That's wonderful that marijuana is so effective for him. It should absolutely be tried first, and if it works fantastic, no need for opiates or as high a dose of opiates. But that's not always going to be the case.
And while, as we agree, it's harder for the people who NEED the pain meds to get them, you know who it's NOT harder for? People who want to get high, who don't mind switching to heroin or Fentanyl.Analogs(Rand());
One would hope you're at least logically consistent and wouldn't treat the drug alcohol different from the drug heroin when considering DUI penalties. Right? I mean, one drug is far more associated with impairment and harming third parties while under the influence, so it should be at least equal to the other right? Pro-tip: The last sentence was talking about alcohol.
So when Portugal decriminalized drugs like cocaine and heroin, use went up right?
Oh wait, it went down. Because it turns out there's very little overlap between people who want cocaine and heroin but are deterred by prohibition.
Also isn't 'ever tried' up for put, but 'regular user' down? Especially among teens?
Prohibition is not, has never been, nor ever will be, a significant impediment to anyone who wants drugs, even less so for the people likely to fall into abuse and addiction.
Your heart is in the right place, you're just badly misinformed as to what decades of prohibition and alternative drug polices have taught us. If you want to minimize the number of lives ruined by drugs, you provide legal access, to ALL drugs (no that doesn't mean at 7-11, look to the prescription or methadone model for a more realistic approach with addictive drugs), and take all the money you were spending on prohibition, and the new tax revenue, and put it into education and treatment, which, dollar for dollar, better reduce the number of problem users.
If you're an anesthesiologist you should know better than to be deliberately misleading. Many fentanyl analogs have a therapeutic index better than traditional opiates and other classes of medications. The one everyone is really worked up about, carfentanil, has an extremely large one in particular. Let's not conflate absolute amount with this, ok? I know that's not one you'd use, but my comment applies to sufenta, ultiva, et al. too. Wide safety margin in TI.
That strategy is better than outright prohibition, but still causes an immense amount of increased harm over legal, regulated access. 'The corner store' is not appropriate no, but entirely abdicating control to the black market, like we have now, is even less appropriate if your goal is to minimize the damage caused by a dangerous, but desired and highly profitable product. You don't stop the money going to gangs and cartels so therefore their power and all its collateral consequences remains undiminished, you still get tons of low level non-violent addicts in the system for small sales to their friends, you still have no control over product contents, purity, or quality, you don't decrease the cost and time associated with addiction therefore you don't reduce the substantial 3rd party harms like property crime and robbery to fund a habit, and finally you still blow billions and billions and billions of dollars every year that would be more effective at mitigating the harms of drugs if it were redirected to education and treatment.
If you want to slightly reduce the harms of drugs, you've got a good plan. If you want to substantially reduce those harms, down to the minimum possible in human society, then your plan doesn't go nearly far enough.
This is pretty much just propaganda. Do you seriously think that any doctor, having passed the MCAT, been accepted to medical school, passed medical school, then passed the USMLE, thought for a second a full agonist opioid (that had existed for decades, by the way, oxycodone was not invented in the 90s or 2000s) was not just as addictive as every other full agonist opioid? Not a chance. And the stronger formulation, OxyContin, being appropriate for those without tolerance? Nope, not a chance. Not even pill mills gave out OC40's or OC80's to people who hadn't already been building tolerance for years.
The marketing shift that DID make the difference, was increasing access to pain relief for those suffering chronic pain that wasn't from a terminal condition or cancer. And that was a good thing in principle. People shouldn't be forced to live in pain because of someone else's moral opinion on physical dependence, nor because someone else is abusing pharmaceuticals instead of street drugs. There were some critical errors, like not preventing multiple doctors from prescribing to the same patient, doctors not being allowed to discuss harm reduction strategies or treat instead of discharge people with abuse issues (not to mention the whole drug war- addicts scamming pain practices is a consequence of prohibition), and although made into a much bigger issue than it was, prescriptions for people with minor pain from small injuries (APAP combo products that couldn't be snorted or injected).
