I think there are at least four distinct large constellations planned. I have mixed feelings. Competition = good, right? I don't think a Kessler Syndrome is likely, but it's likelihood increases with every single thing we put in orbit.
SpaceX Starlink is roughly 12000 satellites. Amazon Kuiper is 3200 satellites Boeing 3000 satellites OneWeb 2000 satellites
So roughly 20,000 new satellites. That's seems like pretty crowded sky. However, I just did some napkin math. With Earth's radius at 3950 miles and the satellites operating at a maximum altitude of 850 miles, 20k is roughly 1 satellite for every 145k square miles if distributed perfectly evenly at that altitude. So maybe not so bad?
The real story here is that the researchers developed an AI capable of detecting cancer nodules in CT and MRI scans with 94% accuracy. I mean, if it can find them to remove them...it can find them. That seems like pretty high accuracy for computer aided diagnostics.
I have not played video games for a few years now, but I do play board games. Between that and other social activities, as well as starting a company as a passion-project that exists in addition to my IT career, time spent in front of the television is now done solely as filler.
But another component of this is I'm recently single. TV-time is often done as a semi-social activity with a significant other. Two people probably can't do three hours of engaging conversation every single day, so TV provides a backdrop, filler, low-cost entertainment, and conversation starter. When you're a bachelor or bachelorette, TV fills no need other than the low-cost entertainment.
As I typed this I looked up if there's an upward trend in people being single. In the United States, that appears to be the case, so that may also be another factor in the competition for time that Netflix is seeing. Maybe they should start a dating service based on television watching habits and call it Netflingle.
Netflix, and to a lesser extent, Amazon Prime Video, have done a fantastic job of convincing me that I can live without cable television. I've been a cord-cutter for a few years now, made all the easier with the fantastic content they've been putting out. The side-effect of that is that though is that I've also lowered the value that television-based entertainment has in my life. I'm down to just two hours per day now, and I can go long periods of time without watching anything.
Obviously, Netflix needs to keep its head above the water with all of the ever-increasing service and production costs. However, there is a threshhold for most people where the price exceeds the value. I don't know where that is for me personally, but it's definitely getting pretty close.
Came here to say this very thing. However, upon reflection, there certainly are plenty of tech companies that monetize data and offer nothing to the generators of that data in exchange. I'm thinking about large ad-tracking networks, paid app creators who grab unnecessary data, department stores, etc., etc. That said, I'm not sure I agree with governor's proposal. Rather than at a state level, I would prefer if each company that had access to and sold my data: a) requested permission to do so, and b) compensated me in a way felt was adequate.
Of course, the answer to A would almost always be "no".
TFS says he's filed the patent paperwork, not that he's been granted the patent. Let's wait for that process, and maybe the published results in Science before we rush to judgement. But you are correct in that this is kind of a non-story until then.
How did you make the leap of logic that if it was sent, it must have been sent at a point in time requiring a significant speed to reach us at the time we observed it? Is it not plausible that a civilization sent one or perhaps many probes to nearby stars in the distant past in an effort to gain local observational data? The fact that we were here and had the technology to witness it could be complete coincidence.
I've listened to Dr. Loeb a few times; he's the real deal, publishing much well-regarded scientific work that isn't remotely sensational or controversial. All he's saying here is that so far, alien technology cannot be ruled out and that more mundane models to explain all of our observations have yet to be identified or seem less likely than alien technology.
Aliens should never be the first thing people run to when facing the unexplained, but it also should not be dismissively ruled out either; unless you are one of those people that deeply want to believe we are all alone in the universe. I would say this falls into the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." category, and as the data on Oumuamua is sifted through, there is mounting evidence that it appears to have been designed. However, it also entirely possible that more data will come forward pushing the needle back toward the mundane, and that's fine too.
I think it would be great if we could replace cemeteries with forests. For each body, a small hole is dug, the recomposed soil is placed in it, along with a tree. Then a simple stone indicator is placed in the ground instead of a giant ego-tombstone. Instead of a family mausoleum, you have a family grove.
Maybe the family can choose the type of tree, or if that doesn't work for forest planning, you have a pine cemetery and an oak cemetery, etc. These could also be functional parks and rec sites instead of giant repositories of the dead that people rarely visit.
