US Executions Threaten Supply of Anaesthetic Used For Surgical Procedures
HIGHLY misleading headline. I read the headline and thought, "wow, so many executions are occurring in the US that there's not enough of this drug for non-execution purposes"... which is a much more straightforward interpretation than what the article eventually gets into, which is that the use of the drug in a single execution would make an EU regulation kick in.
If you're suggesting that the only relevant question is "was this firing legal", I'd say that's missing the more important question of "was this investigation (and firing) outrage-worthy"? (Hint: it is.)
I feel endangered by the screening process because it is the process that now both (1) is the biggest unpredictable time delay in my getting to the plane, and (2) the biggest potential theater in which some TSA agent might not like how I look, how I didn't answer his boisterous "hello, how you doing" the right way, or take issue with any of a number of other aspects of my existence (medical devices, laptops, whatever) and cause trouble for me varying between leaving me feeling hassled or outright making me miss my flight, or perhaps even saying I simply can't fly (small chance, but the zinger is that there is FUCKING ABSOLUTELY NO RECOURSE. So yes, I agree that the TSA screening is now the biggest risk on my radar every time I fly. Who knows, I might end up on a no fly list simply for writing this.
the other robots can simply follow in a formation by exchanging their location information via wireless communication.
I think the above line in the article gets my award for highest "-ation" density. Possibly excluding fragments of one or two rap songs that made it past my 5-second response time.
I don't understand the point you (or Naomi Wolf) is trying to make. In the article you point to, she says
It is actually in the Police Stateâ(TM)s interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled.
How so? She doesn't spell this out, and I didn't get it from what you wrote either. Why would it be in the police state's best interest to have their activities known? And if it is in their best interest, why would they go to the trouble of having Snowden disclose it in the style he has, rather than simply announcing it?
Of course laws are sometimes arbitrary. Of course staring at your car stereo is just as dangerous as staring at your phone. Do you think these are revelations to anyone?
If I was a police officer, I would charge you with not being in full control of your vehicle by virtue that your attention is divided between the traffic and your piece of wood.
What if I can produce video of the event in which I can demonstrate that although I did poke continuously at the block of wood and sometimes glanced at it, that most of the time my eyes were on the road, and in fact I narrated a continuous and accurate description of all traffic around me? What if I have a certified driving instructor with me at the time who can legally swear that in his professional opinion, I was in full and complete control at all times?
I'm not bringing up the particular scenario above to suggest that's exactly what I'd do, but if your answer is nevertheless "the cops always win", then we shouldn't even be talking about whether there are cellphone laws or what have you, because it's immaterial... the real discussion in that case would be what a complete police state the US has descended into (which it has, I agree). But if that's your point, please forgive me because I'm still working my through the possibilities that exist when there actually is some amount of due process, as meager as it seems to be these days. At a minimum, if we do live in a complete police state, I want to see every person acknowledging that. Until that happens, I'll continue to explore scenarios like this to see what happens when people take it upon themselves to contemplate poking at the system.
So here's the point: if we have a law against "inattentive driving", then having a separate law against "inattentive driving while using a cell phone" is a total sham. It's like having a law against robbing a bank, then having another law against robbing a bank while wearing pants. If the penalties are the same, there's no point in having two laws other than political posturing, which should be called out for what it is. If the penalties are different, then it's not moot whether someone is wearing pants while robbing that bank, nor is it moot whether someone is using a block of wood vs an actual cellphone.
Unless you're filming yourself with that block of wood, it's all the cop's say-so as to whether you were texting.
So if the defense asks the cop in a courtroom to distinguish between a well-painted block of wood and an actual cellphone, at distances equivalent to those on a highway, could a cop do it, even putting aside that on the highway there was the further impediment of the cars moving at high speeds? The cop can certainly claim he THOUGHT it was a cellphone, but he has no way of proving that he didn't mistake one for the other.
This would get especially sticky for him if it turned out to be the case that there was no actual cellphone in the car.
Also, simulating a crime just to distract a cop is a separate crime.
Out of curiosity, can you provide an authoritative citation of that?