You're looking for the easy scapegoat, and ignoring the very real issue of under-treated pain and its consequences. And now the pendulum has swung back the other way, and more pain patients live in agony and more drug users get their drugs on the street instead of from a pharmacist. I hope that you or someone you love never finally ends their own life after suffering from preventable pain that relief from became unavailable because of people like you. But I fear that much like drug prohibition in general, that's the only way people will take a deeper look at the pros and cons of trying to enforce sobriety at the end of a gun.
What kind of garbage is that? There were other darknet markets still up, and more appeared in days. Nobody with an IQ above room temperature would have thought for a second that shutting down Silk Road would impact darknet sales for anything resembling a significant time period.
And once again, not the slightest recognition that this entire problem with fentanyl analogs was caused exclusively by US drug policy throwing pain patients and addicts alike out of a setting with access to medical doctors and regulated pharmaceutical products and onto the street. The the NYT-type liberals were all for drug policy reform until the latest epidemic once again made them throw all logic and reason out the window in the face of emotion and once again screaming for law enforcement crackdowns, because somehow throwing more people in prison for longer periods of time will absolutely work this time, because opiates are BAD!!! Nevermind the collateral damage of people living in absolute agony who no longer have access to the kinds of medications that made their life bearable, people who vastly outnumbered the people misusing their medication for recreational purposes. Far more important that no one gets high from a doctor and pharmacy instead of from a gang and cartel drug lab. Doesn't matter how many people suffer from how much pain, that's nothing compared to the moral failing of getting high.
Pain management, now a medical field whose practices are determined by narcotics officers and not doctors, is, to great popular applause, the inverse of Blackstone's ratio.. Better 10 pain patients suffer in agony than one junky gets high on a known pharmaceutical instead of black market random powders.
Well if you replaced our whole government with Russia's whole government, yeah it would be a crap ton worse. I'm not convinced that if you simply replaced Trump with Putin that it would be any worse, and in fact would probably be better. Congress and the intelligence agencies would do like they are with Trump, not let him actually do anything that would *really* threaten the country. And at least we wouldn't be led by a man, already in a dead heat with Putin for 'most corrupt major power leader', whose malevolence is matched only by his stupidity and disgraces the country every time he opens his orange baboon megalomaniac mouth or tweets the latest stream-of-(lack of)-consciousness idiocy he's regurgitating from Russia Today's US Fox affiliate.
Not to mention you're really overestimating how meaningful our elections are these days. Is having two parties that are united on 90% of the ways they want to fuck the country, who actually differ only by which particular way they fuck us, and distract and divide us on a few social wedge issues instead of, you know, the 90% of the other ways they're fucking us.. is that really SO much better than just having them join together and drop all pretense? tl;dr covert fucking: better or worse than overt fucking?
It's not impossible to move the earth farther from the sun. And I think a lot more people would jump onboard a 'let's move the planet!!!' project than a 'let's sacrifice a little profit so we don't trash the planet' project. Honestly, which sounds like more fun to you?
Indeed. I'd take the hookers, drug dealers, and porn shops over the tourists, costumed characters, chain stores (well, i like the M&M store), desnudas, and police with automatic weapons any day. Not to mention the disgusting assault on free speech that has occurred now, where they painted (small) boxes on the ground and said anyone performing had to stay in the lines or be arrested, making it even worse now, of course they're all people who can't afford a lawyer to challenge it.. De Blasio just following in the fine Giuliani tradition of ruining things by making them more tourist friendly.
And that's all they talk about, to distract from the heart of the matter. It's nothing but a 'shoot the messenger' campaign. The DNC and Clinton were behaving in an unethical manner, and the Russians leaked the evidence of it. The underlying unethical behavior should be the focus. And yes, the retort is that they only leaked information on one party, but a) that doesn't absolve the DNC and HRC of what they did, b) What they did pales in comparison to what Trump openly did anyway, and c) They almost certainly alienated even more voters who realized a) and b) and watched them try to scream about Russians stealing the election anyway.
And no, I'm not a Trump supporter, because Clinton was still the lesser evil by miles. Thinking that anyone who says anyone other than Russia was at fault is automatically a Trump supporter is another thing that's just alienating even more people so that they stay home and cost the Dems the midterms and next presidency too.
If you think feminists are actually concerned about there being far more female teachers than male, or that there's not bias against men in childcare roles because of pedophilia paranoia, you haven't been paying attention.
I do in fact have links to that "curious" claim.
