Most of them did nothing wrong and are welcome back to their own country or any country with a valid arrangement. Some have been demonised to the extent that their country is willing to ostracise them in order to curry favour with the US and a small minority are genuine criminals that are not welcome home but are not the responsibility of US and should not be in US custody.
Very nice post, except that it doesn't do the one thing I asked for - a citation that says that there are 'plenty' of countries willing to take them in.
As I understand it, while there are countries willing to take 'their own' back, and there's countries that are willing to take limited exceptions, there are a few that, for whatever reason, have either had their own country disclaim them or so muddled the issue of their own citizenship(Afghanistan not being great on records) that they can't prove their own nationality. This proportion has increased as Gitmo drew down on operational scope, because the ones like the UK guy who's passport was stolen was able to go home.
It's only a fraction of the original population, but it's even more specifically the part of the population that's most concerning.
What is the legality of keeping them without trial indefinitely ? The right to a fair trial is one of the inalienable fundamental rights [wikipedia.org], to which the USA is a signatory. If they can't prove it, then the guys must be let go.
I'm going to take a different tack than the rest of your replies, I think.
The problem you have is that while the right to a trial is fundamental for criminal accusations and punishment, it's NOT fundamental for 'enemy combatant' status, which allows us to hold them as POWs for the duration of the conflict. IE as long as Al Qaeda and such are still fighting, we can keep holding them prisoner. The standard of evidence to say that they're associated with said groups is a lot lower than criminal prosecution as well.
Now, were I start having problems with this is that if you're not going to hold a trial for them, convict them of criminal acts, you have to hold them as POWs, indeed, it means that you should hold them as POWs UNTIL you've successfully convicted them of criminal acts.
I live where it's even colder: Alaska, previous North Dakota.
I'll admit, I don't set up CFLs outside. But I have installed them just fine in unheated garages. Even when it's -30F out, the normal response is a slow start up. Lasted for 5 years there, in the garage door opener slots so they would pop on every time I entered or exited the garage.
Unfortunately, recent CFLs seem to have taken a nosedive in quality, I haven't been satisfied with the last 2 packs I bought.
BTW, I write install dates on my bulbs, so I know how long they're lasting.
Okay, I don't think you get what '90th percentile' means. If you measure a set of cars, and you get a speed map like this: 10%: 25 mph, 20%: 35, 30%: 45, 40%: 55
The 90th percentile would be 55 mph, even though that's the same as the 100th percentile. Plus, NTSB standard is to measure during clear weather, basically optimal conditions. If there's construction or an accident that slows traffic down, it's not considered standard and speed readings during that period are thrown out.
If everyone is maxing out at 54.5, the only way to put 10% back in the speeding category is to lower the speed limit.
The 90% standard is because about 10% of drivers on the road today are speeding idiots. If things change that drastically, they'll change the standards. Again: NTSB standard is to take the 90th percentile, which in this case is 54.5, even though that's the max speed driven on the road, then round UP to 55. The situation is stable. Consider that the 90th percentile would have to drop below 50 for the speed limit to drop. Indeed, in addition to this the NTSB has a number of statistical analysis tools that allow them to figure out the 90th percentile without even measuring, figure out what it'd be even before construction starts. You'd have to rewrite those as well to cause your spiral. Not to mention that many roads are measured once a decade, if that, due to the statistical tools.
Of course, part of the problem right now is that many traffic boards set the speed limits below NTSB standards, one minor way is rounding down rather than up.
On an side note, I suspect that by the time we see a less than 1% human controlled vehicle count, human controlled cars on public roads will be all but outlawed.
Of course. I figure the 1%'ers will be special cases - police, fire, and ambulance. The occasional human driver of a classic car, but said driver will have to pass TOUGH tests to stay on the road.
Actually it wouldn't. Right now traffic engineers have very good ideas on what the 'natural speed' of a road is. Still, consider the math: 55mph speed limit. 99.9% of cars are doing 54.5 because they're computer controlled. 90th percentile would be 54.5, rounded up to the nearest 5mph = 55 mph speed limit. It's stable.
Of course, once you have automatic vehicle penetration that great (less than 1% aren't computer controlled), you start setting the limits via autodrive standards, not human ones. Which, given that 'most' people won't worry about speed as much, you'd probably have less stopping, is more likely to be for fuel efficiency than time savings on the highway, and how fast/accurately the car's systems can react to sudden intrusions onto the road in the city.
It's NTSB(National Traffic Safety Board) rules that the speed limit should be set to the 90th percentile - IE if the speed limit is set correctly, 90% of motorists on the road would not be speeding. 90% of average speed would have most motorists speeding. On the other hand, most jurisdictions round down rather than up like the NTSB recommends...
What safety studies have shown is that motorists will tend to select a more or less safe speed even if there are absolutely no speed limit signs, and some indications are that they're even more willing to slow down when conditions cause the posted speed to be unsafe, such as with ice, heavy rain, or blizzard.
