Maybe if the medical community had explained how someone who responded to stimuli (like people speaking around her) wasn't really conscious, instead of using hand-waving and insulting the skeptics, they wouldn't have turned this into a total fiasco.
When people *want* to see a reaction, they see it.
It turned into a fiasco because politicians wanted to use her for a football. They got blowback because people want to die with dignity, and could easily imagine themselves in that condition.
The only thing the case taught us about ethics is to keep the politicians out.
Out of my field, but IIRC modern crypto systems aren't just substitutions that leave the cyphertext for a character in the same place as the plaintext. Everything gets scrambled all around.
Of course the soul can leave before the body in the case when the brain has no "activity" but the body is kept alive... and in the case where you decide to astral project yourself into the netherspace to fight psychic entities that threaten to destroy the earth by making people perfectly happy running nothing but an ipad.
Like Steve Jobs, reincarnated Warrior-Philosopher?
They have already used, and as of at least yesterday, still use the IRS to target political opponents despite claiming they stopped it.
Actually, assuming you're referring to the current FAUX scandal, no, they didn't. Rep. Issa pressured the IRS inspector general to focus his investigation *only* on audits of Tea Party groups.
Due to all that government transparency, it took months before we found out that the audits were about 1/3 conservative groups, 1/3 liberal groups, and 1/3 unaligned groups. And that a right-wing elected official was behind the misrepresentation.
THERE HAS NEVER been an expectation of privacy on the Internet.... it wasn't designed that way./quote? Yes, just like there' no expectation that the police will kick down your door, take all your stuff, torture you until they get bored, and then put a bullet in your head.
It's *law*, and respect for the law, that give you your civil liberties, not the difficulty of violating them.
They give the same shite on reading your e-mail: it's not hard to spy on, therefore there's no expectation of privacy, therefore it's OK to spy on it.
After enjoying the review of the creationist tactic of combating science by means of a letter signed by mostly non-experts, scroll down to the plot and consider it carefully. Notice anything?
OTOH, the link contains facts, which may cause you irreparable harm if you click it.
When was the last seabed warming, and how devastating to life on earth was it? Over the history of earth, there were much warmer periods with far smaller ice caps. Do those periods correspond with huge species die off? Or was it exactly to opposite?
How many mega-cities were right by the seashore during those previous times?
I once had a ten-post argument with someone about whether or not "weapon" could be applied to something that was not literally intended to cause physical injury.
I try not to go more than one or two rounds with idiots anymore. It's an utter waste of time, and usually leaves me looking like an idiot too.
A real solution will need to be a bit more nuanced than just legalize and tax.
I'm all for nuanced solutions. But right now we don't even have a rough cut solution.
I'd rather have a rough cut solution that can be refined with nuances later, than a "solution that is clear, simple, and wrong". The "solution" we have now doesn't apparently do anything to mitigate drug usage, but it does cause enormous amounts of collateral damage.
That said, I have a hard time believing that someone can change the iris but cannot move the eyeball. I think those are fed by the same nerve bundle.
The circuitry is pretty complicated. As best I can tell from my books, most of the controls for eye movements run through cranial nerve III, but some run through cranial nerves IV, and VI. The axons that control dialation and constriction also run through cranial nerve III. So if III is intact and the other damaged, you could lose at least partial control of eye movement without effect on control of the pupil.
And "upstream" of the nerves, control of the pupil (and focus) is part of the autonomic nervous system, whereas control of eye direction isn't.
Oddly enough, even dilation and constriction of the pupils have separate control systems. Control for constriction is based on a ganglion right behind the eye, whereas control for dilation is via a cervical ganglion, in your neck. So the paths of those opposing functions run separately for at least part of their length.
And who knows what parts of the brain are involved in generating the control signals for the various movements.
Sounds like a way of [not] having to get one of those bothersome warrants.
Even better, if the original collection mechanism was illegal, you can avoid having the evidence excluded as 'fruit of the poisonous tree' by producing a "parallel construction", that isn't illegal, for how you came to possess it! Such convenience.
Which, interestingly, is how military intelligence hides their sources. Supposedly during WWII the Allies never took action on information derived from ULTRA, unless they could find other evidence once they knew the fact. That way the Germans could always conclude that the Allies figured things out by normal means, rather than having an ear in their HQs.
Makes you wonder who the DEA is getting advice from.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe if the medical community had explained how someone who responded to stimuli (like people speaking around her) wasn't really conscious, instead of using hand-waving and insulting the skeptics, they wouldn't have turned this into a total fiasco.
When people *want* to see a reaction, they see it.
It turned into a fiasco because politicians wanted to use her for a football. They got blowback because people want to die with dignity, and could easily imagine themselves in that condition.
The only thing the case taught us about ethics is to keep the politicians out.
"modem"
Out of my field, but IIRC modern crypto systems aren't just substitutions that leave the cyphertext for a character in the same place as the plaintext. Everything gets scrambled all around.
True, but narrowing 2^1000 possibilities for the plaintext down to 2^999 doesn't feel like a lot of progress.
and no one will ever cheat.
What correlation between the plaintext and cyphertext are they talking about?
Also, I think there is a theorem about modern crypto systems that says if you can guess one bit, the rest doesn't get any easier.
