If I don't lock my door when I leave the house I'm not implicitly inviting the police into my house and surrendering my Fourth Amendment rights. If I make a call to my mother on the POTS network they can't simply listen in (recent fascist precedents notwithstanding) just because our voices are unencrypted.
Yes, but if leave your curtains open and strangle your wife in front of your window, the government has every right to notice, and to enter your house and arrest you and try you for it.
The idea that the government does not have the right to notice what you say over the POTS network, whether a good idea or a bad one, is not a Constitutional idea. It is an idea of the Supreme Court, presented under the color of the 4th amendment. However, it goes against the spirit of what the 4th amendment is trying to say. The 4th amendment was written to protect the security of one's life, liberty and property, not privacy. There is nothing in it that would have prevented a magistrate in the day from peaking into a suspect's window on a hunch. However, if that suspect frosted all his windows for increased privacy, the government would have no recourse for finding more information, except for a warrant based on probable cause.
What is important in this case is not the ultimate resolution of that narrow issue, but the position that the United States government is taking on the entire issue of electronic privacy. That position, if accepted, may mean that the government can read anybody's e-mail at any time without a warrant.
This seems to be a fairly reasonable assessment of the situation.
Reasonable? The government is suggesting that email should be subject to subpoena. That means a court can read email pertinent to a case with a court order, just like a warrant but under a different legal standard. That's a pretty far cry from "the government can read anybody's e-mail at any time." This is just hyperbole. It would be like saying that warrants meant the end of the Constitution, because they would mean that "the government could read anybody's email at any time without a subpoena."
The U.S. Constitution is NOT a positive enumeration of citizens' rights. You have a right to do everything except what is specifically forbidden (by laws that we consent to live under). In addition, the Constitution isn't even about you, Mr. Citizen. The Constitution is about what We the People will permit government to do and not do. In other words, we (the people) already have all the rights in the universe*. A few of those we will consent to give for the purpose of living more-or-less harmoniously, and a few of those we will permit to the government. All else we reserve for ourselves and for the individual States in which we consent to live.
* So yes, I do have a Constitutional right to broadband Internet access.
Hold on, you're getting me excited now! Apparently I have a Constitutional right to have sex with Jessica Alba!
WTF does subpoenaing have to do with spying? And WTF does either subpoenaing or spying have to do with harassing MLK when he was in college instead of when he was a public figure?
Here's the ironic side of this - the Democrats are pretty much in a lock to have the next White House, barring another extreme disaster that sends people running back to Big Brother again. All of these broad, sweeping changes for the power of the White House will only be partially in effect for Bush's term... and fully in effect for Obama or Clinton's term. The Democrats would like to thank the Republicans for giving them such broad power. (Not that I support either of them having it, mind you.)
First of all, if you're really stupid enough to think it's a lock for the Democrats to win the presidency, go make a fortune on intrade.com. Second of all, go take a remedial civics class. Only courts can order subpoenas. Courts are part of the judicial branch of government. The white house is part of the executive branch of government.
Well, if the government doesn't need a warrant... does it apply to the public as well? I'd personally love to see some of the RNC's email, especially some juicy Rove memos.
Yes, it applies to all parties in a lawsuit, government or otherwise. So if you have a lawsuit against Mr. Rove, you can request that the judge issue a subpoena for any of his emails that include the phrase, "I am evil, and am going to take over the world." Good luck with that.
So much for that slogan - The US and China (or even cold war Russia) are not really that different. Total government control over communications, news media under govt control, corruption (although to be fair that's standard operating practice for any govt...)
Don't be dense. Listening to communications and control over communications are completely different concepts. A lack of freedom, or control over communications, would mean that people are restricted in how they communicate, what forms of communications they use, if they encrypt their conversations, etc. None of these things are even remotely the case in the US, nor are they likely to be. People who use hyperbole to turn every instance of government investigation into some "police state" rhetoric, make it possible to talk about freedom rationally.
I'm not sure how many morons are pushing 6,000-year-old earth theories. But the much more successful morons are the ones pushing CO2-induced global warming theories (especially the ones with mod points). If we can brand the combined group with "moron" insignias, I'd be satisfied.
Maybe his claims truly are nutty. If, instead of ad hominem attacks, you had attacked the merits of his specific claims, we would actually know. I've never read his work, so I don't know. But someone claiming, "oh, he's not reputable," or "no other scientist believes that" is hardly going to convince anyone who is interested in making their conclusion in a way consistent with the scientific method.