The original article is here... sub-headline being "Sentencing systems around the world should be radically reformed to start with the assumption that women should not be sent to prison for their crimes"
And the blog post discussing that article with the comment by Judge Kopf (who, to be fair, is normally a very reasonable guy and one of the better federal judges) is here.
Indeed, and progressives are just screaming racism and sexism even harder and eat their own as they shed members and allies instead of looking inward at their own hypocrisy. Ghost In The Shell? 'It's absolutely disgusting whitewashing to let a white actor play an Asian role! The race of the original character matters!'. Hamilton? 'Color-blind casting is wonderful, anyone who complains about a black or Hispanic actor being cast as a white character is a disgusting racist!'. Few female CEOs? Huge problem. Few male teachers? Good, because they'd just molest the kids anyway.
Then the other day I read this absolutely infuriating article bemoaning that more women were being imprisoned as they started to face the same punishment as men, and the solution was that even when a woman commits the same exact crime as a man, he should be imprisoned and she should not, and that women should almost never be imprisoned period. The author and almost all the commenters made it clear anyone who thought this was unfair was a sexist. Then on a blog post elsewhere criticizing the article, a sitting US Federal District Judge (Richard Kopf) jumped into the comments to say they yeah the article was bullshit, women shouldn't face no sentence when a man committing the same crime does, she should just face a lesser sentence because she's a woman. Un-fucking-believable, yet of course if this offends your sense of fairness, you're labeled a sexist and thrown out of the progressive clubhouse. The problem is it's no longer about equality, it's about reversing the systemic racism and sexism of the past so that it now favors women and minorities as the advantaged groups.
I'm a hard believer in absolute equality, believing that everything should be merit-based and sex and color blind. Apparently in the last 10 years or so this has changed from making me progressive to making me a sexist racist, since it also means I don't believe in not being white or not being male as something that should be taken into account in determining merit.
The 5th Amendment has been read more broadly than that. It (theoretically) prevents you from using the contents of your mind to assist in your own prosecution. That's why they spend so much time comparing it to a physical key-- because if it's recognized as the contents of your mind, it's covered under the 5th. What if it wasn't on this magical electronic device, say the police found a piece of paper in your house that had a weird language on it, but were convinced they knew what it would say... would translating it for them be using the contents of your mind, or like providing a physical key?
Then there's the issue of memory: you then have to accept the inevitable conclusion, that the punishment for forgetting your password is a life sentence, because you can be held in contempt until you provide it. People have said it's unlikely to be forgotten if it had been used frequently; but once the device was seized it was no longer used frequently. I had a combo lock in my college dorm that I opened every day for the entire first semester. When I came back from winter break, I absolutely could not remember it and after hours of trying I had to cut it off and get a new one. And that was far less complex than most passwords.
So at the end of the day, if it's something you can forget, it's the contents of your mind that are being used to translate an indecipherable text, and thus should count as testimony as per previous 5A jurisprudence, and is unequivocally in the spirit of the 5th. Judges saying otherwise are once again finding a loophole that doesn't exist in order to let law enforcement run roughshod over constitutional rights.
So as long as it's not nationwide, it's ok? US police shut down cell service for hours to stop protestors, who almost certainly weren't planning anything actually dangerous.
Before, ISPs had the expectation that if they did something too outrageous, like say sell your browsing history, they could expect problems from the FCC, and that kept it from happening for a while until they started pushing things too far and the regulations got passed. Now they have the green light to go ahead and explicitly do that without fear of consequences. It's a pretty big difference.
So the guy that recommended against indicting Hillary, because she "lacked intent" to violate a statute *with no intent requirement*, was actually trying to hurt her? Everyone working in intelligence all agree that if they did what she did, they'd 100% be charged. Never understood that one. What, did he change his mind? What's worse, whenever I try to discuss this point, I'm labeled a Trump supporter and the conversation is shut down, despite the fact that even if all the worse claims against her were true, I'd still rather have her in office than comrade cheeto. The downmods will flow before people even get to that sentence.