I could have gone on a long analysis of who was liable or not. I was simply pointing out that I do not believe that the gun manufacturer should have been held liable, and that is was held so mostly from a sense of sympathy and 'somebody has to pay, find somebody with deep pockets' because there was now a paraplegic child to worry about.
I'll simply state that I believe that both the parents AND the baby sitter are to blame. The parents, as you say, for not locking the gun up. I thought about putting it in, but ended up not doing so. On the other hand, the babysitter, if you boil it down, pointed the gun at the child, took the gun off safety, and pulled the trigger. Gross negligence.
But the babysitter wasn't deep pockets. The parents, well, ended up suing themselves for negligence on behalf of their child, winning/losing a big judgement so their insurance would pay. The kid won, of course. But the insurance was only a few hundred k. That goes quick with that level of medical.
Sadly, they didn't discover until after the judgement that the 'deep pocket' gun company wasn't so deep pockets - only a few hundred K before that company was driven bankrupt as well, especially after the court battle. It was a small US Company producing cheap firearms and competing against the big companies, after all. Margins weren't that high, only enough to keep the owner in a middle class lifestyle. There wasn't even much in the way of equity - what wasn't leveraged with debt was burned by the lawyers during the trial.
Yes, but if these subcontractors have data that they are responsible for, they legally cannot just say, well I don't really care, hack away.
Did you read my post completely? Did I EVER suggest doing nothing or not caring?
It is possible that this employee is just not aware they they signed away this right, but this is a hospital with doctors and theoretically with patient data. Which makes it a whole lot different from a regular company that owns outright all data that it holds.
Government work. Multiple networks. I have to worry about privacy act, FOUO, HIPAA, and more. Let me point out that I conduct penetration testing. I do the equivalent of cracking a safe, yes. But I don't take the contents.
As bad as it might sound, in general its considered better for me, who's under a NDA from heck, to test security on shit that, frankly, I don't want to know, than it is to NOT make the attempt and only later find out that the barn door was open and somebody who's actually willing to use or release the information gets hold of it.
The article clearly points out that these are separate companies. Even if these are just security tests it is highly illegal and if they are ever successful even more so (and letting their patient data be compromised opens up the hacked company to legal issues as well).
I work information assurance for the government. To my mind the description screamed 'subcontractors'. IE while not direct employees of the hospital in question, they'd be in serious financial trouble if they lost their association with the hospital. Not necessarily friends, but they DO need to keep a good working relationship.
Now, I can't say what the exact details of the connections, agreements, and such are, I do know that in order to hook up to one of MY networks you have to agree to meet all the requirements and be subject to all the tests as a government owned machine needs to meet. If you are unable/unwilling to meet this standard, you're free to not hook anything up to said networks, order your own internet service, etc...
One of my duties is to perform the mentioned scanning/hacking attempts. There are separate teams that attempt to do more detailed hacking, up to and including coming on location and attempting to access unlocked unattended computers and doing social engineering attacks. They usually win, the question is normally how easily they win.
Anyways, many here seem to think that the penetration testing company is going to be doing something more than generate a report. It's theoretically possible they'll do more, but if the hospital has hired a legitimate company, it's unlikely. Thus all the suggestions to 'set up a honeypot' will do nothing more than generate a dirty report with false vulnerabilities and give the hospital in question cause for enough alarm to possibly cut off the doctor's connections to their network.
I'd say his best option is to get involved with the scanning. Ask to sit in on any meetings. A copy of the scan reports. IP addresses that they're coming from so you can filter them out of your logs when looking for real hacking attempts. Find out what they're going to do with said reports, etc...
In addition, lawyers are expensive and can make things complicated, I'd try to avoid involving them unless you hit a barrier you can't work around otherwise, or there's no better option. A smile and a friendly question can get you a lot more for a lot less than a lawyer.
coupled with you yanking the door too hard and triggering the airbag with your child still in the seat.
The car manufacturer would be held liable for the air bag going off because they're only supposed to go off in an actual serious accident, not 'yanking the door too hard'. Bringing it back to the gun, that would be if the gun went off when you dropped it. I know the weapon involved was a cheap one, but my weapons, even the 1911, are drop tested. You're theoretically able to take a loaded one, chuck it across a room as hard as you can, and it will not fire.
It would have remained safe if he'd left the safety on. It would have remained safe if he hadn't pulled the trigger after deactivating the safety It wouldn't have hurt anybody(other than ears) if he hadn't pointed it at a person when he pulled the trigger. It would have remained safe if he'd respected it as a loaded weapon and returned it to the top of the bookshelf where he found it, rather than moronically attempting to 'render more safe' a weapon he didn't understand.
1. A gun is always loaded 2. Never point a gun at something you aren't willing to destroy 3. keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire 4. Be aware of your target, and what's behind it.
Follow any two of the rules and you'll never shoot somebody accidentally.