Regardless: the proposed activity is not simply "to distract a cop"... it's to highlight the shaky and arbitrary foundations of a poorly thought out law. I'm not saying a policeman is going to welcome that interpretation, but the prescribed defense is a whole lot more than "I was just trying to distract a cop". Was Rosa Parks just trying to make the bus late?
Unreasonable people, by definition, will not reliably heed any law, no matter how fair or rational.
I wouldn't know about that, but you seem to be implying that a law against texting -- while ignoring fiddling with the radio, talking to other people in the car, glancing at folded maps, handing things to other people, etc -- is unquestionably fair or rational. I question that premise.
What if I get a scrap of wood, paint it to look like a cellphone, and get pulled over for texting because a policeman saw me glancing at it and poking at it while driving. Have I broken a law? What precisely or generally would I be charged with?
Taking it further: suppose I get pulled over for bona fide texting, but in the time it takes to be pulled over I launch an app that wipes out record of my having texted, and I switch my phone for the above-mentioned painted wooden block and take the position that I was not using my cellphone... perhaps because I resent the non-coherence of a law that targets cellphone users while leaving numerous other driver distractions untouched... or perhaps because I just like seeming like I'm important... or whatever. Other than going to the trouble of checking my cell records to see if I was sending texts, or just insisting that they don't believe me, what argument does law enforcement have? What if I can point to youtube videos I've posted of me using the wooden block numerous times in traffic, for the hell of it?
I think this would be interesting, as it would force The System to clarify whether doing ANYTHING that looked remotely like texting was illegal. That's a distinction they've been spared so far by the built-in assumption that if it looks like a cellphone then it is one... from a prosecutorial perspective, that's really an important pillar of the law in its current form.
(replying to my own post) It occurs to me that this may result in an ecosystem rather similar to Redhat/CentOS... namely, there may evolve a downstream-from-CM distro that has more of a solely-GPL and not-for-profit bent.
Very interesting link, thank you. If they are trying to coerce dual licensing for all contribs, they may precipitate a fork. To any extent that they are abusive or misguided, I hope such a fork occurs. To whatever extent they use the money effectively to bring CM to a wider audience than they could have, while not becoming jerks, I will defer my interest in such a fork.
There is nothing short of an absolute, death-like issue that you need to be texting at a red light, or anywhere else while driving.
That's one way to see this. Here's another: People are going to use their cellphones while driving, and none of these laws and stings are going to stop that. But now that people think they're sitting ducks while at stoplights, they'll make it a point to defer their occasional usage to places other than stoplights, like when they're on the highway. Whether this is an improved outcome is left as an exercise for the reader.
Hes doing his job, whether you like it or not. Dont blame the police for laws you dont like.
There are many ways to do one's job. I can go into my office and hassle the living crap out of my underlings for little to no reason at all, or I can choose to do constructive things, encourage good work, and not make everyone there feel like they're constantly one mistake away from being fired. Yes the policeman is doing his job, but if you don't think he has discretion about how and what he does, you're out of your mind.
Since the majority of supported phones didn't have their support implemented by the cyanogen mod team (They only built support for the most popular phones) how on earth can they claim the project is theirs to go public with?
Is Cyanogen mode claiming the code is "theirs" in a some way different from how RedHat might claim linux is theirs?
This article comes right on the heels of a previous one talking about how fingerprints will be used as a biometric to open devices; that article went on to darkly speculate about thieves cutting off victims' fingers to maintain access to stolen goods. Now comes this article, which would suggest thieves either decapitating people and keeping their brains alive in jars, or kidnapping people.
I just can't wait til some article comes along describing a new technology that allows someone to make an ATM withdrawal by tapping their testicles with a hammer, lightly for $20, harder for more.
3.) How to shift the data securely
The governments of the world can potentially intercept ANYTHING.... A reporter can use a courier by land or plane and that person can be held in a cell for nine hours while being interrogated. But an in-person intercept is known to both parties.
Taking this concept further: after encrypting your data, xor the data with a onetime pad. Send only the pad by courier first; once the courier arrives at the destination with the onetime pad unmolested, send the other part of the data.
why would they care about your pirated or whatever TV?
a super secret US intelligence agency that employs some of the smartest mathmatecians in the world is going to care about people's pirated movies instead of tracking down our enemies so the military can kill them
I assume you mean't "*isn't* going to care". And you have some starry eyes, my friend... you seem to think that the NSA must be like a James Bond movie. But once corruption becomes the operating mindset (and it has), it all ends up being about the same thing: the non-equal concentration of wealth and power. And the movie industry is very wealthy and powerful.