The quicker you capture a renewable source the more energy you can harvest from it, the quicker you consume a non-renewable source the faster you'll run out. Something we're learning in oil economics 101 so right about now... No, we're not. We've seen no signs of approaching the peak of our ability to extract oil from the earth. Increasing oil prices are mostly due to an unstable political environment a panicky speculation market.
For starters, the 21st Century Science and Technology is NOT a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is a group of quacks....So, if your russian scientist is the only one shouting that it's inaccurate, we must be left asking "Why does every other scientist accept it, and what is his axe to grind?".
Maybe his claims truly are nutty. If, instead of ad hominem attacks, you had attacked the merits of his specific claims, we would actually know. I've never read his work, so I don't know. But someone claiming, "oh, he's not reputable," or "no other scientist believes that" is hardly going to convince anyone who is interested in making their conclusion in a way consistent with the scientific method.
I'm not sure how many morons are pushing 6,000-year-old earth theories. But the much more successful morons are the ones pushing CO2-induced global warming theories. If we can brand the combined group with "moron" insignias, I'd be satisfied.
Wow. My relatives in the military are going to be devastated when I tell them that they are exactly the wrong type of people. I'll be sure to keep the news of the mighty mouse secret, as it will surely be very appealing to them.
But srsly...
If we can genetically create human beings with abilities that far outpace anything an unmodified can do will that become the norm? If you subscribe to neodarwinian evolution, this is impossible. There is no such thing as a "genetically modified" form that would not be possible for an "unmodified" creature to mutate to naturally. This is true at least for the foreseeable future, in which we can only make relatively small modifications or recombinations of existing genomes.
Thanks for the links. I saved the related papers that were available for free for later reading.
I've also been meaning to read the arguments and decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. However, from what I've read so far, I get the impression that the defense team was borderline incompetent.
But keep in mind that about half of Americans do not believe in human evolution of any kind, and instead think that that a supernatural being created humans basically as they exist today.
I found this surprising, but found multiple polls to confirm it. I don't think any reasonably intelligent and rational person who has studied comparative cellular biology or genetics in any detail can not believe in a common natural ancestor. However, obviously, the vast majority of human beings have not studied comparative cellular biology or genetics in any detail. I found it interesting that in a poll only of medical doctors, those who believed in non-evolutionary creation virtually disappeared, and those who believed in a God-involved evolution took the lead. I also found it interesting that, although ID is often called a pseudo-science version of the creation account of of Genesis, in the same poll of doctors, there were twice as many Hindus who believed in ID (24%) as Jews (12%). (Of course, Christians outnumbered them both.)
That said, many scientists would note that it is a little odd that a supernatural being would create a world where life comes into being, but do so using a method that ends up making it very uncertain whether or not any supernatural being is even necessary.
I've never quite understood this argument -- the idea that God should set out to make a universe specifically designed to make any explanation that doesn't involve him incomprehensible. What would such a universe even look like? When we see deterministic events, it's not concluded "there's determinism, there must be a God." When we see presumably non-deterministic events, like quantum events, we don't conclude that then either, we just say "there are non-deterministic events." I suppose God could make it so that every human being is born with a tattoo on his chest that says "property of God" in his own native language. However, the neodarwinian theory of evolution already has the universal explanation for any such miracles -- those tattoos were the result of natural selection as they gave competitive advantages to those who had them, because they felt themselves to have a higher purpose, etc. God could have hardwired our brains to only correctly understand his influence on the universe. However, this is at odds with nearly every religion's understanding of free will and providence. Moreover, assuming that God exists, one can't really say that He didn't give us enough compelling proof of Himself, seeing how the vast majority of human beings do in fact believe.
The idea that there should be scientific proof of God, seems to me a misunderstanding of what the scientific method is capable of. You can no more have scientific proof of God, than you can have scientific proof that I exist as an actual consciousness, rather than just an unconscious biological machine. That I exist and am conscious is something your probably believe. But all natural effects of my consciousness could be adequately explained by the natural theory of the neural network of my brain producing all the apparent effects of thought without there being an actual inner consciousness. We don't believe the "supernatural" theory of consciousness of others because it's necessary, but because it's true.