I think a better interpretation of your question should be, why do they have and keep these recordings? The conversation should have gone like this:
Customer: I'd like to listen to all of the recordings of my interactions with the Alexa device.
Acceptable answers: Amazon: I'm sorry, we do not keep recordings of your interactions with our products. or Amazon: I'm sorry, all recordings are anonymized. We cannot access recordings by user, location, or time of recording because that information is not stored.
I think this might mark the beginning of the end of humanity sending signals out into space indiscriminately, at least at the scale we do now. I'm talking primarily about high-frequency radio, television, and radar to a lesser extent. When people ask why we don't hear from other civilizations, ours may be an example. Our own signals started around 1939 and could potentially be dramatically reduced (though probably never completely) by 2039, so just 100 short years.
If someone comes along and sells relatively inexpensive access to the entire planet, there's not much reason to build expensive and high-powered towers and dishes trying to overcome limited range (and thus limited customers). I'll bet by 2100 we'll have become pretty quiet, electromagnetically speaking.
Going a bit further, and to the absurd, can you imagine what it would be like if we treated foods the way we treat music?
No, you cannot give the cheese to someone else. You didn't buy the cheese, you just bought a license to eat it. Sorry, placing it on a cracker does not constitute significant alteration under fair use. If you want to serve the cheese to your patrons, you'll have to pay a licensing fee similar to ASCAP, and the person who came up with the recipe will also need to be paid royalties. Oh, so you did share the cheese? We will file suit, and since we cannot determine which particular cheese you shared, the damages we seek will be based on all the food in your house.
It's kind of interesting when you zoom out a little and think of copyright protections as they apply to the senses. The scent of a perfume has long been ruled as something not protected. Taste, as this rule shows, has also been long considered as not protected. Sound though, whether as intricate as a song, or as simple as the old "Sosumi" of early Macs, has always been protected. Almost everything visual can be copyright protected. The Nike "Swoosh" for example is a pretty simple shape, but good luck using a similar one in any context.
Subjectivity in taste and smell appear to be the largest contributor to the disparity, although I would argue it would be very difficult to prove sight and sound are any less subjective. The true experience of sensory input of someone other than yourself can never be fully understood.
Why is that a cheese, taking years to craft and refine into a product for which the producer is happy in terms of recipe and methodology, is any less protected than a simple song?
Not that I'm arguing for cheese protection or cheese rights. I just think it's an interesting thought-exercise that some forms of sensory input have more legal protections than others.
Yes, Epic is THE only choice if you are trying to integrate an entire hospital. Other systems like Cerner and Meditech do some or even many parts of a hospital, but only Epic does them all (poorly it would seem). And if you don't integrate all of them, you have real headaches from the government in terms of how Medicare/Medicaid is paid, accreditation is done, etc.
The hospital system in the summary spent $100M on a finished product. They didn't spend it to develop one.
You could be the best programmer, business analyst, government contract handling person on the planet and have access to an army of the same, all with purpose and conviction. Could you create an entire hospital integration system for $100M with those resources? Nope, not even close. Just like Epic, it would take ten times that amount and more than a decade to develop, and another decade of going through regulatory battling. Plus Epic would do everything in their power to throw as many financial and regulatory obstacles in your way as they could. But you could later sell it to customers for $100M if you survived. Would it be better than Epic? Almost certainly.
A hospital, or more accurately, a hospital system operates much like a city. So imagine creating a software package that handles everything about: traffic, sanitation, water, sewer, electrical, construction, transportation, law enforcement, elections, education, etc., each with 100's of thousands of variables to account for. That's not unlike the scale we're talking about. There are literally dozens of departments, each with decades of legislation behind them governing what they can and cannot do, and how they have to do it.
I'm guessing you didn't read the article, and who could blame you? It's a long slog. But the problem presented in the summary, the implementation of Epic at a particularly hospital, is not really what the article is about or why the premise that "physicians hate computers" is posited.
It's that while the goal of technology in healthcare is to improve things, it very often gets in the way and slows things down, particularly for the clinician. Many physicians are frustrated to the point of burnout because the time required to see the same number of patients has increased dramatically, often taking much of their documentation work home with them. One physician noted (and found solace in the idea) that the software is meant to improve the experience for the patient, not the clinician.
