I'm about as far from a lawyer as you an get, but I think the majority of states where videotaping someone without consent is considered illegal, the issue is usually with the sound - not the video. If you don't record sound, in many cases there is no issue. If you do record sound, and you don't have the consent of the parties being recorded (in some states, I think it's all of the parties, in others you need only the consent of one), you could be in trouble. Some states might also only consider it a problem if there's a reasonable expectation of privacy (which you shouldn't expect in a public place). But it's definitely a per state thing.
I personally think that you should be able to record sound and video of someone in a public place - but once bad laws are in place, they are hard to change.
Better Place says they've had their battery swap system do changes in under 40 seconds. The video on their site shows it happening in just over 1 minute. Not bad for the first gen (wow, that robot moves slow), but they're stuck in that place where they have the idea, and have invested in the technology, but need to get all the players on board or they'll get nowhere. Unless car manufacturers get on board, it won't matter how many swap stations they build. Unless they have swap stations, no car manufacturers want to join. Right now, they've opened one in Israel, but only some demo vehicles can use it so far, since the Renault Fluence Z.E that is supposed to be the flagship battery swap electric vehicle isn't on sale yet (or wasn't in March when that was written). It will be interesting to see what happens. I like the idea of charging my car's battery at home most of the time, but having the option to swap it at a road-side station if I want to go on a long trip. We're a lot of infrastructure away from that day, though.
I don't know if what you say is true to yourself, but I must confess that I find it tiresome when people write about karma and moderation in their posts.
I've made a half-dozen posts on this topic and this is the first mention I've made about karma. I was really only talking about it in response to the person who said I wasn't winning friends and influencing people by presenting some concepts from the pro side of the finance industry. My main point was that I didn't care a whit about being popular, I just want to fairly discuss all sides of the issue.
I'll admit, I didn't notice if you'd done this on other posts. Unless there's some compelling reason to do so, I tend to just read from top to bottom, or perhaps to where I think it's getting incredibly redundant or stupid. Some days that's not far. It just seems that it is very common rhetoric these days for one to lament the karma one is sacrificing for one's noble principles. You don't need to do that, your comments were not really in any danger - and like I said, plenty of us read at a low enough threshold to see your comments - not that we need to - even now, your original post is modded insightful!
I thought we gave money to people who told us that they would act in our best interests and invest it wisely. I thought they had a fiduciary responsibility to do that.
Even with all that we still need to question them, monitor them, and validate what they are doing with our money. Overall the average joe doesn't do that, he just forks over the cash and waits for the money to roll in. Now you might be an exception to that and if you are then I'm glad to hear it. I just wish more people would act that way instead of reacting in shock when the money goes bye bye.
I am not now, nor was I ever (to my knowledge) invested in anything that advertised that it was purchasing collateralized debt obligations or mortgage backed securities. I'm not invested in anything more complicated than index tracking mutual funds. But, I hire professionals to manage my money. You can't be telling me that even though I pay someone else to do this, and that someone else has a responsibility to act in my interest, I am under an obligation to learn their business? Perhaps I should hire professionals to monitor them? And professionals to monitor them? (This sounds very lucrative for the financial professionals!) Where do the turtles stop? When can I trust that the professional that I pay, and that has a legal responsibility to act in my best interest (and takes money from me to do so) will actually do what I pay them for? When do I have recourse for them lying, stealing, and cheating? I say that's at level one - if they don't look out for me, then they shouldn't be allowed to be in business. My loss should be THEIR loss - not their bailout and bonus check.
Let me put this a different way. Do you check the engineering of every bridge you cross? Do you demand to see the blueprint of every building in Manhattan before you go inside? No - you trust that the engineers that had a responsibility to put up a proper building did so. If they fail in that, as professional engineers, they are responsible. There are inspections to enforce regulations (building codes). Why is this different in finance? If buildings were engineered by some of our most successful finance professionals, they'd build them out of sub-standard materials, buy insurance on them, and collect when they collapsed - then take umbrage when the families of the dead and injured were angry with them. "Your relatives should have checked the thickness of the beams when they decided to go in the buildings! It's their fault! Ignorance of the difference between the failure modes of hot-rolled and cold-rolled steel is no excuse!"