The view that common ancestry and evolution are true but that a supernatural being guides evolution may also be largely indistinguishable from materialistic evolution, though some people like Behe claim statistical methods and science can prove that random genetic mutations are not sufficient to drive evolution (though he is in the scientific minority on this
You're absolutely right. I'm a Comcast customer who needs my upload bandwidth (such as it is) for my livelihood as a software developer. I could also get Verizon FiOS but it costs more, and the upload bandwidth appears to be no better. If this complaint succeeds, and Comcast were forced to allow its customers to upload torrents 24/7, I would probably be forced to drop them and pay more for the FiOS so I could still have workable upstream bandwidth. Verizon's TOS apparently prevents hosting any type of server, so that would presumably protect that bandwidth. OTOH, according to the logic of the FCC complaint, preventing a user from hosting a server would clearly be limiting what applications that user can run and is therefore a violation of "net neutrality" that must be condemned in the most outlandish terms and punished severely.
However, this seems to be clearly stepping above that, and performing what is essentially source address spoofing, regardless of the whether or not there is congestion on the network. I don't know if you can really classify this as a QoS technique.
It's only a difference on the protocol level. Since the purpose and effect are the same, the legality is the same. A TCP packet is a technical contract, not a legal contract. Regardless, by the argument in the FCC complaint, any sort of QoS attempt would be a violation of "net neutrality" and should therefore be punished by the FCC, since any QoS will degrade performance of some particular application, which violates the user's right to run whatever applications he wants.
Hopefully this will fail miserably, because abolishing QoS will hurt the vast majority of users.
it's the only state to have established net neutrality as a telecommunications standard (See 16 NYCRR Part 605). And this case is exactly the definition of what those standards are put in place to protect!
So while it may have had to be filed with the FCC, the real place where you could pretty much guaranty a (maybe even court case) win against Comcast is in the state of New York. I don't see any plausible argument 16 NYCRR Part 605. The law requires non-discrimination toward content and content providers. It does not require non-discrimination toward protocols.
Well, how important it is to prevent a terrorist attack is subjective. It would certainly be possible in theory for a society to not even be interested in preventing attacks. They could eliminate airport screening altogether, and just prosecute it like a crime after the fact, if possible (which it is usually not). I can't really relate to that mindset though. I think preventing terrorists from blowing up or hijacking airplanes is worthy of making people take off their shoes and go through metal detectors, and restricting them from bringing in outside drinks. It can get annoying for regular travelers, but it's not really that big a deal.
Do you believe there is a substantial difference in the percentage of poorly-funded House candidates and the number of such Senate candidates? Don't forget Senators like Robert Byrd and Edward Kennedy had "challengers" in 2006.
Yes. Regardless, the parties will only fund races where they think they have a chance at winning. But ALL Senate races that are expected to be competitive get funded by the national parties, where as many competitive house races necessarily go unfunded.
Here are all the 2006 house races that ended up close (winner had
Here are all the 2006 senate races. In every race that was remotely competitive, the challenger was fairly massively funded, either from the national party or elsewhere. http://www.cfinst.org/pr/pdf/06-PostElec-Table5.pdf
More interesting graphs: House incumbents and challengers: http://www.cfinst.org/pr/pdf/06-PostElec-Table2.pdf Senate incumbents and challengers: http://www.cfinst.org/pr/pdf/06-PostElec-Table4.pdf Excluding 2006 (which represented a strategic anomaly on the part of the DNC, because they spent massive (by comparison to the norm) amounts on challengers), average funding of a house challenger is about 1/4 the funding of the incumbent. The average funding of a senate challenger is about 1/2 of the incumbent.
But I think the biggest factor in the relative competitiveness of senate races is the fact that the best potential candidate that exists in the state is the one that becomes the senate challenger.
The same party dominated both houses of Congress, and in the previous six years (full Senate term) there were no notable differences of opinion between the two chambers. There are some duties that the Senate performs that the House has no involvement in, such as judicial and executive nominees, but in the past six years, controversial nominees either dropped out before a vote (e. g. Miers) or became so only well after assuming office (e. g. Gonzales). Besides, the general theme of change also extended to state governments as well, seeing (relatively) large changes in the make up of executive and legislative offices....I see no compelling reason to believe that, in the minds of voters, there was a discernible difference between performance of the House and the Senate. There may be local politics in play here and there that might convince voters to ditch their particular Senator but hold on to their particular Representative, but it's highly unlikely that this 92% consistency is mere coincidence.