Well hopefully this is just a step along the way. IMO, parents who refuse to get their kids vaccinated for anything other than a legitimate medical reason should be treated no differently than parents who try to treat their kid's meningitis with prayer beads and homeopathic "remedies"... it's neglect and therefore child services should step in and force the issue. Your right to hold ridiculous views ends where it puts your child and others at a serious risk of easily preventable harm. And "religious" exemptions? I wonder if these "but it's my religious freedom" people would also support those nutty extremist sects where it's their "prophet"'s God Given Right to marry and rape their 10 year old? God commands it, after all. So sorry, your religion doesn't confer upon you unlimited power to jeopardize your kids' health and safety.
To be fair, this has happened to me before with international packages. I had a package sent express from Canada to the US, and instead of a few days it turned up 4 weeks later with tracking saying it left one US facility but never arrived anywhere else, without me even bothering to contact them since it wasn't expensive enough to not just re-order. There were no problems with the address either.
Hey come on now, they're not JUST pretending to be Apple, they're outright copying LG's really neat 2nd screen from the V10/V20 too, right down to the size and location. Can't recommend the v20 enough... not just the 2nd screen, but 3.5mm headphone jack, micro sd, removable battery, and excellent repairability rating... and rootable, though not easily yet. So sad that's a rare combo now.
First off, the danger is known and given the odds of having a fire hazard device and the fact the cause has been established and can be prevented with care, the risk falls within the levels of many other products we're allowed to own.
Second, and more important, I hope they get sued into the ground for this. It is absolutely unacceptable that a product you purchased can be force bricked at the manufacturer's whim. They're intentionally destroying your property. It's like not taking your car in due to a recall notice then the car company shows up and you wake up to a crushed cube in your driveway.
They absolutely have the right to, and probably should, ban the devices from connecting to the cellular network by blacklisting the IMEI like a stolen phone, but the right to just destroy it completely is an extremely dangerous precedent.
Nobody SHOULD want to continue to use that phone, but that shouldn't give the company that made it free reign to destroy your paid-for private property at will.
Slashdot Mirror
That's wonderful that marijuana is so effective for him. It should absolutely be tried first, and if it works fantastic, no need for opiates or as high a dose of opiates. But that's not always going to be the case.
And while, as we agree, it's harder for the people who NEED the pain meds to get them, you know who it's NOT harder for? People who want to get high, who don't mind switching to heroin or Fentanyl.Analogs(Rand());
One would hope you're at least logically consistent and wouldn't treat the drug alcohol different from the drug heroin when considering DUI penalties. Right? I mean, one drug is far more associated with impairment and harming third parties while under the influence, so it should be at least equal to the other right? Pro-tip: The last sentence was talking about alcohol.
So when Portugal decriminalized drugs like cocaine and heroin, use went up right?
Oh wait, it went down. Because it turns out there's very little overlap between people who want cocaine and heroin but are deterred by prohibition.
Also isn't 'ever tried' up for put, but 'regular user' down? Especially among teens?
Prohibition is not, has never been, nor ever will be, a significant impediment to anyone who wants drugs, even less so for the people likely to fall into abuse and addiction.
Your heart is in the right place, you're just badly misinformed as to what decades of prohibition and alternative drug polices have taught us. If you want to minimize the number of lives ruined by drugs, you provide legal access, to ALL drugs (no that doesn't mean at 7-11, look to the prescription or methadone model for a more realistic approach with addictive drugs), and take all the money you were spending on prohibition, and the new tax revenue, and put it into education and treatment, which, dollar for dollar, better reduce the number of problem users.
If you're an anesthesiologist you should know better than to be deliberately misleading. Many fentanyl analogs have a therapeutic index better than traditional opiates and other classes of medications. The one everyone is really worked up about, carfentanil, has an extremely large one in particular. Let's not conflate absolute amount with this, ok? I know that's not one you'd use, but my comment applies to sufenta, ultiva, et al. too. Wide safety margin in TI.
That strategy is better than outright prohibition, but still causes an immense amount of increased harm over legal, regulated access. 'The corner store' is not appropriate no, but entirely abdicating control to the black market, like we have now, is even less appropriate if your goal is to minimize the damage caused by a dangerous, but desired and highly profitable product. You don't stop the money going to gangs and cartels so therefore their power and all its collateral consequences remains undiminished, you still get tons of low level non-violent addicts in the system for small sales to their friends, you still have no control over product contents, purity, or quality, you don't decrease the cost and time associated with addiction therefore you don't reduce the substantial 3rd party harms like property crime and robbery to fund a habit, and finally you still blow billions and billions and billions of dollars every year that would be more effective at mitigating the harms of drugs if it were redirected to education and treatment.