The article is a good a read. I actually work in healthcare but I'm fairly removed from the clinical side of things, and rarely interact with physicians anymore. But I know exactly the pain many of these doctors feel because I see the absurdly inefficient way they have to operate.
I have my own pain to deal with when it comes to Epic. There has long been a standard in electronic health records known as HL7. It's an older, frankly outdated, position-specific method of moving health info around; but it does work. Epic went totally off the reservation and fails to follow much of the standard.
Epic isn't a 'normal' software company. They developed a system that different parts of a hospital (with different needs) could all feed into. It's complex, buggy, doesn't conform to establish norms or expectations, and takes a large staff just to keep afloat. However, they were the only company to attempt this level of hospital integration. So they took mountains of cash to DC, and used it to pay for lobbyists to push congress to require hospitals use this level of integration when putting an EMR system into place...an EMR system that only Epic provides. At least, that's the story.
That's why nearly every hospital that upgrades its EMR system uses Epic...they don't have much of a choice. It's also why Epic has a sprawling campus in Wisconsin that looks more like Disneyland, complete with a treehouse, a carousel and a giant dragon statue.
Obviously the official name should be "Death Stars" because when you look at a satellite in orbit around another satellite, you can clearly see "that's no moon."
Ha, that's what you think! The $20 in Doge I bought is finally going to be at the same level as the big boys! Champagne wishes and caviar dreams, suckers!
I highly recommend Kishore Mahbubani's Long Now Foundation Talk on China. I am not the expert of eastern geo-politics that he is, so I have no idea if his thinking is correct or not, but it's very interesting.
He states that China's move to democracy is almost inevitable, but it will take a long time. He said that Chinese officials saw what happened with the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union, going briefly into democracy before Russia emerged with totalitarianism and Putin. They don't want to go down that road. But it's clear that there are many democratic reforms happening in China right now. It's not the China I grew up learning about in the 70's and 80's, and the people of that country are benefiting from those reforms.
All of that said, they are still a very long way away from what most of us would deem as acceptable when it comes to human rights. I think in 50 years though, China will look very different from both inside and outside their borders.
I'm rocking CS3 on Win7. I still have the install DVD from back when I was a professional graphic artist over a decade ago. I have CC at work, though I don't use it much. There have been a few small improvements, but honestly, not much has changed. I just did an enormous freelance project using CS3 without incident. Graphics happened 10 years ago, and there wasn't much you couldn't do then that you can do now.
There is no value proposition for the consumer in Adobe's pricing model, and they know it, so they are resulting to lock-in tactics.
I can't tell if this is humor, sarcasm, or trolling.
But since trees can and will both decay and burn, they are not a long-term solution. Plus it would take so many trees that you would have to destroy most natural ecosystems and farmland for us to plant our way out of the 2-degree rise by 2100 even with really productive plants like poplar trees and switchgrass.
Tree planting can help some though, particularly in equatorial regions. Like most things, rarely are the solutions simple to very complex problems. A multi-pronged attack with rapid reduction in fossil fuels, in combination with various CO2 sequestration efforts (like biomass) appears to be the quickest, most effective approach at the moment.
In Nevada, this falls under "Intrusion Upon Seclusion", and on the surface appears to meet all the requirements thereof. But again, IANAL, so what do I know?
Um, yes. It was criminal. The crime committed was criminal trespass. There is no low/high bar for criminal activity; there is simply what is stated by the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). I suppose there are areas where there exists room for interpretation. This is not one of them.
In the state of Nevada, as is true in most states, the 4th amendment rights you enjoy in your home are generally extended to your hotel room. A warrant is required for entering a hotel room as part of an official investigation. The hotel may have cause to enter your room if they believe criminal activity is taking place, housekeeping, maintenance, or a disruption of other guests. In no circumstance are they allowed to enter without announcing themselves first./IANAL
Freedom from illegal search is one of the many rights that makes the U.S. the country that it is. Unfortunately, we have to defend those rights with extreme prejudice against the scared little bunnies of our nation that carelessly toss them out to feel a little safer.
Slashdot Mirror
I think there are at least four distinct large constellations planned. I have mixed feelings. Competition = good, right? I don't think a Kessler Syndrome is likely, but it's likelihood increases with every single thing we put in orbit.
SpaceX Starlink is roughly 12000 satellites.