The vast majority of voters can be put in one of two categories. 1) Those who vote the party line in every general election. 2) Those who consider each candidate running, and vote for who they think is best. While some people might vote for challengers over incumbents across the board, I think they are an EXTREME minority. The are certainly not showing up on exit polls. No one gets the opportunity to vote for or against the house or senate, the only get the opportunity to vote for who they want to represent them. A "theme of change" is a political rhetoric and spin. It is not why people vote the way they vote.
Many people in 2006 were motivated to vote by their opposition to the occupation of Iraq, and would therefore have voted against whoever they identified with that policy. Of the 6 senate incumbents who lost, every one of them had a challenger with minimum of $6 million for running state-wide TV ads to associate the incumbent with the unpopular policy in the minds of the voters; something that NO house incumbent had to deal with.
House: Challenged incumbents got 64% of the vote on average, and won 93% of the time Senate: Challenged incumbents got 58% of the vote on average, and won 79% of the time
First, This will only work if the resonance breaks the bonds inside the proteins that create the subunits that self-assemble into the viral capsids. If the resonance only separates the weakly-bound subunits, then the resulting fragments will tend to re-self-assemble into whole viruses again. To use a bricks and mortar analogy -- if the device only breaks the mortar, the bricks can reused. The trick is to break the bricks.
It sounds like it probably only breaks apart the subunits. However, once the virus is essentially disassembled, assuming this is done with viruses free in the blood, I would think the immune system would clean up the parts long before they could reassemble.
Second, this solution requires a specific pulse frequency for each virus. It's not a broad-spectrum disinfectant. That suggests that viruses can easily evolve to defeat the device. Mutants that add a few non-functional amino acids to their capsid protein chains or that decorate the capsid surface with different biochemical groups would change the resonant frequency and allow mutants to escape and breed. One can even imagine evolution selecting for viruses that have inherent damping so that no resonant frequency can build enough energy to disrupt the shell. For example, a virus might become effectively heterozygous so that its shell is randomly constructed of two slightly different subunit sequences. A capsid that is not perfectly crystalline would lack a strong resonant frequency and escape disruption.
This may be true. However, I don't see what would stop them from transmitting many frequencies across the full spectrum that incorporates virus-sized objects simultaneously. I wonder how exact the frequency has to be to work.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a wiretap, or any other type of surveillance. It's a subpoena of the email for evidence in a trial.
Yes, but if leave your curtains open and strangle your wife in front of your window, the government has every right to notice, and to enter your house and arrest you and try you for it.
The idea that the government does not have the right to notice what you say over the POTS network, whether a good idea or a bad one, is not a Constitutional idea. It is an idea of the Supreme Court, presented under the color of the 4th amendment. However, it goes against the spirit of what the 4th amendment is trying to say. The 4th amendment was written to protect the security of one's life, liberty and property, not privacy. There is nothing in it that would have prevented a magistrate in the day from peaking into a suspect's window on a hunch. However, if that suspect frosted all his windows for increased privacy, the government would have no recourse for finding more information, except for a warrant based on probable cause.
Reasonable? The government is suggesting that email should be subject to subpoena. That means a court can read email pertinent to a case with a court order, just like a warrant but under a different legal standard. That's a pretty far cry from "the government can read anybody's e-mail at any time." This is just hyperbole. It would be like saying that warrants meant the end of the Constitution, because they would mean that "the government could read anybody's email at any time without a subpoena."
Hold on, you're getting me excited now! Apparently I have a Constitutional right to have sex with Jessica Alba!
No, if you read the case, apparently perpetrators of mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering are using unencrypted email to plan their misdeeds.
WTF does subpoenaing have to do with spying? And WTF does either subpoenaing or spying have to do with harassing MLK when he was in college instead of when he was a public figure?
First of all, if you're really stupid enough to think it's a lock for the Democrats to win the presidency, go make a fortune on intrade.com. Second of all, go take a remedial civics class. Only courts can order subpoenas. Courts are part of the judicial branch of government. The white house is part of the executive branch of government.
Yes, it applies to all parties in a lawsuit, government or otherwise. So if you have a lawsuit against Mr. Rove, you can request that the judge issue a subpoena for any of his emails that include the phrase, "I am evil, and am going to take over the world." Good luck with that.