Oh, and I've been double checking - the only weapons I'm seeing that you can unload while the safety is on are blowback type weapons where the barrel and slide aren't tightly connected and you can hit a trip to raise only the barrel. This design is generally too weak for 9mm and up. With 9mm and up, you switch to the locked breech recoil operation method, where slide locking safeties are more prevalent.
The only exception I've found is the Beretta 92F/M9. Of course, my military training in that weapon always had me turn off the safety before inserting it into my holster...
Safety levers that lock the slide are preferred for a variety of reasons. It's considered a minor tradeoff that you can't unload the weapon without disengaging it in exchange for ensuring that the slide can't leave battery during whatever you're doing with it when the safety is on.
With a gun that has a manual safety, you're probably going to have said safety on when carrying it and not paying as much attention to it. When you're loading or unloading the weapon, you should be paying attention. That doesn't mean that my 4 handguns that are of newer design than the 1911 don't have more safeties in them. My CZ75BD doesn't HAVE a manual safety lever, but the testing of it was rather extreme - they did things like load a dummy round into the chamber and then put it a vice and hit the hammer with a sledge. Fired blank = fail. It didn't fail. It has a number of internal safeties to ensure that it only goes off when the trigger is pulled. Even my revolver has a really small firing pin and a block on said pin until the trigger is pulled.
I view your argument kind of like how congress mandated airbags that were powerful enough to kill people by requiring them to be powerful enough to help unbuckled adult males. That was eventually fixed, but it did get a number of people killed.
With firearms, I'll have to ask: Would you consider my CZ75BD or the Glock line 'defective' because it lacks a safety entirely? The babysitter would have found it ever so easier to shoot his charge that way.
I ask because there are many out there, including quite a few police officers, that consider a gun defective if it FAILS to fire when the trigger is pulled when a round is in the chamber.
Wasn't trying to imply that they aren't, it's part of why I specified a 'manual safety lever' instead of merely 'a safety'. HOWEVER, do you think that a lawyer with a nice sympathy case, say a paralyzed child, might not be able to convince a jury that the Glock is 'defective by design' because it lacked a manual safety? After all, that's what dgatwood is essentially arguing about safeties that lock the slide, which is generally considered the safer way to do it.
Still, let's say the family of the victim had purchased a Glock instead of a Bryce or whatever.380 they had. Would the glock safety systems have prevented the gun from shooting when handled by somebody so ignorant that they'd point the gun at their charge while handling it in the manner that happened?
Though review of their safeaction says that you're wrong on the firing pin - it HAS to be back in order for the firing pin safety to be in position.
Don't get me wrong, I realize that an awful lot of handguns use a design that works the way you describe, but that doesn't make the design any less brain damaged. A safety should prevent the hammer from striking the bullet. Any other behavior is suboptimal.
How do you prevent the striker from hitting the bullet? You engage a block in the slide. In order to be sure that said block remains engaged, you have to make sure the slide doesn't move, it's a mechanical connection, after all.
As a result, about 90% of handguns sold that have a safety, it works in that fashion.
Follow some basic rules and it wouldn't be an issue- Don't handle firearms you aren't familiar with(and you don't have somebody there explaining it to you) Don't point the gun at something you're not willing to kill/destroy Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire. Treat all guns as though they are loaded.
The NRA is willing to do anything the gun manufacturers want, that is who they really represent.
As a lifetime NRA member, I disagree with you.
"Violence Policy Center" is a part of the Brady line of anti-gun organizations, you have to take anything it mentions with a hefty dose of salt.
For example, your "evidence" involves product liability. I'm actually familiar with this topic. Firearms are different than most consumer products in that, during legal and intended non-defective use, somebody can be killed. Due to this, it can be difficult to create a gun that can't be negligently used to kill somebody. Most guns have fewer than 7 controls*, so they're already very simple.
The legislation in question doesn't actually indemnify the gun manufacturers if the gun explodes in my hands, for example. What it essentially does is say that if I am SHOT by a gun functioning as designed, that I can't sue the gun companies. There were a number of lawsuits of that nature that bankrupted several gun manufacturers up to that point that spurred the legislation.
To make a analogy using cars - it would be if people were suing GM and Ford for drunk drivers hitting pedestrians and murderers deliberately running over their victims.
In at least one case the jury ruled a gun defective because you could not remove a round from the chamber while the safety was on. This is a common feature because one of the ways to make the gun safer while the safety is on is to lock the slide. It makes the safety stronger, more effective. Of course, you can't move a locked slide to remove a round from the chamber, so it's a bit of a trade off. The popular 1911, some of which cost several thousand dollars, features this kind of safety, as does most other high quality semiautomatics. Glocks, the most popular police handgun, don't even have a manual safety switch.
How was the injury caused? From testimony the victim's babysitter found the gun on top of a book shelf and decided he needed to unload it. The safety was on. He couldn't move the slide. So, in the process of messing with an unfamiliar weapon, he gripped the trigger along with the rest of the grip, holding it tight, while pointing it at his charge, the ultimate victim, when he eventually took off the safety, still pulling the trigger, at which point the gun fired. Is that the manufacturer's fault?