Please don't get me wrong, I don't mean to paint the whole industry as dishonest, there are undoubtedly a great many good and ethical people there, as in any industry.
This completely overturns my blind faith in the veracity of advertisements. If this one commercial contains fictional people, why, they all could! And what about the so-called "facts" they tell me? Maybe my beer really isn't less filling!? Maybe it doesn't really taste great!? What will I do?!?!
This is what I see as the greatest impediment to me getting a new laptop. I have a Dell XPS m1530 with 1920x1200 (WUXGA) screen. HD has killed the 16:10 screen by flooding the market with 16x9 screens. The best I seem to be able to do without going to one of the custom builders is going to lose me 120 lines. And despite what anyone says about it being "too small", I've never had a problem with it in the 3 years I've had it.
I agree it will probably do just about anything a $500 Windows laptop can do, but 2008 was 3 years ago. It will have a 3 year old battery, a T8300 processor (at best), probably 2GB of RAM (maybe he expanded it to 4?), 160GB HD and a 1280x800 screen. Putting Windows 7 on it (the "legal" way) is probably about $100, and putting a fresh new battery in it is probably another $65 (if you do it yourself). I just saw a Lenovo i3 380M @ 2.53GHZ w/ 4GB RAM, Dual layer DVD burner, HDMI output, 320GB HD, 1366x768 LED screen, SD reader for $449. The i3 380M charts a lot higher than the T8300, and I bet it takes less power, too. I guess it depends a lot on what she wants to do with it - but she seems a little particular about her computer, and if he wants it to not be obsolete in 2 years, well... there's a reason he upgraded to a spiffy MacBook Pro, right?:) Anyway, while I'd consider loading Windows 7 on it, $449 isn't bad for a faster computer, I'd see how she feels about it first. Never want to upset the wife by giving her the cheap present that should be "good enough".;)
People gave their money to investment companies and then turned a blind eye to how that money was used in either a show of greed or ignorance. We can't affix the blame to just the investment bankers, we gave them the power by giving them the money and the free reign to do what they wanted with it.
But hey, if I was a karma whore I would just post exactly what the average slashdot libertarian wants to hear rather than openly discuss the whole issue. However, that's not me and I'd rather be true to myself. I'll get modded down for it but slashdot karma is just a number anyways.
I thought we gave money to people who told us that they would act in our best interests and invest it wisely. I thought they had a fiduciary responsibility to do that. I thought we were told that trying to invest it ourselves was foolish, because we couldn't possibly spend the time required to do it wisely, and these people were experts, who had gone to school and who had experience doing it. Believing this was perhaps naive, but I wouldn't call it greedy or ignorant.
I don't know if what you say is true to yourself, but I must confess that I find it tiresome when people write about karma and moderation in their posts. Let your words speak for themselves. I and plenty of other people interested in dissenting opinions read Slashdot at sufficiently low threshold that we'll see your post. Those interested in only hearing their own words won't be convinced anyway, so you have lost very little.
That animation was made from a live presentation. A live presentation that sounded like someone reading from a text wouldn't be interesting, or attended by anyone, and so it would be pointless. Perhaps the original poster only knew of the animation version, and thought it was a sufficient hook to draw others in to seeking more information if they desired. If the animation annoys you, and you prefer to just listen and imagine a person on stage with a chart package instead of watching the animation, feel free. Or, you could watch this much longer presentation about Drive, from which I bet it the animation was derived. If you prefer reading more in depth material, dry Dan Pink's book, Drive. If you want some source material, he has some references listed here.
It took me only a few minutes to light this candle, I hope it helped you more than cursing the darkness.
P.S. I do not know or work for Dan Pink, have never seen him speak in person, and I can't personally endorse his message... but I thought the animation interesting enough to go look up his talk on RSA, which wasn't difficult. I hope it helped.