Don't be dense. Listening to communications and control over communications are completely different concepts. A lack of freedom, or control over communications, would mean that people are restricted in how they communicate, what forms of communications they use, if they encrypt their conversations, etc. None of these things are even remotely the case in the US, nor are they likely to be. People who use hyperbole to turn every instance of government investigation into some "police state" rhetoric, make it possible to talk about freedom rationally.
I'm not sure how many morons are pushing 6,000-year-old earth theories. But the much more successful morons are the ones pushing CO2-induced global warming theories (especially the ones with mod points). If we can brand the combined group with "moron" insignias, I'd be satisfied.
Maybe his claims truly are nutty. If, instead of ad hominem attacks, you had attacked the merits of his specific claims, we would actually know. I've never read his work, so I don't know. But someone claiming, "oh, he's not reputable," or "no other scientist believes that" is hardly going to convince anyone who is interested in making their conclusion in a way consistent with the scientific method.
Maybe his claims truly are nutty. If, instead of ad hominem attacks, you had attacked the merits of his specific claims, we would actually know. I've never read his work, so I don't know. But someone claiming, "oh, he's not reputable," or "no other scientist believes that" is hardly going to convince anyone who is interested in making their conclusion in a way consistent with the scientific method.
I'm not sure how many morons are pushing 6,000-year-old earth theories. But the much more successful morons are the ones pushing CO2-induced global warming theories. If we can brand the combined group with "moron" insignias, I'd be satisfied.
But srsly... If we can genetically create human beings with abilities that far outpace anything an unmodified can do will that become the norm? If you subscribe to neodarwinian evolution, this is impossible. There is no such thing as a "genetically modified" form that would not be possible for an "unmodified" creature to mutate to naturally. This is true at least for the foreseeable future, in which we can only make relatively small modifications or recombinations of existing genomes.
I've also been meaning to read the arguments and decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. However, from what I've read so far, I get the impression that the defense team was borderline incompetent.
But keep in mind that about half of Americans do not believe in human evolution of any kind, and instead think that that a supernatural being created humans basically as they exist today.
I found this surprising, but found multiple polls to confirm it. I don't think any reasonably intelligent and rational person who has studied comparative cellular biology or genetics in any detail can not believe in a common natural ancestor. However, obviously, the vast majority of human beings have not studied comparative cellular biology or genetics in any detail. I found it interesting that in a poll only of medical doctors, those who believed in non-evolutionary creation virtually disappeared, and those who believed in a God-involved evolution took the lead. I also found it interesting that, although ID is often called a pseudo-science version of the creation account of of Genesis, in the same poll of doctors, there were twice as many Hindus who believed in ID (24%) as Jews (12%). (Of course, Christians outnumbered them both.)
I've never quite understood this argument -- the idea that God should set out to make a universe specifically designed to make any explanation that doesn't involve him incomprehensible. What would such a universe even look like? When we see deterministic events, it's not concluded "there's determinism, there must be a God." When we see presumably non-deterministic events, like quantum events, we don't conclude that then either, we just say "there are non-deterministic events." I suppose God could make it so that every human being is born with a tattoo on his chest that says "property of God" in his own native language. However, the neodarwinian theory of evolution already has the universal explanation for any such miracles -- those tattoos were the result of natural selection as they gave competitive advantages to those who had them, because they felt themselves to have a higher purpose, etc. God could have hardwired our brains to only correctly understand his influence on the universe. However, this is at odds with nearly every religion's understanding of free will and providence. Moreover, assuming that God exists, one can't really say that He didn't give us enough compelling proof of Himself, seeing how the vast majority of human beings do in fact believe.
The idea that there should be scientific proof of God, seems to me a misunderstanding of what the scientific method is capable of. You can no more have scientific proof of God, than you can have scientific proof that I exist as an actual consciousness, rather than just an unconscious biological machine. That I exist and am conscious is something your probably believe. But all natural effects of my consciousness could be adequately explained by the natural theory of the neural network of my brain producing all the apparent effects of thought without there being an actual inner consciousness. We don't believe the "supernatural" theory of consciousness of others because it's necessary, but because it's true.