If you want to slightly reduce the harms of drugs, you've got a good plan. If you want to substantially reduce those harms, down to the minimum possible in human society, then your plan doesn't go nearly far enough.
This is pretty much just propaganda. Do you seriously think that any doctor, having passed the MCAT, been accepted to medical school, passed medical school, then passed the USMLE, thought for a second a full agonist opioid (that had existed for decades, by the way, oxycodone was not invented in the 90s or 2000s) was not just as addictive as every other full agonist opioid? Not a chance. And the stronger formulation, OxyContin, being appropriate for those without tolerance? Nope, not a chance. Not even pill mills gave out OC40's or OC80's to people who hadn't already been building tolerance for years.
The marketing shift that DID make the difference, was increasing access to pain relief for those suffering chronic pain that wasn't from a terminal condition or cancer. And that was a good thing in principle. People shouldn't be forced to live in pain because of someone else's moral opinion on physical dependence, nor because someone else is abusing pharmaceuticals instead of street drugs. There were some critical errors, like not preventing multiple doctors from prescribing to the same patient, doctors not being allowed to discuss harm reduction strategies or treat instead of discharge people with abuse issues (not to mention the whole drug war- addicts scamming pain practices is a consequence of prohibition), and although made into a much bigger issue than it was, prescriptions for people with minor pain from small injuries (APAP combo products that couldn't be snorted or injected).
You're looking for the easy scapegoat, and ignoring the very real issue of under-treated pain and its consequences. And now the pendulum has swung back the other way, and more pain patients live in agony and more drug users get their drugs on the street instead of from a pharmacist. I hope that you or someone you love never finally ends their own life after suffering from preventable pain that relief from became unavailable because of people like you. But I fear that much like drug prohibition in general, that's the only way people will take a deeper look at the pros and cons of trying to enforce sobriety at the end of a gun.
What kind of garbage is that? There were other darknet markets still up, and more appeared in days. Nobody with an IQ above room temperature would have thought for a second that shutting down Silk Road would impact darknet sales for anything resembling a significant time period.
And once again, not the slightest recognition that this entire problem with fentanyl analogs was caused exclusively by US drug policy throwing pain patients and addicts alike out of a setting with access to medical doctors and regulated pharmaceutical products and onto the street. The the NYT-type liberals were all for drug policy reform until the latest epidemic once again made them throw all logic and reason out the window in the face of emotion and once again screaming for law enforcement crackdowns, because somehow throwing more people in prison for longer periods of time will absolutely work this time, because opiates are BAD!!! Nevermind the collateral damage of people living in absolute agony who no longer have access to the kinds of medications that made their life bearable, people who vastly outnumbered the people misusing their medication for recreational purposes. Far more important that no one gets high from a doctor and pharmacy instead of from a gang and cartel drug lab. Doesn't matter how many people suffer from how much pain, that's nothing compared to the moral failing of getting high.
Pain management, now a medical field whose practices are determined by narcotics officers and not doctors, is, to great popular applause, the inverse of Blackstone's ratio.. Better 10 pain patients suffer in agony than one junky gets high on a known pharmaceutical instead of black market random powders.
Well if you replaced our whole government with Russia's whole government, yeah it would be a crap ton worse. I'm not convinced that if you simply replaced Trump with Putin that it would be any worse, and in fact would probably be better. Congress and the intelligence agencies would do like they are with Trump, not let him actually do anything that would *really* threaten the country. And at least we wouldn't be led by a man, already in a dead heat with Putin for 'most corrupt major power leader', whose malevolence is matched only by his stupidity and disgraces the country every time he opens his orange baboon megalomaniac mouth or tweets the latest stream-of-(lack of)-consciousness idiocy he's regurgitating from Russia Today's US Fox affiliate.
Not to mention you're really overestimating how meaningful our elections are these days. Is having two parties that are united on 90% of the ways they want to fuck the country, who actually differ only by which particular way they fuck us, and distract and divide us on a few social wedge issues instead of, you know, the 90% of the other ways they're fucking us.. is that really SO much better than just having them join together and drop all pretense? tl;dr covert fucking: better or worse than overt fucking?
