I wasn't suggesting that you were linking mental illness with a choice. I think my formatting erased a chunk of the message. Cursed phone keyboard, not being set up for html!
What is was suggesting was that you are confusing mental illnesses that are due to chemistry, and those that relate to brain structure. At out current understanding if how the brain works, those two things are different. Gender identity, as we know it, relates to brain structure; those are very hard to treat. Chemistry issues are easier; on the physical side we've treated diabetes for decades with insulin. Structural differences in the brain are near impossible to treat; and the current research leads to the (not so) strange finding that MtF transgendered individuals have a brain structure more like female brains (accounting for statistical variation, of course). That same is true for FtM individuals.
So, if we can't go poking in people's brains to change the structure, and GRS&HRT work, why shouldn't people be allowed to be happy?
Most if them are three electrode, actually. I just picked up a mind flex and the duo (two player version), and am tearing into them to see how useful the data is. Byt, i agree that even with three sensor points, most of the signal will be pulse and muscle movement, not neural activity.
While i hate to agree with the parent post (i've had this discussion with them on 'that other website' they mentioned, different pseudonym for myself there) transgender is still considered a mental illness by the medical community. The problem in discussing mental illness is that there is no good way to separate ones that are pathological brain structure differences from those that are pathological chemical imbalances from those that are personality disorders with no (yet) known pathology. So, we lump them all together and some people assume that means one type of treatment must work for all types of illness or disorder. It's like the infancy of antibiotics, in the mental health field.
What the parent poster has not taken away from this discussion in the past, is that as of this moment in time, GRS and HRT are the treatments with the best results for gender dysmophic disorder (or what ever name ends up on the DSM). Statistically, they work. In the future, we may find better treatments or we may improve on the surgeries. But for now, if surgery and hormones help someone, and they seek it out, why care?
And to parrot what someone above posted, intersexed individuals would benefit from the same database changes. Hopefully, soon, we won't all be dealing with fixing data after infant assignment surgery (may that whole school of thought fade quickly). But even so, the whole gender binary seems to be fading away. It may take 50 years after another Kensey type study, but it will fade./please forgive the typos and such. This cellphone keyboard hasn't gotten used to me yet
That wouldn't matter. Without the 5th as discussed the police could just show up at your door and demand answers to whatever questions they felt like asking. Not a search, as legally defined. But after you answer them, and give them what ever they were (or maybe were not) looking for, they get a search warrant.
In terms the submitter can understand: the cops show up at your door asking about a murder. You didn't commit it, and you alibi is that you were at the bar till 4 am, had 18 drinks and then drove home. You committed the crime of driving drunk, but not the murder.
Or, instead of being at the bar, you were somehow in the bed of the cop's spouse. Try to answer the question asked without the 5th and without jail or a beating by the armed thug at the door.
Not even an outlet, just an extension cord and surge protector shaped like 2 outlets.
I've got a surge protector under my desk that cost less (and one behind the tv, and . ..) came with more outlets, and USB plugs, a known rating for maximum surge stopped, and it even has fairly standard holes on the back to mount to exposed screw heads. Like telephones, surge protectors have has these holes on them for years; people just don't use them for mounting purposes.
Since you bring up AA, you might want to look at the 12 steps? I don't agree with them, but the premise is that you have to admit that you suffer from a disorder and that this disorder doesn't have to be the center definition of your life.
Survivors did survive something, again, state of being. But those survivors don't walk around saying "I am breast cancer" . . . "I am a breast cancer survivor." sure, they say that.
It's become correct, but it shouldn't be. "I suffer from bipolar disorder" should be the correct phrase. Hungry is a state of being, one can be that; as is being depressed, but no one says "I'm depression" (one is a state of being, the other is a illness that causes that state of being more often). One might be having a bipolar episode, in which case the phrase might be correct, but they are not constantly in one state or the other if treatment is working. There is no reason to allow mental illnesses to be a label that defines a characteristic about a person any more than high sodium or high blood pressure does. They are all medical disorders, they are all things one deals with from time of diagnosis and usually before that, but they do not need to be labels.
Since they don't cite which study they are talking about, I can't begin to pick apart it's actual problems. In 2010, there was a study (damned if Scholar isn't finding it right now) about SSRI treatment of 'mild to moderate depression'. It showed, and was widely quoted at the time, that placebos were as effective as SSRI and tricyclics. Sure, sounds damning, except that the definition of 'mild depression' is as vague as the rest of your post makes it sound.