Eat shit and die.
No, that's for the fruit flies.
Of course the soul can leave before the body in the case when the brain has no "activity" but the body is kept alive... and in the case where you decide to astral project yourself into the netherspace to fight psychic entities that threaten to destroy the earth by making people perfectly happy running nothing but an ipad.
Like Steve Jobs, reincarnated Warrior-Philosopher?
To be honest, I'm surprised they haven't linked snowden to some sleeze item to turn the masses against him. It works every single time.
Why bother? They know the masses will just forget him after they abduct him or shoot him and he isn't in the news anymore.
They have already used, and as of at least yesterday, still use the IRS to target political opponents despite claiming they stopped it.
Actually, assuming you're referring to the current FAUX scandal, no, they didn't. Rep. Issa pressured the IRS inspector general to focus his investigation *only* on audits of Tea Party groups.
Due to all that government transparency, it took months before we found out that the audits were about 1/3 conservative groups, 1/3 liberal groups, and 1/3 unaligned groups. And that a right-wing elected official was behind the misrepresentation.
Snowden was a tool....coward ...and traitor.
Snowden deserves a medal for whistleblowing.
THERE HAS NEVER been an expectation of privacy on the Internet.... it wasn't designed that way./quote?
Yes, just like there' no expectation that the police will kick down your door, take all your stuff, torture you until they get bored, and then put a bullet in your head.
It's *law*, and respect for the law, that give you your civil liberties, not the difficulty of violating them.
They give the same shite on reading your e-mail: it's not hard to spy on, therefore there's no expectation of privacy, therefore it's OK to spy on it.
And when they announce that they've stopped domestic spying, are you going to believe them?
You may be interested in this.
After enjoying the review of the creationist tactic of combating science by means of a letter signed by mostly non-experts, scroll down to the plot and consider it carefully. Notice anything?
OTOH, the link contains facts, which may cause you irreparable harm if you click it.
Global warming my ass. It's fucking cold and raining here in Wyoming.
If a cool spell disproves global warming, does a warm spell prove it? Or do you prefer to focus on the details that you think support your beliefs?
Ask people who spent June in Phoenix or Las Vegas how they liked the weather this year.
Exactly.
When was the last seabed warming, and how devastating to life on earth was it?
Over the history of earth, there were much warmer periods with far smaller ice caps.
Do those periods correspond with huge species die off?
Or was it exactly to opposite?
How many mega-cities were right by the seashore during those previous times?
I once had a ten-post argument with someone about whether or not "weapon" could be applied to something that was not literally intended to cause physical injury.
I try not to go more than one or two rounds with idiots anymore. It's an utter waste of time, and usually leaves me looking like an idiot too.
Yeah, that was funny after dismissing "trying to understand the evolution of birds by comparing several living birds".
It is implied by the usage of resurrected.
Actually, we use "resurrected" for lots of non-living things, e.g. a plan.
He's specifically calling out TRANSPARENCY GROUPS.
And transparency groups TERRIFY politicians and their appointees.
Yes, and it generates considerable power. I'm going to start using it to power my computer from my network connection..
A real solution will need to be a bit more nuanced than just legalize and tax.
I'm all for nuanced solutions. But right now we don't even have a rough cut solution.
I'd rather have a rough cut solution that can be refined with nuances later, than a "solution that is clear, simple, and wrong". The "solution" we have now doesn't apparently do anything to mitigate drug usage, but it does cause enormous amounts of collateral damage.
That said, I have a hard time believing that someone can change the iris but cannot move the eyeball. I think those are fed by the same nerve bundle.
The circuitry is pretty complicated. As best I can tell from my books, most of the controls for eye movements run through cranial nerve III, but some run through cranial nerves IV, and VI. The axons that control dialation and constriction also run through cranial nerve III. So if III is intact and the other damaged, you could lose at least partial control of eye movement without effect on control of the pupil.
And "upstream" of the nerves, control of the pupil (and focus) is part of the autonomic nervous system, whereas control of eye direction isn't.
Oddly enough, even dilation and constriction of the pupils have separate control systems. Control for constriction is based on a ganglion right behind the eye, whereas control for dilation is via a cervical ganglion, in your neck. So the paths of those opposing functions run separately for at least part of their length.
And who knows what parts of the brain are involved in generating the control signals for the various movements.
'facilitated communication', which required a true-believer to be in immediate contact with the patient
Gee, I can't imagine any fraud or self-delusion creeping into that.
No more than, say, a medium providing 'facilitated communication' with the dead.
I've *always* answered hard questions with a glazed look in my eyes.
Sounds like a way of [not] having to get one of those bothersome warrants.
Even better, if the original collection mechanism was illegal, you can avoid having the evidence excluded as 'fruit of the poisonous tree' by producing a "parallel construction", that isn't illegal, for how you came to possess it! Such convenience.
Which, interestingly, is how military intelligence hides their sources. Supposedly during WWII the Allies never took action on information derived from ULTRA, unless they could find other evidence once they knew the fact. That way the Germans could always conclude that the Allies figured things out by normal means, rather than having an ear in their HQs.
Makes you wonder who the DEA is getting advice from.