n-drop when I saw it originally.
You do know that there are planes made that are able to fly at significantly less than 700 mph, right?
From the legal POV, any weapon at all (including a Mac PowerBook or even bare hands) can be used to threaten someone. I think it's fair to say that 'a reasonable person' can imagine uses for a PowerBook or bare hands other than the crime of assault. There is also, on the linked page, the idea that certain weapons, can be used to commit the crime of assault even if the victim isn't aware they have been targetted. I'd hazard a guess that the same 'reasonable person' would include bow & arrow under the same type of logic - namely, any reasonably accurate ranged weapon can be used to commit assault. Are you really implying that there is no imaginable use of a bow & arrow which is non-nefarious?
In the context of the military definition of 'assault rifle', there are plenty of imaginable uses for a rifle that is chambered for an intermediate caliber round (intermediate, if you didn't follow the link means a round in between a typical pistol round and a typical long rifle [generally speaking a long rifle is the longest/heaviest/most powerfull type of rifle that is practical for a single soldier to use] round) beyond human combat at intermediate ranges. This list may include marginally nefarious uses as well as marginally silly uses, but should also include uses which really are innocent. Just a few off the top of my head: "target shooting", "hunting", "rodent control", "propping open a window", "collecting", "investment", "historical re-enactment", "sunflower support", "mixing concrete", "opening a jar of peach preserves".
In the context of the AWB, which is what I guess you really mean in the context of your message, the same list of imagined non-nefarious uses applies as was given for the military term. In order to truely understand what you seem to be calling for (renewal of the AWB), you should understand first that it was about having more than one of a narrowly defined list of features, and second that it only applied to the sale of weapons made during the time it was in place. On the progun side of the debate, it was generally assumed that the intent of the ban was to reduce the sale of 'scary looking' weapons. As an example, a rifle could be sold with either a bayonet mount or a grenade launcher alone, but couldn't be sold with both. I'm having a hard time imagining a nefarious use for both those features which would be foiled by allowing only one.
Shockingly enough, when I signed up, I thought I had really missed the boat on this few nangled slashdot thing.
You really mean 'the Tux, the', surely.
I'm pretty sure Aliens aired, once or twice.
A "score" in the context of 'how many?' is 20. If you aren't sure what units a score represents, I'm curious as to the thought process that led you to assume it ment 'ten'.
But Ren, why can't Mr. Horse do that?
So you are the one that keeps sending me VisualPDP32++ viruses. I just want to know why you had to use such an accurate 132col mode... I can hardly read it.
It renders poorly for me on Firefox/0.10.1. How you do or should view the impact of that reflection on you is a matter I leave as an exercise for the student.
Does anyone know how to find the list of writeins? Especially the obviously joke/fake ones? I honestly think that the number of times people put down Mickey Mouse is a significant statistic that should be published.
Money and threats? Like... blackmail? On troubled-teens? Oh please. For an analogy, do you really think graffiti teens are likely to give two seconds thought to the consequences of doublecrossing someone that is trying to blackmail them? Blackmail works based on the victim being afraid of the consequences of coming forward - in properly structured blackmail it is the consequence applied by 'the good guys' to the victom, not by the blackmailer. Someone with nothing to lose is quite difficult to blackmail. And 'punk', 'troubled-teen', 'script kiddy', those generally seem to me to refer to young persons that feel themselves that they have nothing to lose.
I'd argue the point of 'kids are not stupid'. Some will be bright, some won't. More importantly, even the bright ones won't have a whole heck of a lot of experience in the world. If you are having a hard time with picturing this, perhaps (depending on your awareness of such things) it might be instructive to look at the music industry. Both bright and dim kids get suckered into abusive contracts there constantly. Same kinds of pressures, 'who is going to believe you kid?', but guess what, if you look you can find stories of artists 'spilling the beans'. Mind you only a few of those that decide to walk away from that industry are particularly successful, but that's not the point. And in the end, what the music industry is selling is not 'protection from their own secret product', so if customers know about the abusive contracts it doesn't really change the equation much.
Now, maybe you ment extra-legal threats, but I have to say I find that even less likely as a tactic. The music industry uses lawyers and contracts to abuse the raw talent they consume specifically because that method will hold up in court.
Police brutality also - often unpunished? Sure, but also 'known to happen'. The distinction here is that 'police juristiction' is not really a free-market issue. If I own a mall, and the security staff I hire from service start beating teenagers that are standing around smoking by the dumpsters, I have a choice. I can (and will, as I don't need the negative publicity) cancel the contract and get someone else in. On the other hand, if I decide to stop paying local taxes because I disapprove of the local PD being lax on cracking down on brutality, then I'm the one who will end up with a creek and no paddle. To bring it back to the subject at hand, if a AV, Inc. employee was distributing virus code, and AV, Inc. put him on 'administrative probation' with pay while they investigated it, then moved him to their San Diego office and let it all die - you can bet there would be a significant impact on AV, Inc.'s bottom line.
The question is this: Has anyone ever come out and said 'I got virus code from AV companies to spread around'? I'm not aware of this having happened at all.
If Microsoft can't supress the fact that Windows source code got leaked, I don't see how AV, Inc. can supress ongoing (even if infrequent) leaks.
Your conceptual 'network of decreasing knowledge' is even less likely to hold a secret - it is spreading the 'secret info' (not the code, but the fact of the code being pushed out, and the structure of the shadowy network of people) over more and more people - increasing the chances of a leak, not reducing them. Reducing the culpability, yes, but not the chance of a whistleblower.
As I see it, if the AV companies actually want to feed the virus population with new strains, the ideal situation is one in which all individuals that 'know' feel equally that they will be held accountable in a court of law, and have something significant at risk. So, lets say one highly skilled programmer internal to the AV company and one high level management (CEO, whatever) - the manager provides the 'authority' to go ahead and do it, and the programmer does the work and spreads 'the stuff'. No kid involved that has no real incentive to actually be careful. The fewer involved, the bettter.
Does that mean I don't think it is happening? I don't know - I just really think the idea of AV companies 'seeding' the script kiddy's has no evidence.
While I don't think anyone can deny that there is a certain degree of incentive for AV companies to see more and worse virixes (see how I avoid the common pitfall of the capitolist pigdog swine? Pheer my leet wordage! Word to your maternal unit), I have a little problem with this idea: how exactly do you think the AV Cabal has managed to convince these miscreant troubled-teens to blab away from time to time about their exploits but not one of them has come forward and said "Oh, by the way dude, like, the MAN is just doing you all like Barney on crack, man, cause, like, I stole this code from the super secret MiB headquarters in Virgina dude!"
If they are flip flopping, they may not be quite as dead as we previously thought. Hmmm....