Amazon Kuiper is 3200 satellites
Boeing 3000 satellites
OneWeb 2000 satellites
So roughly 20,000 new satellites. That's seems like pretty crowded sky. However, I just did some napkin math. With Earth's radius at 3950 miles and the satellites operating at a maximum altitude of 850 miles, 20k is roughly 1 satellite for every 145k square miles if distributed perfectly evenly at that altitude. So maybe not so bad?
The real story here is that the researchers developed an AI capable of detecting cancer nodules in CT and MRI scans with 94% accuracy. I mean, if it can find them to remove them...it can find them. That seems like pretty high accuracy for computer aided diagnostics.
I have not played video games for a few years now, but I do play board games. Between that and other social activities, as well as starting a company as a passion-project that exists in addition to my IT career, time spent in front of the television is now done solely as filler.
But another component of this is I'm recently single. TV-time is often done as a semi-social activity with a significant other. Two people probably can't do three hours of engaging conversation every single day, so TV provides a backdrop, filler, low-cost entertainment, and conversation starter. When you're a bachelor or bachelorette, TV fills no need other than the low-cost entertainment.
As I typed this I looked up if there's an upward trend in people being single. In the United States, that appears to be the case, so that may also be another factor in the competition for time that Netflix is seeing. Maybe they should start a dating service based on television watching habits and call it Netflingle.
Netflix, and to a lesser extent, Amazon Prime Video, have done a fantastic job of convincing me that I can live without cable television. I've been a cord-cutter for a few years now, made all the easier with the fantastic content they've been putting out. The side-effect of that is that though is that I've also lowered the value that television-based entertainment has in my life. I'm down to just two hours per day now, and I can go long periods of time without watching anything.
Obviously, Netflix needs to keep its head above the water with all of the ever-increasing service and production costs. However, there is a threshhold for most people where the price exceeds the value. I don't know where that is for me personally, but it's definitely getting pretty close.
Came here to say this very thing. However, upon reflection, there certainly are plenty of tech companies that monetize data and offer nothing to the generators of that data in exchange. I'm thinking about large ad-tracking networks, paid app creators who grab unnecessary data, department stores, etc., etc. That said, I'm not sure I agree with governor's proposal. Rather than at a state level, I would prefer if each company that had access to and sold my data: a) requested permission to do so, and b) compensated me in a way felt was adequate.
Of course, the answer to A would almost always be "no".
TFS says he's filed the patent paperwork, not that he's been granted the patent. Let's wait for that process, and maybe the published results in Science before we rush to judgement. But you are correct in that this is kind of a non-story until then.
Col. Jack O'Neill denied any knowledge of the Stargate program or the existence of the SGC, stating "I think you watch too much television."
RIP Don Davis
How did you make the leap of logic that if it was sent, it must have been sent at a point in time requiring a significant speed to reach us at the time we observed it? Is it not plausible that a civilization sent one or perhaps many probes to nearby stars in the distant past in an effort to gain local observational data? The fact that we were here and had the technology to witness it could be complete coincidence.
I've listened to Dr. Loeb a few times; he's the real deal, publishing much well-regarded scientific work that isn't remotely sensational or controversial. All he's saying here is that so far, alien technology cannot be ruled out and that more mundane models to explain all of our observations have yet to be identified or seem less likely than alien technology.
Aliens should never be the first thing people run to when facing the unexplained, but it also should not be dismissively ruled out either; unless you are one of those people that deeply want to believe we are all alone in the universe. I would say this falls into the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." category, and as the data on Oumuamua is sifted through, there is mounting evidence that it appears to have been designed. However, it also entirely possible that more data will come forward pushing the needle back toward the mundane, and that's fine too.
I think it would be great if we could replace cemeteries with forests. For each body, a small hole is dug, the recomposed soil is placed in it, along with a tree. Then a simple stone indicator is placed in the ground instead of a giant ego-tombstone. Instead of a family mausoleum, you have a family grove.
Maybe the family can choose the type of tree, or if that doesn't work for forest planning, you have a pine cemetery and an oak cemetery, etc. These could also be functional parks and rec sites instead of giant repositories of the dead that people rarely visit.
Sure, but I'm guessing they do not need the users' account number, IP address, MAC address, or precise time of day to do that.
Every attempt to anonymize that data should be made. Full stop.