Sorry, up all night and a wee bit grumpy.
It's not impossible to move the earth farther from the sun. And I think a lot more people would jump onboard a 'let's move the planet!!!' project than a 'let's sacrifice a little profit so we don't trash the planet' project. Honestly, which sounds like more fun to you?
Indeed. I'd take the hookers, drug dealers, and porn shops over the tourists, costumed characters, chain stores (well, i like the M&M store), desnudas, and police with automatic weapons any day. Not to mention the disgusting assault on free speech that has occurred now, where they painted (small) boxes on the ground and said anyone performing had to stay in the lines or be arrested, making it even worse now, of course they're all people who can't afford a lawyer to challenge it.. De Blasio just following in the fine Giuliani tradition of ruining things by making them more tourist friendly.
And that's all they talk about, to distract from the heart of the matter. It's nothing but a 'shoot the messenger' campaign. The DNC and Clinton were behaving in an unethical manner, and the Russians leaked the evidence of it. The underlying unethical behavior should be the focus. And yes, the retort is that they only leaked information on one party, but a) that doesn't absolve the DNC and HRC of what they did, b) What they did pales in comparison to what Trump openly did anyway, and c) They almost certainly alienated even more voters who realized a) and b) and watched them try to scream about Russians stealing the election anyway.
And no, I'm not a Trump supporter, because Clinton was still the lesser evil by miles. Thinking that anyone who says anyone other than Russia was at fault is automatically a Trump supporter is another thing that's just alienating even more people so that they stay home and cost the Dems the midterms and next presidency too.
If you think feminists are actually concerned about there being far more female teachers than male, or that there's not bias against men in childcare roles because of pedophilia paranoia, you haven't been paying attention.
I do in fact have links to that "curious" claim. The original article is here... sub-headline being "Sentencing systems around the world should be radically reformed to start with the assumption that women should not be sent to prison for their crimes"
And the blog post discussing that article with the comment by Judge Kopf (who, to be fair, is normally a very reasonable guy and one of the better federal judges) is here.
Indeed, and progressives are just screaming racism and sexism even harder and eat their own as they shed members and allies instead of looking inward at their own hypocrisy. Ghost In The Shell? 'It's absolutely disgusting whitewashing to let a white actor play an Asian role! The race of the original character matters!'. Hamilton? 'Color-blind casting is wonderful, anyone who complains about a black or Hispanic actor being cast as a white character is a disgusting racist!'. Few female CEOs? Huge problem. Few male teachers? Good, because they'd just molest the kids anyway.
Then the other day I read this absolutely infuriating article bemoaning that more women were being imprisoned as they started to face the same punishment as men, and the solution was that even when a woman commits the same exact crime as a man, he should be imprisoned and she should not, and that women should almost never be imprisoned period. The author and almost all the commenters made it clear anyone who thought this was unfair was a sexist. Then on a blog post elsewhere criticizing the article, a sitting US Federal District Judge (Richard Kopf) jumped into the comments to say they yeah the article was bullshit, women shouldn't face no sentence when a man committing the same crime does, she should just face a lesser sentence because she's a woman. Un-fucking-believable, yet of course if this offends your sense of fairness, you're labeled a sexist and thrown out of the progressive clubhouse. The problem is it's no longer about equality, it's about reversing the systemic racism and sexism of the past so that it now favors women and minorities as the advantaged groups.
I'm a hard believer in absolute equality, believing that everything should be merit-based and sex and color blind. Apparently in the last 10 years or so this has changed from making me progressive to making me a sexist racist, since it also means I don't believe in not being white or not being male as something that should be taken into account in determining merit.
/rant
The 5th Amendment has been read more broadly than that. It (theoretically) prevents you from using the contents of your mind to assist in your own prosecution. That's why they spend so much time comparing it to a physical key-- because if it's recognized as the contents of your mind, it's covered under the 5th. What if it wasn't on this magical electronic device, say the police found a piece of paper in your house that had a weird language on it, but were convinced they knew what it would say... would translating it for them be using the contents of your mind, or like providing a physical key?