Hmmm. I think I've solved the deficit problem! How much in taxes will these record companies owe on their $75 trillion? Even if they just pay 2% (which seems a little high when you compare with the effective tax rates paid by companies like Bank Of America) it would be $1.5 trillion, so it would take care of the budget deficit. It'd even put a hundred billion or so toward the US national debt. Problem solved! Now PAY UP, LIMEWIRE!!!!!
Sometimes we forget that it isn't only the astronauts who risk their lives. The astronauts do, of course, and and their trip is more perilous - but the guys who work on the cranes and gantries, and around powerful hydraulic machinery that wouldn't even notice their presence as it casually cut them in half, or under and around heavy equipment that wouldn't even sit at an angle after falling on them, they risk their lives, too. We owe them all our thanks for making these inspiring journeys possible.
I think that if they'd been together / lived together / operated as a married couple for long enough, and the state they were in recognized "common law marriage", she might be able to claim the privilege of not testifying against him. If the poster above who linked to what he thought to be the girlfriend's Facebook page is correct, then they live in Pennsylvania, and Wikipedia says no common-law marriage is available in PA. Of course, I'm too moral a person to be a lawyer, so this isn't legal advice.
I'm hoping that our criminal justice system has a little more to go on than your wager, and that they wouldn't charge her otherwise. I'll reserve judgment since I haven't seen any evidence.
If it doesn't play BluRay discs, does it still violate the patent(s)? Sony has removed features in the past. Maybe they'll update the firmware on the ones they haven't sold yet so they can't read discs anymore, and send another update to everyone else. I guess it could still download games and stream movies from online. It would be amusing to see them just remove all of the original advertised features one-by-one until the only thing the PS3 can do is hold doors open. Well, amusing except for the fact that I own one...
Well, eventually the root cause(s) will be found - and if the faults lies within their own systems, who will be embarrassed? It would seem to be an extremely poor strategy in the long term to do something like that. I suspect that it will turn out to be run-of-the-mill variety bugs in code, or in configuration, that managed to slip through on both sides, and were not caught previously perhaps as a result of testing with insufficient load. It may be that the larger vendors, having more complicated networks and more volume, were just the most vulnerable to having bad configurations. This just points out how important it is to test, test, test, test, test, test some more, and then test again - but most importantly, test realistically, with realistic configurations and realistic loads. Especially there is something valuable depending on the result, like lives, or the financial well being of millions of trusting pensioners.
Good luck to the developers and integrators who will undoubtedly be working 16-hour days until this is fixed.
If it didn't crash and didn't drop its network connections, Linux was doing its job.
If the application software had bugs, then the application software developers are to blame.
Even if the OS itself isn't at fault, don't think that someone with an axe to grind won't blame it. You'll just hear something like "It's Too Hard to develop on Linux. A platform with more / better tools would have made it easier to develop and comprehensively test." I don't buy that either (regardless of what price you quote me!;) ), but I'm sure someone will be saying it. Especially someone in marketing.
Emphasize mine. Looks to me like the exchange is getting the flack for a couple of amateurish (or saboteurish?) vendors.
So you mean they asked their vendors to change a communication protocol and never tested before day 1 ? Honestly, that not how you test such a development. Sure, one can blame vendors for not correctly implementing a spec, but this is regular, expectable error in the software world. The real mistake is the lack of a test with the various sources.
Huh? Did you skip the earlier sentence?
The LSE is taking the position that its data feeds are working correctly. Industry sources said the exchange had placed a great deal of emphasis on the launch, which was largely providing successful high-speed trading, and that it had allocated sufficient time - 15 months - for the vendors to be fully prepared for the new system.
I think he means it was available for test for 15 months. I don't think the LSE can force the vendors to use the new protocol, but giving them 15 months to do so seems fairly reasonable. On the other hand, it could be that the quantity of testing was fine, but the quality (as in how accurate with respect to important things like scaling) was poor. You can test for years, but if your testbed doesn't look anything like the real environment, what are you really testing?