Why should I, as a gun owner and dare I say, gun enthusiast, object to these cases? Because they were driving gun companies out of business. As somebody who wants to be able to buy more guns in the future, I don't want the companies I'd buy them from forced out of business or even to raise prices in order to stay in business, possibly making me unable to obtain the new firearm of my choice.
I'll note that I view the problem above as partially a problem of training; I think that there should be a general safety class taught in schools, to include a bit of gun safety along with sex ed, driver's ed, electrical, chemical, physical, safe food handling, first aid, etc...
*And some of them are only if you count the lever or button you use to disassemble it as a control. Is the hood release knob in a car considered a control?
Video games don't commit crimes . . . children commit crimes! It's really about high time that we start cracking down on the real problem, children.
Hehehe...
Part of the problem I have is that in some ways we're actually cracking down on criminals too much. We're punishing them so much that we're being counterproductive on reform. Now, catching and prosecuting them in the first place, that can always be improved. The certainty of punishment is more effective than the severity of the punishment past a certain point.
But I mostly agree. One of these days I should write a book, and just reference people to that...;)
1. That the feds are going to spend the resources, which even with the breakthrough is unlikely to be trivial, to crack random suspected drug dealer's communications. 2. That they're going to risk the very knowledge that they have the capability to slip out 3. That they aren't the ones dealing the drugs in the first place 4. That they're going to bother to send in a tip when they're busy with country scale espionage.
Oh, I agree. The best I mentioned it on this thread was here, with "pharmacy grade meth". Older posts include this one
Then there's the whole issue with militarized police forces, ever so harsher imprisonment and confiscation powers, etc...
I don't want to legalize drugs in order to be able to use them. I don't smoke or drink as is. It's because I think that prohibition is worse than legalization.
1. Those wanting the extreme performance are buying SSDs today. 2. Power demand - more electricity and thus more cooling. Some countries have passed energy standards such that they can't be sold in pre-made computers, reducing the market. 3. Density - due to the lower density the faster speed requires today, said drives often have sustained reads/writes that are slower than their larger, cheaper 7200RPM cousin. 4. Reliability - they're less reliable due to the higher speeds and heat anymore.
There's just not enough demand to keep supplying them.
That's why I said 'no end to that in sight'. 100 years is still a bit 'out of sight', it's enough time for 2 complete generations of nuclear reactor - if we commissioned a new nuclear plant today, it's replacement would be at end of life when the 100 years is up.
As such, planing for some kind of extremely cheap and efficient energy storage system isn't a good idea. My vote on a no-carbon/carbon neutral/low carbon electric power mix is roughly: 40% nuclear - it's only a bit over double what we have now, essentially replacing coal's spot with nuclear. Personally, I like the idea of thorium reactors small and safe enough us for co/tri-generation systems, providing industrial heat/cooling as well as electricity. 20% solar - mentioned above, it's the amount of energy used above baseload during the day 20% wind - it's within reach of standby and power saving systems during a calm. IE alternative generators and doing things like shut water heaters and aluminum smelters down to keep power available for critical stuff. 20% other - about 15% hydro, which we've pretty much maxed already, with the rest coming from biomass, geothermal, tidal, and other minor energy sources.
Consider either of the twin towers up against the deaths from Fukushima. Heck, look at the difference between plane strikes on non-reinforced buildings(twin towers) and a semi-reinforced building like the pentagon.
A nuclear reactor is an even smaller target than the pentagon, the fuel pool is far harder than even that, while the reactor's containment building is far more reinforced than the Pentagon.
Remember that Fukushima happened in the midst of a earthquake and tsunami. Emergency services were strained and broken from that. If it had just been the reactor, it would have been easy to get supplimental cooling there.
Doesn't mean that I don't want to replace the current reactors with newer, safer ones. Fukushima opened in 1971, making it older than TMI(1974).
Basically, I'd LOVE to see the terrorists attempt to target a nuclear reactor. Odds are they'll do less damage that way than attacking pretty much any city center.
Your what-if scenero is really full of crap because for nuclear to kill people faster then our breeding rate we'd have to pretty much attempt to poison everybody on earth with it on purpose.
Not to mention that I've always figured that even if we had been successful with Yucca mountain, within 200 years our descendents would be cursing us as they work, fully knowing the dangers, to dig up the useful fuel we buried.
Don't forget the increased capital cost for your solar thermal plant because you need to: 1. Build and fill a large enough salt facility to hold the necessary amount of hot salt to provide continuous power. You're looking at a minimum 12 hours supply, 16 would be more likely, with 36 being a definite option so they can last through a cloudy day. 2. Build approximately 3X as many reflectors in order to provide the heat production to keep the salt at operating temperature while running the turbines 24 hours a day at a steady rate. 3. Buy/lease even more land to put your reflectors on.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of them did nothing wrong and are welcome back to their own country or any country with a valid arrangement. Some have been demonised to the extent that their country is willing to ostracise them in order to curry favour with the US and a small minority are genuine criminals that are not welcome home but are not the responsibility of US and should not be in US custody.