I think a better interpretation of your question should be, why do they have and keep these recordings? The conversation should have gone like this:
Customer: I'd like to listen to all of the recordings of my interactions with the Alexa device.
Acceptable answers:
Amazon: I'm sorry, we do not keep recordings of your interactions with our products.
or
Amazon: I'm sorry, all recordings are anonymized. We cannot access recordings by user, location, or time of recording because that information is not stored.
I think this might mark the beginning of the end of humanity sending signals out into space indiscriminately, at least at the scale we do now. I'm talking primarily about high-frequency radio, television, and radar to a lesser extent. When people ask why we don't hear from other civilizations, ours may be an example. Our own signals started around 1939 and could potentially be dramatically reduced (though probably never completely) by 2039, so just 100 short years.
If someone comes along and sells relatively inexpensive access to the entire planet, there's not much reason to build expensive and high-powered towers and dishes trying to overcome limited range (and thus limited customers). I'll bet by 2100 we'll have become pretty quiet, electromagnetically speaking.
Going a bit further, and to the absurd, can you imagine what it would be like if we treated foods the way we treat music?
No, you cannot give the cheese to someone else. You didn't buy the cheese, you just bought a license to eat it. Sorry, placing it on a cracker does not constitute significant alteration under fair use. If you want to serve the cheese to your patrons, you'll have to pay a licensing fee similar to ASCAP, and the person who came up with the recipe will also need to be paid royalties. Oh, so you did share the cheese? We will file suit, and since we cannot determine which particular cheese you shared, the damages we seek will be based on all the food in your house.
It's kind of interesting when you zoom out a little and think of copyright protections as they apply to the senses. The scent of a perfume has long been ruled as something not protected. Taste, as this rule shows, has also been long considered as not protected. Sound though, whether as intricate as a song, or as simple as the old "Sosumi" of early Macs, has always been protected. Almost everything visual can be copyright protected. The Nike "Swoosh" for example is a pretty simple shape, but good luck using a similar one in any context.
Subjectivity in taste and smell appear to be the largest contributor to the disparity, although I would argue it would be very difficult to prove sight and sound are any less subjective. The true experience of sensory input of someone other than yourself can never be fully understood.
Why is that a cheese, taking years to craft and refine into a product for which the producer is happy in terms of recipe and methodology, is any less protected than a simple song?
Not that I'm arguing for cheese protection or cheese rights. I just think it's an interesting thought-exercise that some forms of sensory input have more legal protections than others.
Yes, Epic is THE only choice if you are trying to integrate an entire hospital. Other systems like Cerner and Meditech do some or even many parts of a hospital, but only Epic does them all (poorly it would seem). And if you don't integrate all of them, you have real headaches from the government in terms of how Medicare/Medicaid is paid, accreditation is done, etc.
The hospital system in the summary spent $100M on a finished product. They didn't spend it to develop one.
You could be the best programmer, business analyst, government contract handling person on the planet and have access to an army of the same, all with purpose and conviction. Could you create an entire hospital integration system for $100M with those resources? Nope, not even close. Just like Epic, it would take ten times that amount and more than a decade to develop, and another decade of going through regulatory battling. Plus Epic would do everything in their power to throw as many financial and regulatory obstacles in your way as they could. But you could later sell it to customers for $100M if you survived. Would it be better than Epic? Almost certainly.
A hospital, or more accurately, a hospital system operates much like a city. So imagine creating a software package that handles everything about: traffic, sanitation, water, sewer, electrical, construction, transportation, law enforcement, elections, education, etc., each with 100's of thousands of variables to account for. That's not unlike the scale we're talking about. There are literally dozens of departments, each with decades of legislation behind them governing what they can and cannot do, and how they have to do it.
I'm guessing you didn't read the article, and who could blame you? It's a long slog. But the problem presented in the summary, the implementation of Epic at a particularly hospital, is not really what the article is about or why the premise that "physicians hate computers" is posited.
It's that while the goal of technology in healthcare is to improve things, it very often gets in the way and slows things down, particularly for the clinician. Many physicians are frustrated to the point of burnout because the time required to see the same number of patients has increased dramatically, often taking much of their documentation work home with them. One physician noted (and found solace in the idea) that the software is meant to improve the experience for the patient, not the clinician.