Also, the "emergency" argument doesn't work for the Internet. It has become clear that, during any major emergency, what's needed is a rapid influx of portable Internet (and other comms) capacity. During disasters, communication is extremely important for disaster workers. So again, it isn't going to be shut down during any "national disaster". The disaster-relief folks are working on exactly the opposite, rapid deployment of mobile comm equipment, mostly providing wireless Internet capability, to disaster areas.
"The ability to access emergency services by dialing 911 is a vital component of public safety and emergency preparedness." Because of this, the FCC already requires VOIP providers to meet Enhanced 911 (E911) obligations. Interrupting the routes between people's ISPs and the ISPs of their VOIP providers (how I understand a so called "kill switch" might work) would potentially disconnect people from access to E911 services. It does indeed sound like a conflict. Do we have a "kill switch" for the PSTN?
Oh, I don't know... I'm not the GP, but one could argue that if you want to know who is speaking more than you want to know what they have to say, it's possible you're just interested in launching an ad hominem argument. Good ideas should stand up to debate regardless of who expresses them. I'm more inclined to value well reasoned arguments than "convictions." There are a lot of people who have strong convictions, but little reasoning.
Personally, I wouldn't mind mention of the weaknesses in the current theories of evolution or in AGW, if the teacher was competent to speak about them (big if), and had the students think about the consequences of those weaknesses, whether they could be tested scientifically, and how various results of those tests might be supportive, inconclusive, or would require rethinking some (but not all) aspects of the theories. Of course, given that these are high school students,and there is a limited amount of time that is available for teaching science in the classroom, I wouldn't want to give any more time proportionally to unsupported or unsupportable theories than is given to them in mainstream scientific journals. That doesn't seem like what the NM bill is aiming to achieve, though. Often it seems that these sorts of bills are supported by people who think that because we haven't found a fossil of each and every ancestor of a modern day species, it proves that an old man & his son loaded two of the current day animal aboard a big boat.
I'd prefer it if we could invent a device that would assess your reaction times and gauge the quality of your snap decisions... that should stop people from driving drunk, stoned, with a concussion, with dementia, when too tired, etc. It'd probably stop a few people from driving when they're perfectly stone cold sober, because they're just not capable of safely operating a motor vehicle - but hey, THAT's what we really want, right?
That's why I say we should just throw everyone in jail. The innocent people should be able to get their convictions overturned. I call this "guilty until proven innocent." Seems like a fair trade, because it will protect everyone from everything! Just think, all the child molesters and terrorists and drunk drivers would be in jail! And unlike you and me, they wouldn't be able to get out! That reminds me, when is our next appeal date? I'm losing my job because I'm stuck in here, my wife has taken custody of our kids, and these legal fees are taking what little money I have left. Where do I go to get the refund on those when I get out? The only thing that helps me keep so optimistic is that now I know I'm really safe!
Slashdot Mirror
I personally think that you should be able to record sound and video of someone in a public place - but once bad laws are in place, they are hard to change.
At the time of writing, the forum already had over 100 registered members.
... and of the 100, 89 of them were CIA, 9 FBI, and 2 Interpol.
Better Place says they've had their battery swap system do changes in under 40 seconds. The video on their site shows it happening in just over 1 minute. Not bad for the first gen (wow, that robot moves slow), but they're stuck in that place where they have the idea, and have invested in the technology, but need to get all the players on board or they'll get nowhere. Unless car manufacturers get on board, it won't matter how many swap stations they build. Unless they have swap stations, no car manufacturers want to join. Right now, they've opened one in Israel, but only some demo vehicles can use it so far, since the Renault Fluence Z.E that is supposed to be the flagship battery swap electric vehicle isn't on sale yet (or wasn't in March when that was written). It will be interesting to see what happens. I like the idea of charging my car's battery at home most of the time, but having the option to swap it at a road-side station if I want to go on a long trip. We're a lot of infrastructure away from that day, though.
(Decora, you are truly a genius, why didn't we do think of this long ago?!)