Very nice post, except that it doesn't do the one thing I asked for - a citation that says that there are 'plenty' of countries willing to take them in.
As I understand it, while there are countries willing to take 'their own' back, and there's countries that are willing to take limited exceptions, there are a few that, for whatever reason, have either had their own country disclaim them or so muddled the issue of their own citizenship(Afghanistan not being great on records) that they can't prove their own nationality. This proportion has increased as Gitmo drew down on operational scope, because the ones like the UK guy who's passport was stolen was able to go home.
It's only a fraction of the original population, but it's even more specifically the part of the population that's most concerning.
What is the legality of keeping them without trial indefinitely ? The right to a fair trial is one of the inalienable fundamental rights [wikipedia.org], to which the USA is a signatory. If they can't prove it, then the guys must be let go.
I'm going to take a different tack than the rest of your replies, I think.
The problem you have is that while the right to a trial is fundamental for criminal accusations and punishment, it's NOT fundamental for 'enemy combatant' status, which allows us to hold them as POWs for the duration of the conflict. IE as long as Al Qaeda and such are still fighting, we can keep holding them prisoner. The standard of evidence to say that they're associated with said groups is a lot lower than criminal prosecution as well.
Now, were I start having problems with this is that if you're not going to hold a trial for them, convict them of criminal acts, you have to hold them as POWs, indeed, it means that you should hold them as POWs UNTIL you've successfully convicted them of criminal acts.
There are plenty? Citation please?
I remember reading that finding countries willing to take them in was indeed a problem.
I live where it's even colder: Alaska, previous North Dakota.
I'll admit, I don't set up CFLs outside. But I have installed them just fine in unheated garages. Even when it's -30F out, the normal response is a slow start up. Lasted for 5 years there, in the garage door opener slots so they would pop on every time I entered or exited the garage.
Unfortunately, recent CFLs seem to have taken a nosedive in quality, I haven't been satisfied with the last 2 packs I bought.
BTW, I write install dates on my bulbs, so I know how long they're lasting.
Okay, I don't think you get what '90th percentile' means. If you measure a set of cars, and you get a speed map like this:
10%: 25 mph, 20%: 35, 30%: 45, 40%: 55
The 90th percentile would be 55 mph, even though that's the same as the 100th percentile. Plus, NTSB standard is to measure during clear weather, basically optimal conditions. If there's construction or an accident that slows traffic down, it's not considered standard and speed readings during that period are thrown out.
If everyone is maxing out at 54.5, the only way to put 10% back in the speeding category is to lower the speed limit.
The 90% standard is because about 10% of drivers on the road today are speeding idiots. If things change that drastically, they'll change the standards. Again: NTSB standard is to take the 90th percentile, which in this case is 54.5, even though that's the max speed driven on the road, then round UP to 55. The situation is stable. Consider that the 90th percentile would have to drop below 50 for the speed limit to drop. Indeed, in addition to this the NTSB has a number of statistical analysis tools that allow them to figure out the 90th percentile without even measuring, figure out what it'd be even before construction starts. You'd have to rewrite those as well to cause your spiral. Not to mention that many roads are measured once a decade, if that, due to the statistical tools.
Of course, part of the problem right now is that many traffic boards set the speed limits below NTSB standards, one minor way is rounding down rather than up.
On an side note, I suspect that by the time we see a less than 1% human controlled vehicle count, human controlled cars on public roads will be all but outlawed.
Of course. I figure the 1%'ers will be special cases - police, fire, and ambulance. The occasional human driver of a classic car, but said driver will have to pass TOUGH tests to stay on the road.
Actually it wouldn't. Right now traffic engineers have very good ideas on what the 'natural speed' of a road is. Still, consider the math: 55mph speed limit. 99.9% of cars are doing 54.5 because they're computer controlled. 90th percentile would be 54.5, rounded up to the nearest 5mph = 55 mph speed limit. It's stable.
Of course, once you have automatic vehicle penetration that great (less than 1% aren't computer controlled), you start setting the limits via autodrive standards, not human ones. Which, given that 'most' people won't worry about speed as much, you'd probably have less stopping, is more likely to be for fuel efficiency than time savings on the highway, and how fast/accurately the car's systems can react to sudden intrusions onto the road in the city.
It's NTSB(National Traffic Safety Board) rules that the speed limit should be set to the 90th percentile - IE if the speed limit is set correctly, 90% of motorists on the road would not be speeding. 90% of average speed would have most motorists speeding. On the other hand, most jurisdictions round down rather than up like the NTSB recommends...
What safety studies have shown is that motorists will tend to select a more or less safe speed even if there are absolutely no speed limit signs, and some indications are that they're even more willing to slow down when conditions cause the posted speed to be unsafe, such as with ice, heavy rain, or blizzard.