The article is a good a read. I actually work in healthcare but I'm fairly removed from the clinical side of things, and rarely interact with physicians anymore. But I know exactly the pain many of these doctors feel because I see the absurdly inefficient way they have to operate.
I have my own pain to deal with when it comes to Epic. There has long been a standard in electronic health records known as HL7. It's an older, frankly outdated, position-specific method of moving health info around; but it does work. Epic went totally off the reservation and fails to follow much of the standard.
Epic isn't a 'normal' software company. They developed a system that different parts of a hospital (with different needs) could all feed into. It's complex, buggy, doesn't conform to establish norms or expectations, and takes a large staff just to keep afloat. However, they were the only company to attempt this level of hospital integration. So they took mountains of cash to DC, and used it to pay for lobbyists to push congress to require hospitals use this level of integration when putting an EMR system into place...an EMR system that only Epic provides. At least, that's the story.
That's why nearly every hospital that upgrades its EMR system uses Epic...they don't have much of a choice. It's also why Epic has a sprawling campus in Wisconsin that looks more like Disneyland, complete with a treehouse, a carousel and a giant dragon statue.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/p...
Obviously the official name should be "Death Stars" because when you look at a satellite in orbit around another satellite, you can clearly see "that's no moon."
Also, agreed, "moonmoon" is absurd.
Ha, that's what you think! The $20 in Doge I bought is finally going to be at the same level as the big boys! Champagne wishes and caviar dreams, suckers!
I highly recommend Kishore Mahbubani's Long Now Foundation Talk on China. I am not the expert of eastern geo-politics that he is, so I have no idea if his thinking is correct or not, but it's very interesting.
He states that China's move to democracy is almost inevitable, but it will take a long time. He said that Chinese officials saw what happened with the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union, going briefly into democracy before Russia emerged with totalitarianism and Putin. They don't want to go down that road. But it's clear that there are many democratic reforms happening in China right now. It's not the China I grew up learning about in the 70's and 80's, and the people of that country are benefiting from those reforms.
All of that said, they are still a very long way away from what most of us would deem as acceptable when it comes to human rights. I think in 50 years though, China will look very different from both inside and outside their borders.
Now flies "o'er the land of the surveilled, and the home of the afraid."
While there are many more, and more important, things to consider; Pontevedra just made my list of cities that I might like to call home one day.
I'm rocking CS3 on Win7. I still have the install DVD from back when I was a professional graphic artist over a decade ago. I have CC at work, though I don't use it much. There have been a few small improvements, but honestly, not much has changed. I just did an enormous freelance project using CS3 without incident. Graphics happened 10 years ago, and there wasn't much you couldn't do then that you can do now.
There is no value proposition for the consumer in Adobe's pricing model, and they know it, so they are resulting to lock-in tactics.
I can't tell if this is humor, sarcasm, or trolling.
But since trees can and will both decay and burn, they are not a long-term solution. Plus it would take so many trees that you would have to destroy most natural ecosystems and farmland for us to plant our way out of the 2-degree rise by 2100 even with really productive plants like poplar trees and switchgrass.
Tree planting can help some though, particularly in equatorial regions. Like most things, rarely are the solutions simple to very complex problems. A multi-pronged attack with rapid reduction in fossil fuels, in combination with various CO2 sequestration efforts (like biomass) appears to be the quickest, most effective approach at the moment.
Actually, I do.
https://www.shouselaw.com/neva...
In Nevada, this falls under "Intrusion Upon Seclusion", and on the surface appears to meet all the requirements thereof. But again, IANAL, so what do I know?
Um, yes. It was criminal. The crime committed was criminal trespass. There is no low/high bar for criminal activity; there is simply what is stated by the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). I suppose there are areas where there exists room for interpretation. This is not one of them.
In the state of Nevada, as is true in most states, the 4th amendment rights you enjoy in your home are generally extended to your hotel room. A warrant is required for entering a hotel room as part of an official investigation. The hotel may have cause to enter your room if they believe criminal activity is taking place, housekeeping, maintenance, or a disruption of other guests. In no circumstance are they allowed to enter without announcing themselves first. /IANAL
Freedom from illegal search is one of the many rights that makes the U.S. the country that it is. Unfortunately, we have to defend those rights with extreme prejudice against the scared little bunnies of our nation that carelessly toss them out to feel a little safer.