Severe depression, on the other hand, is not vague and "I'm feeling run down". It's "I can't get out of bed, and a general practitioner has ruled out other issues, and I just want to die so can someone hand me that gun because I don't feel like getting up to get it." Yes, JAMA published research has shown that placebos need to be given in studies to see that antidepressants are actually working. Other studies show that, in meta-analysis, TCAs and SSRIs do work; though by narrow margins. And if the article in 2010 was the Kirsch one, you can read the abstract here on what the data says when corrected for what the patients reported or doctor measured (i can't read the article from here) their depression symptoms to be.
In total, you remain wrong in thinking that the statement of "the use of the scientific method in psychology is crap" has any merit. Reading a pop-psy article of course skims over the actual details and avoids bringing up what the statistical values were; that would confuse readers who want it condensed into bite sized bits to throw around. But for gods sake, don't cite wiki in an article complaining about the scientific method.
When your poor, you're are nutty: when you're rich; it's called "eccentric".
When you're poor, you're called an asshole. When you're rich; you're called forceful and driven.
Actually, in both cases if your behavior is causing you harm, you are not nutty or eccentric, you are mentally ill. The qualifier of the DSM has, and remains, that the behavior is causing harm. Hear voices that aren't there, but they just are normal conversations or Jesus/Batman telling you to do good deeds? Not a problem unless you want it to go away. Same voices telling you that people are after you and that you need to hurt other people? That's a mental illness. Same for behavioral problems, like narcissistic personality disorder. Someone poor might be called an asshole, someone rich might be called driven, but a good psychiatrist wouldn't care about that. If it is causing harm in relationships with other people or to the patient, it's a disorder and illness.
As for who gets to determine whether it's causing harm, that's still not an issue. The patient, 99% of the time. The doctor has input, and can overrule with 72-hour holds if they feel someone is a danger to themself or others but that is the only time that a doctor gets to determine whether it's a treatable illness or just a personality trait.
The problem with a diagnosis is that it's a label. Someone who says "I'm bipolar" can expect that every action will be judged harshly as to whether it's actually their intended "normal" action, or the manifestation of their depression or mania, whichever happens to be the case that day (or hour).
And any person who says that needs some behavior modification anyways. No one walks around saying "I'm heart disease" or "I'm the flu" when they are suffering from those disorders or illnesses. Only mental health and diabetes have that distinction. And it's a bloody stupid one that continues to allow people with mental illnesses to continue to blame their illness for everything, because they treat it as a label. It's stupid for the reason you bring up as well, because it allows others to blame that one thing instead of anything else.
If people with mental illnesses treat it as an illness, not a defining feature of themself . . . well, there is a reason that's part of behavioral therapy already.
My notebooks from highschool were filled with that sort of stuff. Listen to anything from the early goth to late industrial music, from the Cure through NIN to Assemblage 23, and some of the lyrics would disturb anyone. Metal music has entire genres devoted to it.
Point being, writing is therapy for some people. Putting the hate, rage, depression, anger, isolation, abuse, whatever into words makes it real. That's a reason writing therapy, and music therapy, are proven counseling methods. Getting those emotions out, on paper, where they can be looked at and understood is a good thing, I agree. But it can be counseling too.
I see something different in the story being told. The characters spend a bit of time building something amazing, and then worry that it's going to be taken away from them. They set out to figure out the reason for that.
Maybe because I've read his blog, or just because of http://xkcd.com/931/ that I see something darker in the story he's telling. Maybe it's just a metaphor, all good stories are. But that, as of now, the characters are almost visually back to where they started seems . . . poignant.
Can still be used as case law, or persuasive precedent, in other cases. "Look, your honor, here is how another judge ruled and his reasoning. You don't have to agree, but you should consider this ruling."
I didn't see the warrant specifically mentioned, but "normally" the search warrant has to specify exactly what is being searched, and is thus ONLY valid for what is being searched. For example, the search warrant would say "the file named kiddie_porn.jpeg", and thus only that file (and not ccfraud.txt) becomes evidence. That said, warrants can also be broad - the hard drives themselves were presumably seized because the search warrant said "any computers and electronic storage devices located at 123 Perpetrator Street". Fishing expedition warrants saying "all files showing evidence of kiddie porn" tend to get thrown out, but a warrant saying "all files under C:\kiddie_porn" backed up by evidence (a P2P log) showing that files in fact were placed within C:\kiddie_porn is probably valid - and a warrant backed up by a P2P log is almost certainly what the search warrant this judge is ruling about says.