I could have gone on a long analysis of who was liable or not. I was simply pointing out that I do not believe that the gun manufacturer should have been held liable, and that is was held so mostly from a sense of sympathy and 'somebody has to pay, find somebody with deep pockets' because there was now a paraplegic child to worry about.
I'll simply state that I believe that both the parents AND the baby sitter are to blame. The parents, as you say, for not locking the gun up. I thought about putting it in, but ended up not doing so. On the other hand, the babysitter, if you boil it down, pointed the gun at the child, took the gun off safety, and pulled the trigger. Gross negligence.
But the babysitter wasn't deep pockets. The parents, well, ended up suing themselves for negligence on behalf of their child, winning/losing a big judgement so their insurance would pay. The kid won, of course. But the insurance was only a few hundred k. That goes quick with that level of medical.
Sadly, they didn't discover until after the judgement that the 'deep pocket' gun company wasn't so deep pockets - only a few hundred K before that company was driven bankrupt as well, especially after the court battle. It was a small US Company producing cheap firearms and competing against the big companies, after all. Margins weren't that high, only enough to keep the owner in a middle class lifestyle. There wasn't even much in the way of equity - what wasn't leveraged with debt was burned by the lawyers during the trial.
Yes, but if these subcontractors have data that they are responsible for, they legally cannot just say, well I don't really care, hack away.
Did you read my post completely? Did I EVER suggest doing nothing or not caring?
It is possible that this employee is just not aware they they signed away this right, but this is a hospital with doctors and theoretically with patient data. Which makes it a whole lot different from a regular company that owns outright all data that it holds.
Government work. Multiple networks. I have to worry about privacy act, FOUO, HIPAA, and more. Let me point out that I conduct penetration testing. I do the equivalent of cracking a safe, yes. But I don't take the contents.
As bad as it might sound, in general its considered better for me, who's under a NDA from heck, to test security on shit that, frankly, I don't want to know, than it is to NOT make the attempt and only later find out that the barn door was open and somebody who's actually willing to use or release the information gets hold of it.
The article clearly points out that these are separate companies. Even if these are just security tests it is highly illegal and if they are ever successful even more so (and letting their patient data be compromised opens up the hacked company to legal issues as well).
I work information assurance for the government. To my mind the description screamed 'subcontractors'. IE while not direct employees of the hospital in question, they'd be in serious financial trouble if they lost their association with the hospital. Not necessarily friends, but they DO need to keep a good working relationship.
Now, I can't say what the exact details of the connections, agreements, and such are, I do know that in order to hook up to one of MY networks you have to agree to meet all the requirements and be subject to all the tests as a government owned machine needs to meet. If you are unable/unwilling to meet this standard, you're free to not hook anything up to said networks, order your own internet service, etc...
One of my duties is to perform the mentioned scanning/hacking attempts. There are separate teams that attempt to do more detailed hacking, up to and including coming on location and attempting to access unlocked unattended computers and doing social engineering attacks. They usually win, the question is normally how easily they win.
Anyways, many here seem to think that the penetration testing company is going to be doing something more than generate a report. It's theoretically possible they'll do more, but if the hospital has hired a legitimate company, it's unlikely. Thus all the suggestions to 'set up a honeypot' will do nothing more than generate a dirty report with false vulnerabilities and give the hospital in question cause for enough alarm to possibly cut off the doctor's connections to their network.
I'd say his best option is to get involved with the scanning. Ask to sit in on any meetings. A copy of the scan reports. IP addresses that they're coming from so you can filter them out of your logs when looking for real hacking attempts. Find out what they're going to do with said reports, etc...
In addition, lawyers are expensive and can make things complicated, I'd try to avoid involving them unless you hit a barrier you can't work around otherwise, or there's no better option. A smile and a friendly question can get you a lot more for a lot less than a lawyer.
coupled with you yanking the door too hard and triggering the airbag with your child still in the seat.
The car manufacturer would be held liable for the air bag going off because they're only supposed to go off in an actual serious accident, not 'yanking the door too hard'. Bringing it back to the gun, that would be if the gun went off when you dropped it. I know the weapon involved was a cheap one, but my weapons, even the 1911, are drop tested. You're theoretically able to take a loaded one, chuck it across a room as hard as you can, and it will not fire.
It would have remained safe if he'd left the safety on.
It would have remained safe if he hadn't pulled the trigger after deactivating the safety
It wouldn't have hurt anybody(other than ears) if he hadn't pointed it at a person when he pulled the trigger.
It would have remained safe if he'd respected it as a loaded weapon and returned it to the top of the bookshelf where he found it, rather than moronically attempting to 'render more safe' a weapon he didn't understand.
1. A gun is always loaded
2. Never point a gun at something you aren't willing to destroy
3. keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire
4. Be aware of your target, and what's behind it.
Follow any two of the rules and you'll never shoot somebody accidentally.
Oh, and I've been double checking - the only weapons I'm seeing that you can unload while the safety is on are blowback type weapons where the barrel and slide aren't tightly connected and you can hit a trip to raise only the barrel. This design is generally too weak for 9mm and up. With 9mm and up, you switch to the locked breech recoil operation method, where slide locking safeties are more prevalent.