I don't know if what you say is true to yourself, but I must confess that I find it tiresome when people write about karma and moderation in their posts.
I've made a half-dozen posts on this topic and this is the first mention I've made about karma. I was really only talking about it in response to the person who said I wasn't winning friends and influencing people by presenting some concepts from the pro side of the finance industry. My main point was that I didn't care a whit about being popular, I just want to fairly discuss all sides of the issue.
I'll admit, I didn't notice if you'd done this on other posts. Unless there's some compelling reason to do so, I tend to just read from top to bottom, or perhaps to where I think it's getting incredibly redundant or stupid. Some days that's not far. It just seems that it is very common rhetoric these days for one to lament the karma one is sacrificing for one's noble principles. You don't need to do that, your comments were not really in any danger - and like I said, plenty of us read at a low enough threshold to see your comments - not that we need to - even now, your original post is modded insightful!
I thought we gave money to people who told us that they would act in our best interests and invest it wisely. I thought they had a fiduciary responsibility to do that.
Even with all that we still need to question them, monitor them, and validate what they are doing with our money. Overall the average joe doesn't do that, he just forks over the cash and waits for the money to roll in. Now you might be an exception to that and if you are then I'm glad to hear it. I just wish more people would act that way instead of reacting in shock when the money goes bye bye.
I am not now, nor was I ever (to my knowledge) invested in anything that advertised that it was purchasing collateralized debt obligations or mortgage backed securities. I'm not invested in anything more complicated than index tracking mutual funds. But, I hire professionals to manage my money. You can't be telling me that even though I pay someone else to do this, and that someone else has a responsibility to act in my interest, I am under an obligation to learn their business? Perhaps I should hire professionals to monitor them? And professionals to monitor them? (This sounds very lucrative for the financial professionals!) Where do the turtles stop? When can I trust that the professional that I pay, and that has a legal responsibility to act in my best interest (and takes money from me to do so) will actually do what I pay them for? When do I have recourse for them lying, stealing, and cheating? I say that's at level one - if they don't look out for me, then they shouldn't be allowed to be in business. My loss should be THEIR loss - not their bailout and bonus check.
Let me put this a different way. Do you check the engineering of every bridge you cross? Do you demand to see the blueprint of every building in Manhattan before you go inside? No - you trust that the engineers that had a responsibility to put up a proper building did so. If they fail in that, as professional engineers, they are responsible. There are inspections to enforce regulations (building codes). Why is this different in finance? If buildings were engineered by some of our most successful finance professionals, they'd build them out of sub-standard materials, buy insurance on them, and collect when they collapsed - then take umbrage when the families of the dead and injured were angry with them. "Your relatives should have checked the thickness of the beams when they decided to go in the buildings! It's their fault! Ignorance of the difference between the failure modes of hot-rolled and cold-rolled steel is no excuse!"
Please don't get me wrong, I don't mean to paint the whole industry as dishonest, there are undoubtedly a great many good and ethical people there, as in any industry.
This completely overturns my blind faith in the veracity of advertisements. If this one commercial contains fictional people, why, they all could! And what about the so-called "facts" they tell me? Maybe my beer really isn't less filling!? Maybe it doesn't really taste great!? What will I do?!?!
This is what I see as the greatest impediment to me getting a new laptop. I have a Dell XPS m1530 with 1920x1200 (WUXGA) screen. HD has killed the 16:10 screen by flooding the market with 16x9 screens. The best I seem to be able to do without going to one of the custom builders is going to lose me 120 lines. And despite what anyone says about it being "too small", I've never had a problem with it in the 3 years I've had it.