Not being a lawyer, I can't tell you what happens if the person examining the encrypted contents happens to see evidence of some other crime. But the physical analogy is this: if the police show up with a warrant to search your house for "computers", they are obviously entitled to seize all computers. And if they walk through your house and see illegal drugs sitting on the table, that's admissible evidence ("in plain sight") (Interestingly, it cannot be seized because the warrant does not specify "drugs". But what happens is the cop calls the judge and says "I'm executing warrant A for computers and see drugs on the table, can I get warrant B to seize the drugs?" and the judge faxes over a warrant right away). But they are not allowed to rifle through all your drawers and closets - drugs found there are not admissible evidence because they are not "in plain sight". (Unless you give the police permission - and they WILL ask. Which is why lawyers always advise saying "I do not consent" - you cannot stop the search / seizure, but not consenting makes any evidence found without a warrant inadmissible and the police potentially liable for misconduct). It's difficult to guess how courts would apply this standard to searching a HDD, but they would do it by starting with the physical analogy and figuring out how it applies to electronics.
What's happening in this case is that the prosecution knows files with kiddie porn names were downloaded. But they still cannot prove the files contain actual kiddie porn. (Maybe this guy is sick and thinks naming his legal porn files with kiddie porn names is funny). So the prosecutor was hoping to compel this guy to hand over the encrypted files (whose names they knew), under a warrant that compels him to be truthful about their contents (by having a neutral 3rd party do the work). The judge decided that the prosecutor does not have enough evidence to prove this guy actually knew what was in the files (maybe he operates a repository with files stored on an encrypted disk, but does not himself have access to the files). The judge also implied that if the prosecutors DID have evidence of what was in the files (maybe 1 or 2 got left on unencrypted drives by the P2P program as intermediate files and the filenames matched?), he probably would authorize the warrant and require this guy to decrypt his drives.
If, during a reasonable search, something else illegal is found while conducting the search in a lawful manner, that evidence is valid. See cases where the cops show up for a domestic dispute, and arrest everyone on drug charges because the heroin/crack/meth is sitting on the table. If, on the other hand, the warrant was just for the computer and drives on the suspect's desk, and a cop decided to go looking through the sock drawer and found some weed, that should be inadmissible.
Wrong. The government can force you to turn over the 'key to the safe'. They know you have a safe, they know you store stuff in it, they have reason the believe it's relevant to the case at hand, they get search warrant and you either unlock it or face contempt. As long as they know it's your safe, they can compel you to open it. They can compel you to open your filing cabinet, or diary too. Just because you wrote it doesn't make it safe under the 5th.
Keys to the safe. It's been a long history of rulings saying that if the cops know or have reason to believe you put something in a safe, and they have reason the believe that those documents are valid to the case at hand, they can compel you to open it with a warrant. Your diary and handwritten notes are not protected from a search if they are sitting on your desk, and they are not protected if the cops have reason to believe that you put them in a safe either.
Difference in this case appears to be that the cops only know that there is encrypted data, but they can't provide reasonable evidence that the defendant put it there.
I read it yet another way, as "providing the password would imply that he knew the encrypted data was there to begin with".
How many viruses now days encrypt stored spaces to hide warez and other crap from antiviruses? How do the cops know that the guy didn't let a friend use the computer and the friend put the data there. If all the cops know is 'there is something encrypted it', legally it seems like them demanding this guy opens it without proving it belongs to him. Cops find a safe, they think there may be proof of a crime inside, and demand that CivilianX opens it or faces contempt charges. . . with no proof that CivilianX is involved. Same legal grounds, it seems, according to this judge.
Doesn't look like this is the same kind of noodle as those. That looked like just pre-made dough out of a pack, and would almost have to be to allow the robot to shave consistent sized noodles. Seems like that at the rate they need noodles, they had to pay someone to do only that and nothing else. Imagine a fastfood company here paying one person to 'just cut buns in half'.