The only exception I've found is the Beretta 92F/M9. Of course, my military training in that weapon always had me turn off the safety before inserting it into my holster...
Safety levers that lock the slide are preferred for a variety of reasons. It's considered a minor tradeoff that you can't unload the weapon without disengaging it in exchange for ensuring that the slide can't leave battery during whatever you're doing with it when the safety is on.
With a gun that has a manual safety, you're probably going to have said safety on when carrying it and not paying as much attention to it. When you're loading or unloading the weapon, you should be paying attention. That doesn't mean that my 4 handguns that are of newer design than the 1911 don't have more safeties in them. My CZ75BD doesn't HAVE a manual safety lever, but the testing of it was rather extreme - they did things like load a dummy round into the chamber and then put it a vice and hit the hammer with a sledge. Fired blank = fail. It didn't fail. It has a number of internal safeties to ensure that it only goes off when the trigger is pulled. Even my revolver has a really small firing pin and a block on said pin until the trigger is pulled.
I view your argument kind of like how congress mandated airbags that were powerful enough to kill people by requiring them to be powerful enough to help unbuckled adult males. That was eventually fixed, but it did get a number of people killed.
With firearms, I'll have to ask:
Would you consider my CZ75BD or the Glock line 'defective' because it lacks a safety entirely? The babysitter would have found it ever so easier to shoot his charge that way.
I ask because there are many out there, including quite a few police officers, that consider a gun defective if it FAILS to fire when the trigger is pulled when a round is in the chamber.
Glocks don't need a manual safety,
Wasn't trying to imply that they aren't, it's part of why I specified a 'manual safety lever' instead of merely 'a safety'. HOWEVER, do you think that a lawyer with a nice sympathy case, say a paralyzed child, might not be able to convince a jury that the Glock is 'defective by design' because it lacked a manual safety? After all, that's what dgatwood is essentially arguing about safeties that lock the slide, which is generally considered the safer way to do it.
Still, let's say the family of the victim had purchased a Glock instead of a Bryce or whatever .380 they had. Would the glock safety systems have prevented the gun from shooting when handled by somebody so ignorant that they'd point the gun at their charge while handling it in the manner that happened?
Though review of their safe action says that you're wrong on the firing pin - it HAS to be back in order for the firing pin safety to be in position.
Don't get me wrong, I realize that an awful lot of handguns use a design that works the way you describe, but that doesn't make the design any less brain damaged. A safety should prevent the hammer from striking the bullet. Any other behavior is suboptimal.
How do you prevent the striker from hitting the bullet? You engage a block in the slide. In order to be sure that said block remains engaged, you have to make sure the slide doesn't move, it's a mechanical connection, after all.
As a result, about 90% of handguns sold that have a safety, it works in that fashion.
Follow some basic rules and it wouldn't be an issue-
Don't handle firearms you aren't familiar with(and you don't have somebody there explaining it to you)
Don't point the gun at something you're not willing to kill/destroy
Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire.
Treat all guns as though they are loaded.
The NRA is willing to do anything the gun manufacturers want, that is who they really represent.
As a lifetime NRA member, I disagree with you.
"Violence Policy Center" is a part of the Brady line of anti-gun organizations, you have to take anything it mentions with a hefty dose of salt.
For example, your "evidence" involves product liability. I'm actually familiar with this topic. Firearms are different than most consumer products in that, during legal and intended non-defective use, somebody can be killed. Due to this, it can be difficult to create a gun that can't be negligently used to kill somebody. Most guns have fewer than 7 controls*, so they're already very simple.
The legislation in question doesn't actually indemnify the gun manufacturers if the gun explodes in my hands, for example. What it essentially does is say that if I am SHOT by a gun functioning as designed, that I can't sue the gun companies. There were a number of lawsuits of that nature that bankrupted several gun manufacturers up to that point that spurred the legislation.
To make a analogy using cars - it would be if people were suing GM and Ford for drunk drivers hitting pedestrians and murderers deliberately running over their victims.
In at least one case the jury ruled a gun defective because you could not remove a round from the chamber while the safety was on. This is a common feature because one of the ways to make the gun safer while the safety is on is to lock the slide. It makes the safety stronger, more effective. Of course, you can't move a locked slide to remove a round from the chamber, so it's a bit of a trade off. The popular 1911, some of which cost several thousand dollars, features this kind of safety, as does most other high quality semiautomatics. Glocks, the most popular police handgun, don't even have a manual safety switch.
How was the injury caused? From testimony the victim's babysitter found the gun on top of a book shelf and decided he needed to unload it. The safety was on. He couldn't move the slide. So, in the process of messing with an unfamiliar weapon, he gripped the trigger along with the rest of the grip, holding it tight, while pointing it at his charge, the ultimate victim, when he eventually took off the safety, still pulling the trigger, at which point the gun fired. Is that the manufacturer's fault?