Sigh. Red eye is caused by the ABSORPTION of light, not the REFLECTION of light.
The article you cite does not support your "sigh" at the start of this statement; the article says that red-eye is caused by BOTH absorption AND reflection. Without reflection, pupils would be black, as in everyday life. Without absorption, the light reflected would be some color other than red. *Sigh*:)
Slashdot Mirror
HIGHLY misleading headline. I read the headline and thought, "wow, so many executions are occurring in the US that there's not enough of this drug for non-execution purposes"... which is a much more straightforward interpretation than what the article eventually gets into, which is that the use of the drug in a single execution would make an EU regulation kick in.
BOOOOOOO, slashdot editor. Boooo.
If you're suggesting that the only relevant question is "was this firing legal", I'd say that's missing the more important question of "was this investigation (and firing) outrage-worthy"? (Hint: it is.)
I feel endangered by the screening process because it is the process that now both (1) is the biggest unpredictable time delay in my getting to the plane, and (2) the biggest potential theater in which some TSA agent might not like how I look, how I didn't answer his boisterous "hello, how you doing" the right way, or take issue with any of a number of other aspects of my existence (medical devices, laptops, whatever) and cause trouble for me varying between leaving me feeling hassled or outright making me miss my flight, or perhaps even saying I simply can't fly (small chance, but the zinger is that there is FUCKING ABSOLUTELY NO RECOURSE. So yes, I agree that the TSA screening is now the biggest risk on my radar every time I fly. Who knows, I might end up on a no fly list simply for writing this.
I think the above line in the article gets my award for highest "-ation" density. Possibly excluding fragments of one or two rap songs that made it past my 5-second response time.
This doesn't explain why they wouldn't simply announce the surveillance, rather than "fake leaking" it. Consider me unconvinced.
Um, and if I'm a citizen, I'm protected from prism? Nuh uh.
How so? She doesn't spell this out, and I didn't get it from what you wrote either. Why would it be in the police state's best interest to have their activities known? And if it is in their best interest, why would they go to the trouble of having Snowden disclose it in the style he has, rather than simply announcing it?
Yes, I do.
What if I can produce video of the event in which I can demonstrate that although I did poke continuously at the block of wood and sometimes glanced at it, that most of the time my eyes were on the road, and in fact I narrated a continuous and accurate description of all traffic around me? What if I have a certified driving instructor with me at the time who can legally swear that in his professional opinion, I was in full and complete control at all times?
I'm not bringing up the particular scenario above to suggest that's exactly what I'd do, but if your answer is nevertheless "the cops always win", then we shouldn't even be talking about whether there are cellphone laws or what have you, because it's immaterial... the real discussion in that case would be what a complete police state the US has descended into (which it has, I agree). But if that's your point, please forgive me because I'm still working my through the possibilities that exist when there actually is some amount of due process, as meager as it seems to be these days. At a minimum, if we do live in a complete police state, I want to see every person acknowledging that. Until that happens, I'll continue to explore scenarios like this to see what happens when people take it upon themselves to contemplate poking at the system.
So here's the point: if we have a law against "inattentive driving", then having a separate law against "inattentive driving while using a cell phone" is a total sham. It's like having a law against robbing a bank, then having another law against robbing a bank while wearing pants. If the penalties are the same, there's no point in having two laws other than political posturing, which should be called out for what it is. If the penalties are different, then it's not moot whether someone is wearing pants while robbing that bank, nor is it moot whether someone is using a block of wood vs an actual cellphone.
So if the defense asks the cop in a courtroom to distinguish between a well-painted block of wood and an actual cellphone, at distances equivalent to those on a highway, could a cop do it, even putting aside that on the highway there was the further impediment of the cars moving at high speeds? The cop can certainly claim he THOUGHT it was a cellphone, but he has no way of proving that he didn't mistake one for the other.
This would get especially sticky for him if it turned out to be the case that there was no actual cellphone in the car.
Out of curiosity, can you provide an authoritative citation of that?