I agree it will probably do just about anything a $500 Windows laptop can do, but 2008 was 3 years ago. It will have a 3 year old battery, a T8300 processor (at best), probably 2GB of RAM (maybe he expanded it to 4?), 160GB HD and a 1280x800 screen. Putting Windows 7 on it (the "legal" way) is probably about $100, and putting a fresh new battery in it is probably another $65 (if you do it yourself). I just saw a Lenovo i3 380M @ 2.53GHZ w/ 4GB RAM, Dual layer DVD burner, HDMI output, 320GB HD, 1366x768 LED screen, SD reader for $449. The i3 380M charts a lot higher than the T8300, and I bet it takes less power, too. I guess it depends a lot on what she wants to do with it - but she seems a little particular about her computer, and if he wants it to not be obsolete in 2 years, well... there's a reason he upgraded to a spiffy MacBook Pro, right? :) Anyway, while I'd consider loading Windows 7 on it, $449 isn't bad for a faster computer, I'd see how she feels about it first. Never want to upset the wife by giving her the cheap present that should be "good enough". ;)
People gave their money to investment companies and then turned a blind eye to how that money was used in either a show of greed or ignorance. We can't affix the blame to just the investment bankers, we gave them the power by giving them the money and the free reign to do what they wanted with it.
But hey, if I was a karma whore I would just post exactly what the average slashdot libertarian wants to hear rather than openly discuss the whole issue. However, that's not me and I'd rather be true to myself. I'll get modded down for it but slashdot karma is just a number anyways.
I thought we gave money to people who told us that they would act in our best interests and invest it wisely. I thought they had a fiduciary responsibility to do that. I thought we were told that trying to invest it ourselves was foolish, because we couldn't possibly spend the time required to do it wisely, and these people were experts, who had gone to school and who had experience doing it. Believing this was perhaps naive, but I wouldn't call it greedy or ignorant.
I don't know if what you say is true to yourself, but I must confess that I find it tiresome when people write about karma and moderation in their posts. Let your words speak for themselves. I and plenty of other people interested in dissenting opinions read Slashdot at sufficiently low threshold that we'll see your post. Those interested in only hearing their own words won't be convinced anyway, so you have lost very little.
It took me only a few minutes to light this candle, I hope it helped you more than cursing the darkness.
P.S. I do not know or work for Dan Pink, have never seen him speak in person, and I can't personally endorse his message... but I thought the animation interesting enough to go look up his talk on RSA, which wasn't difficult. I hope it helped.
He just doesn't want you to FOIA his emails.
Hmmm. I think I've solved the deficit problem! How much in taxes will these record companies owe on their $75 trillion? Even if they just pay 2% (which seems a little high when you compare with the effective tax rates paid by companies like Bank Of America) it would be $1.5 trillion, so it would take care of the budget deficit. It'd even put a hundred billion or so toward the US national debt. Problem solved! Now PAY UP, LIMEWIRE!!!!!
For those about to rock, we salute you.
Sometimes we forget that it isn't only the astronauts who risk their lives. The astronauts do, of course, and and their trip is more perilous - but the guys who work on the cranes and gantries, and around powerful hydraulic machinery that wouldn't even notice their presence as it casually cut them in half, or under and around heavy equipment that wouldn't even sit at an angle after falling on them, they risk their lives, too. We owe them all our thanks for making these inspiring journeys possible.
I think that if they'd been together / lived together / operated as a married couple for long enough, and the state they were in recognized "common law marriage", she might be able to claim the privilege of not testifying against him. If the poster above who linked to what he thought to be the girlfriend's Facebook page is correct, then they live in Pennsylvania, and Wikipedia says no common-law marriage is available in PA. Of course, I'm too moral a person to be a lawyer, so this isn't legal advice.
I'm hoping that our criminal justice system has a little more to go on than your wager, and that they wouldn't charge her otherwise. I'll reserve judgment since I haven't seen any evidence.
If it doesn't play BluRay discs, does it still violate the patent(s)? Sony has removed features in the past. Maybe they'll update the firmware on the ones they haven't sold yet so they can't read discs anymore, and send another update to everyone else. I guess it could still download games and stream movies from online. It would be amusing to see them just remove all of the original advertised features one-by-one until the only thing the PS3 can do is hold doors open. Well, amusing except for the fact that I own one...
Good luck to the developers and integrators who will undoubtedly be working 16-hour days until this is fixed.