Then there's the issue of memory: you then have to accept the inevitable conclusion, that the punishment for forgetting your password is a life sentence, because you can be held in contempt until you provide it. People have said it's unlikely to be forgotten if it had been used frequently; but once the device was seized it was no longer used frequently. I had a combo lock in my college dorm that I opened every day for the entire first semester. When I came back from winter break, I absolutely could not remember it and after hours of trying I had to cut it off and get a new one. And that was far less complex than most passwords.
So at the end of the day, if it's something you can forget, it's the contents of your mind that are being used to translate an indecipherable text, and thus should count as testimony as per previous 5A jurisprudence, and is unequivocally in the spirit of the 5th. Judges saying otherwise are once again finding a loophole that doesn't exist in order to let law enforcement run roughshod over constitutional rights.
So as long as it's not nationwide, it's ok? US police shut down cell service for hours to stop protestors, who almost certainly weren't planning anything actually dangerous.
Nah just call it what it is, one sexquinquagintillion. Everyone knows how to name numbers larger than trillions right?
Before, ISPs had the expectation that if they did something too outrageous, like say sell your browsing history, they could expect problems from the FCC, and that kept it from happening for a while until they started pushing things too far and the regulations got passed. Now they have the green light to go ahead and explicitly do that without fear of consequences. It's a pretty big difference.
So the guy that recommended against indicting Hillary, because she "lacked intent" to violate a statute *with no intent requirement*, was actually trying to hurt her? Everyone working in intelligence all agree that if they did what she did, they'd 100% be charged. Never understood that one. What, did he change his mind? What's worse, whenever I try to discuss this point, I'm labeled a Trump supporter and the conversation is shut down, despite the fact that even if all the worse claims against her were true, I'd still rather have her in office than comrade cheeto. The downmods will flow before people even get to that sentence.
Well hopefully this is just a step along the way. IMO, parents who refuse to get their kids vaccinated for anything other than a legitimate medical reason should be treated no differently than parents who try to treat their kid's meningitis with prayer beads and homeopathic "remedies"... it's neglect and therefore child services should step in and force the issue. Your right to hold ridiculous views ends where it puts your child and others at a serious risk of easily preventable harm. And "religious" exemptions? I wonder if these "but it's my religious freedom" people would also support those nutty extremist sects where it's their "prophet"'s God Given Right to marry and rape their 10 year old? God commands it, after all. So sorry, your religion doesn't confer upon you unlimited power to jeopardize your kids' health and safety.
To be fair, this has happened to me before with international packages. I had a package sent express from Canada to the US, and instead of a few days it turned up 4 weeks later with tracking saying it left one US facility but never arrived anywhere else, without me even bothering to contact them since it wasn't expensive enough to not just re-order. There were no problems with the address either.
That used to be how it worked. Now the older drives stay the same price and the price of the newest just gets higher and higher.
Hey come on now, they're not JUST pretending to be Apple, they're outright copying LG's really neat 2nd screen from the V10/V20 too, right down to the size and location. Can't recommend the v20 enough... not just the 2nd screen, but 3.5mm headphone jack, micro sd, removable battery, and excellent repairability rating... and rootable, though not easily yet. So sad that's a rare combo now.
Architects don't get paid every year by everyone living in the buildings they designed.
Yet.
First off, the danger is known and given the odds of having a fire hazard device and the fact the cause has been established and can be prevented with care, the risk falls within the levels of many other products we're allowed to own.
Second, and more important, I hope they get sued into the ground for this. It is absolutely unacceptable that a product you purchased can be force bricked at the manufacturer's whim. They're intentionally destroying your property. It's like not taking your car in due to a recall notice then the car company shows up and you wake up to a crushed cube in your driveway.
They absolutely have the right to, and probably should, ban the devices from connecting to the cellular network by blacklisting the IMEI like a stolen phone, but the right to just destroy it completely is an extremely dangerous precedent.
Nobody SHOULD want to continue to use that phone, but that shouldn't give the company that made it free reign to destroy your paid-for private property at will.
This seems straight forward. Not sure why the judge felt this was the right way to go?
Because this guy is a pervert! And this is America! We never let stupid things like laws and civil rights get in the way of punishing a pervert.