Regardless: the proposed activity is not simply "to distract a cop"... it's to highlight the shaky and arbitrary foundations of a poorly thought out law. I'm not saying a policeman is going to welcome that interpretation, but the prescribed defense is a whole lot more than "I was just trying to distract a cop". Was Rosa Parks just trying to make the bus late?
I wouldn't know about that, but you seem to be implying that a law against texting -- while ignoring fiddling with the radio, talking to other people in the car, glancing at folded maps, handing things to other people, etc -- is unquestionably fair or rational. I question that premise.
Right back atcha, sunshine.
What if I get a scrap of wood, paint it to look like a cellphone, and get pulled over for texting because a policeman saw me glancing at it and poking at it while driving. Have I broken a law? What precisely or generally would I be charged with?
Taking it further: suppose I get pulled over for bona fide texting, but in the time it takes to be pulled over I launch an app that wipes out record of my having texted, and I switch my phone for the above-mentioned painted wooden block and take the position that I was not using my cellphone... perhaps because I resent the non-coherence of a law that targets cellphone users while leaving numerous other driver distractions untouched... or perhaps because I just like seeming like I'm important... or whatever. Other than going to the trouble of checking my cell records to see if I was sending texts, or just insisting that they don't believe me, what argument does law enforcement have? What if I can point to youtube videos I've posted of me using the wooden block numerous times in traffic, for the hell of it?
I think this would be interesting, as it would force The System to clarify whether doing ANYTHING that looked remotely like texting was illegal. That's a distinction they've been spared so far by the built-in assumption that if it looks like a cellphone then it is one... from a prosecutorial perspective, that's really an important pillar of the law in its current form.
(replying to my own post) It occurs to me that this may result in an ecosystem rather similar to Redhat/CentOS... namely, there may evolve a downstream-from-CM distro that has more of a solely-GPL and not-for-profit bent.
Very interesting link, thank you. If they are trying to coerce dual licensing for all contribs, they may precipitate a fork. To any extent that they are abusive or misguided, I hope such a fork occurs. To whatever extent they use the money effectively to bring CM to a wider audience than they could have, while not becoming jerks, I will defer my interest in such a fork.
Even if they were hovering right over everyone's shoulders, knowing whether a user is using wireless or not is impossible.
I'm not sure what to make of this statement... is this abject hero worship?
That's one way to see this. Here's another: People are going to use their cellphones while driving, and none of these laws and stings are going to stop that. But now that people think they're sitting ducks while at stoplights, they'll make it a point to defer their occasional usage to places other than stoplights, like when they're on the highway. Whether this is an improved outcome is left as an exercise for the reader.
There are many ways to do one's job. I can go into my office and hassle the living crap out of my underlings for little to no reason at all, or I can choose to do constructive things, encourage good work, and not make everyone there feel like they're constantly one mistake away from being fired. Yes the policeman is doing his job, but if you don't think he has discretion about how and what he does, you're out of your mind.
Is Cyanogen mode claiming the code is "theirs" in a some way different from how RedHat might claim linux is theirs?
This article comes right on the heels of a previous one talking about how fingerprints will be used as a biometric to open devices; that article went on to darkly speculate about thieves cutting off victims' fingers to maintain access to stolen goods. Now comes this article, which would suggest thieves either decapitating people and keeping their brains alive in jars, or kidnapping people.
I just can't wait til some article comes along describing a new technology that allows someone to make an ATM withdrawal by tapping their testicles with a hammer, lightly for $20, harder for more.
Taking this concept further: after encrypting your data, xor the data with a onetime pad. Send only the pad by courier first; once the courier arrives at the destination with the onetime pad unmolested, send the other part of the data.
I assume you mean't "*isn't* going to care". And you have some starry eyes, my friend... you seem to think that the NSA must be like a James Bond movie. But once corruption becomes the operating mindset (and it has), it all ends up being about the same thing: the non-equal concentration of wealth and power. And the movie industry is very wealthy and powerful.
Not any more.
The article you cite does not support your "sigh" at the start of this statement; the article says that red-eye is caused by BOTH absorption AND reflection. Without reflection, pupils would be black, as in everyday life. Without absorption, the light reflected would be some color other than red. *Sigh* :)