If it didn't crash and didn't drop its network connections, Linux was doing its job.
If the application software had bugs, then the application software developers are to blame.
Even if the OS itself isn't at fault, don't think that someone with an axe to grind won't blame it. You'll just hear something like "It's Too Hard to develop on Linux. A platform with more / better tools would have made it easier to develop and comprehensively test." I don't buy that either (regardless of what price you quote me! ;) ), but I'm sure someone will be saying it. Especially someone in marketing.
Emphasize mine. Looks to me like the exchange is getting the flack for a couple of amateurish (or saboteurish?) vendors.
So you mean they asked their vendors to change a communication protocol and never tested before day 1 ? Honestly, that not how you test such a development. Sure, one can blame vendors for not correctly implementing a spec, but this is regular, expectable error in the software world. The real mistake is the lack of a test with the various sources.
Huh? Did you skip the earlier sentence?
The LSE is taking the position that its data feeds are working correctly. Industry sources said the exchange had placed a great deal of emphasis on the launch, which was largely providing successful high-speed trading, and that it had allocated sufficient time - 15 months - for the vendors to be fully prepared for the new system.
I think he means it was available for test for 15 months. I don't think the LSE can force the vendors to use the new protocol, but giving them 15 months to do so seems fairly reasonable. On the other hand, it could be that the quantity of testing was fine, but the quality (as in how accurate with respect to important things like scaling) was poor. You can test for years, but if your testbed doesn't look anything like the real environment, what are you really testing?
Also, the "emergency" argument doesn't work for the Internet. It has become clear that, during any major emergency, what's needed is a rapid influx of portable Internet (and other comms) capacity. During disasters, communication is extremely important for disaster workers. So again, it isn't going to be shut down during any "national disaster". The disaster-relief folks are working on exactly the opposite, rapid deployment of mobile comm equipment, mostly providing wireless Internet capability, to disaster areas.
"The ability to access emergency services by dialing 911 is a vital component of public safety and emergency preparedness." Because of this, the FCC already requires VOIP providers to meet Enhanced 911 (E911) obligations. Interrupting the routes between people's ISPs and the ISPs of their VOIP providers (how I understand a so called "kill switch" might work) would potentially disconnect people from access to E911 services. It does indeed sound like a conflict. Do we have a "kill switch" for the PSTN?
Personally, I wouldn't mind mention of the weaknesses in the current theories of evolution or in AGW, if the teacher was competent to speak about them (big if), and had the students think about the consequences of those weaknesses, whether they could be tested scientifically, and how various results of those tests might be supportive, inconclusive, or would require rethinking some (but not all) aspects of the theories. Of course, given that these are high school students,and there is a limited amount of time that is available for teaching science in the classroom, I wouldn't want to give any more time proportionally to unsupported or unsupportable theories than is given to them in mainstream scientific journals. That doesn't seem like what the NM bill is aiming to achieve, though. Often it seems that these sorts of bills are supported by people who think that because we haven't found a fossil of each and every ancestor of a modern day species, it proves that an old man & his son loaded two of the current day animal aboard a big boat.
I'd prefer it if we could invent a device that would assess your reaction times and gauge the quality of your snap decisions... that should stop people from driving drunk, stoned, with a concussion, with dementia, when too tired, etc. It'd probably stop a few people from driving when they're perfectly stone cold sober, because they're just not capable of safely operating a motor vehicle - but hey, THAT's what we really want, right?
Check out SARTRE.
That's why I say we should just throw everyone in jail. The innocent people should be able to get their convictions overturned. I call this "guilty until proven innocent." Seems like a fair trade, because it will protect everyone from everything! Just think, all the child molesters and terrorists and drunk drivers would be in jail! And unlike you and me, they wouldn't be able to get out! That reminds me, when is our next appeal date? I'm losing my job because I'm stuck in here, my wife has taken custody of our kids, and these legal fees are taking what little money I have left. Where do I go to get the refund on those when I get out? The only thing that helps me keep so optimistic is that now I know I'm really safe!