You're absolutely right. I'm a Comcast customer who needs my upload bandwidth (such as it is) for my livelihood as a software developer. I could also get Verizon FiOS but it costs more, and the upload bandwidth appears to be no better. If this complaint succeeds, and Comcast were forced to allow its customers to upload torrents 24/7, I would probably be forced to drop them and pay more for the FiOS so I could still have workable upstream bandwidth. Verizon's TOS apparently prevents hosting any type of server, so that would presumably protect that bandwidth. OTOH, according to the logic of the FCC complaint, preventing a user from hosting a server would clearly be limiting what applications that user can run and is therefore a violation of "net neutrality" that must be condemned in the most outlandish terms and punished severely.
And if ISPs WERE common carriers, that would only prevent them from discriminating based on content, not based on protocol.
It's only a difference on the protocol level. Since the purpose and effect are the same, the legality is the same. A TCP packet is a technical contract, not a legal contract. Regardless, by the argument in the FCC complaint, any sort of QoS attempt would be a violation of "net neutrality" and should therefore be punished by the FCC, since any QoS will degrade performance of some particular application, which violates the user's right to run whatever applications he wants.
Hopefully this will fail miserably, because abolishing QoS will hurt the vast majority of users.
So while it may have had to be filed with the FCC, the real place where you could pretty much guaranty a (maybe even court case) win against Comcast is in the state of New York. I don't see any plausible argument 16 NYCRR Part 605. The law requires non-discrimination toward content and content providers. It does not require non-discrimination toward protocols.
I submit TFA is a conclusive refutation of John Edwards' claim that every American should go to college.
Well, how important it is to prevent a terrorist attack is subjective. It would certainly be possible in theory for a society to not even be interested in preventing attacks. They could eliminate airport screening altogether, and just prosecute it like a crime after the fact, if possible (which it is usually not). I can't really relate to that mindset though. I think preventing terrorists from blowing up or hijacking airplanes is worthy of making people take off their shoes and go through metal detectors, and restricting them from bringing in outside drinks. It can get annoying for regular travelers, but it's not really that big a deal.
Here's the table of close house races that I tried to include:
http://www.cfinst.org/pr/pdf/06-PostElec-Table3.pdf
Yes. Regardless, the parties will only fund races where they think they have a chance at winning. But ALL Senate races that are expected to be competitive get funded by the national parties, where as many competitive house races necessarily go unfunded.
Here are all the 2006 house races that ended up close (winner had
Here are all the 2006 senate races. In every race that was remotely competitive, the challenger was fairly massively funded, either from the national party or elsewhere. http://www.cfinst.org/pr/pdf/06-PostElec-Table5.pdf
More interesting graphs:
House incumbents and challengers: http://www.cfinst.org/pr/pdf/06-PostElec-Table2.pdf
Senate incumbents and challengers: http://www.cfinst.org/pr/pdf/06-PostElec-Table4.pdf
Excluding 2006 (which represented a strategic anomaly on the part of the DNC, because they spent massive (by comparison to the norm) amounts on challengers), average funding of a house challenger is about 1/4 the funding of the incumbent. The average funding of a senate challenger is about 1/2 of the incumbent.
But I think the biggest factor in the relative competitiveness of senate races is the fact that the best potential candidate that exists in the state is the one that becomes the senate challenger.
The vast majority of voters can be put in one of two categories. 1) Those who vote the party line in every general election. 2) Those who consider each candidate running, and vote for who they think is best. While some people might vote for challengers over incumbents across the board, I think they are an EXTREME minority. The are certainly not showing up on exit polls. No one gets the opportunity to vote for or against the house or senate, the only get the opportunity to vote for who they want to represent them. A "theme of change" is a political rhetoric and spin. It is not why people vote the way they vote.
Many people in 2006 were motivated to vote by their opposition to the occupation of Iraq, and would therefore have voted against whoever they identified with that policy. Of the 6 senate incumbents who lost, every one of them had a challenger with minimum of $6 million for running state-wide TV ads to associate the incumbent with the unpopular policy in the minds of the voters; something that NO house incumbent had to deal with.
House: Challenged incumbents got 64% of the vote on average, and won 93% of the time
Senate: Challenged incumbents got 58% of the vote on average, and won 79% of the time
It sounds like it probably only breaks apart the subunits. However, once the virus is essentially disassembled, assuming this is done with viruses free in the blood, I would think the immune system would clean up the parts long before they could reassemble.
This may be true. However, I don't see what would stop them from transmitting many frequencies across the full spectrum that incorporates virus-sized objects simultaneously. I wonder how exact the frequency has to be to work.