Why should I, as a gun owner and dare I say, gun enthusiast, object to these cases? Because they were driving gun companies out of business. As somebody who wants to be able to buy more guns in the future, I don't want the companies I'd buy them from forced out of business or even to raise prices in order to stay in business, possibly making me unable to obtain the new firearm of my choice.
I'll note that I view the problem above as partially a problem of training; I think that there should be a general safety class taught in schools, to include a bit of gun safety along with sex ed, driver's ed, electrical, chemical, physical, safe food handling, first aid, etc...
*And some of them are only if you count the lever or button you use to disassemble it as a control. Is the hood release knob in a car considered a control?
Video games don't commit crimes . . . children commit crimes! It's really about high time that we start cracking down on the real problem, children.
Hehehe...
Part of the problem I have is that in some ways we're actually cracking down on criminals too much. We're punishing them so much that we're being counterproductive on reform. Now, catching and prosecuting them in the first place, that can always be improved. The certainty of punishment is more effective than the severity of the punishment past a certain point.
But I mostly agree. One of these days I should write a book, and just reference people to that... ;)
What's really newsworthy about this? The NRA and Feinstein agreeing on something...
I'm checking the temperature in Hell right now, expecting record lows... /NRA member, wrote to complain to them after their little news release.
1. That the feds are going to spend the resources, which even with the breakthrough is unlikely to be trivial, to crack random suspected drug dealer's communications.
2. That they're going to risk the very knowledge that they have the capability to slip out
3. That they aren't the ones dealing the drugs in the first place
4. That they're going to bother to send in a tip when they're busy with country scale espionage.
Oh, I agree. The best I mentioned it on this thread was here, with "pharmacy grade meth". Older posts include this one
Then there's the whole issue with militarized police forces, ever so harsher imprisonment and confiscation powers, etc...
I don't want to legalize drugs in order to be able to use them. I don't smoke or drink as is. It's because I think that prohibition is worse than legalization.
1. Those wanting the extreme performance are buying SSDs today.
2. Power demand - more electricity and thus more cooling. Some countries have passed energy standards such that they can't be sold in pre-made computers, reducing the market.
3. Density - due to the lower density the faster speed requires today, said drives often have sustained reads/writes that are slower than their larger, cheaper 7200RPM cousin.
4. Reliability - they're less reliable due to the higher speeds and heat anymore.
There's just not enough demand to keep supplying them.
That's why I said 'no end to that in sight'. 100 years is still a bit 'out of sight', it's enough time for 2 complete generations of nuclear reactor - if we commissioned a new nuclear plant today, it's replacement would be at end of life when the 100 years is up.
As such, planing for some kind of extremely cheap and efficient energy storage system isn't a good idea. My vote on a no-carbon/carbon neutral/low carbon electric power mix is roughly:
40% nuclear - it's only a bit over double what we have now, essentially replacing coal's spot with nuclear. Personally, I like the idea of thorium reactors small and safe enough us for co/tri-generation systems, providing industrial heat/cooling as well as electricity.
20% solar - mentioned above, it's the amount of energy used above baseload during the day
20% wind - it's within reach of standby and power saving systems during a calm. IE alternative generators and doing things like shut water heaters and aluminum smelters down to keep power available for critical stuff.
20% other - about 15% hydro, which we've pretty much maxed already, with the rest coming from biomass, geothermal, tidal, and other minor energy sources.
Consider either of the twin towers up against the deaths from Fukushima. Heck, look at the difference between plane strikes on non-reinforced buildings(twin towers) and a semi-reinforced building like the pentagon.
A nuclear reactor is an even smaller target than the pentagon, the fuel pool is far harder than even that, while the reactor's containment building is far more reinforced than the Pentagon.
Remember that Fukushima happened in the midst of a earthquake and tsunami. Emergency services were strained and broken from that. If it had just been the reactor, it would have been easy to get supplimental cooling there.
Doesn't mean that I don't want to replace the current reactors with newer, safer ones. Fukushima opened in 1971, making it older than TMI(1974).
Basically, I'd LOVE to see the terrorists attempt to target a nuclear reactor. Odds are they'll do less damage that way than attacking pretty much any city center.
Your what-if scenero is really full of crap because for nuclear to kill people faster then our breeding rate we'd have to pretty much attempt to poison everybody on earth with it on purpose.
Not to mention that I've always figured that even if we had been successful with Yucca mountain, within 200 years our descendents would be cursing us as they work, fully knowing the dangers, to dig up the useful fuel we buried.
Don't forget the increased capital cost for your solar thermal plant because you need to:
1. Build and fill a large enough salt facility to hold the necessary amount of hot salt to provide continuous power. You're looking at a minimum 12 hours supply, 16 would be more likely, with 36 being a definite option so they can last through a cloudy day.
2. Build approximately 3X as many reflectors in order to provide the heat production to keep the salt at operating temperature while running the turbines 24 hours a day at a steady rate.
3. Buy/lease even more land to put your reflectors on.