I think they mistook the 2xPRU as DSP chips. They are a good way to feed data quickly to a DSP, or get data from one, but they lack certain instructions that a DSP really needs.
Baseball scoring isn't just the two teams points at the end of the game. Take a look at a baseball scoresheet, it's not something that just records who got points when. Like football passing and rushing yards, receptions, completions, picks, sacks, etc, baseball records where each player ends up at the end of each play. It started simple, just tracking whether you hit a single, double, triple, home run, ground rule double, in field home run, and how many RBI for the batting team, and catches, outs, errors, strike/ball for the throwing team. It's way more complex than that now.
If you thought the Blernsball scoresheet was complicated, you haven't looked at a real baseball one.
That's something I can't figure out, though. You have a falling object, and a moving shutter that I hope is moving vertically downward. A sideways moving shutter should create some amount of distortion at 1/40,000 of a second. Even a vertical shutter should have some lag, unless I'm vastly mistaking the moving rate of a snowflake.
As a note for the non-photographers, high speed shutters do not open and close completely at 1/40000th. The normal method of off the shelf equipment is that the shutter opens, and while it is moving, the second closing shutter closes 1/40000th later. It still takes up to 1/400 or so (depending on the camera, look at the sync speed to get the right neighborhood of numbers) for the shutter to fully open and cover the shutter.
Two of those things are not like the other. IBS was diagnosed back in the 60s, and treated with phenobarbital; it got called restless bowel, crohns, and a few other names. Fibromyalgia was separated from chronic pain disorders long before the current marketing push to treat it with GABA or GABA prodrugs; I vaguely recall tests of certain pressure points being the separating factor between Fibro and other pain disorders some time in the late 80's or early 90's.
I can't speak to restless leg. I don't know anything about that one. But the fact that disorders suddenly get lots of coverage when there are finally drugs that work to help those suffering . . . how can that be a bad thing? Yes, there are people who diagnose themselves with what ever the disease du jour is. Their doctor is supposed to act as a filter between them and the rest of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't suggesting that you were linking mental illness with a choice. I think my formatting erased a chunk of the message. Cursed phone keyboard, not being set up for html!
What is was suggesting was that you are confusing mental illnesses that are due to chemistry, and those that relate to brain structure. At out current understanding if how the brain works, those two things are different. Gender identity, as we know it, relates to brain structure; those are very hard to treat. Chemistry issues are easier; on the physical side we've treated diabetes for decades with insulin. Structural differences in the brain are near impossible to treat; and the current research leads to the (not so) strange finding that MtF transgendered individuals have a brain structure more like female brains (accounting for statistical variation, of course). That same is true for FtM individuals.
So, if we can't go poking in people's brains to change the structure, and GRS&HRT work, why shouldn't people be allowed to be happy?
Most if them are three electrode, actually. I just picked up a mind flex and the duo (two player version), and am tearing into them to see how useful the data is. Byt, i agree that even with three sensor points, most of the signal will be pulse and muscle movement, not neural activity.
While i hate to agree with the parent post (i've had this discussion with them on 'that other website' they mentioned, different pseudonym for myself there) transgender is still considered a mental illness by the medical community. The problem in discussing mental illness is that there is no good way to separate ones that are pathological brain structure differences from those that are pathological chemical imbalances from those that are personality disorders with no (yet) known pathology. So, we lump them all together and some people assume that means one type of treatment must work for all types of illness or disorder. It's like the infancy of antibiotics, in the mental health field. What the parent poster has not taken away from this discussion in the past, is that as of this moment in time, GRS and HRT are the treatments with the best results for gender dysmophic disorder (or what ever name ends up on the DSM). Statistically, they work. In the future, we may find better treatments or we may improve on the surgeries. But for now, if surgery and hormones help someone, and they seek it out, why care? And to parrot what someone above posted, intersexed individuals would benefit from the same database changes. Hopefully, soon, we won't all be dealing with fixing data after infant assignment surgery (may that whole school of thought fade quickly). But even so, the whole gender binary seems to be fading away. It may take 50 years after another Kensey type study, but it will fade. /please forgive the typos and such. This cellphone keyboard hasn't gotten used to me yet
That wouldn't matter. Without the 5th as discussed the police could just show up at your door and demand answers to whatever questions they felt like asking. Not a search, as legally defined. But after you answer them, and give them what ever they were (or maybe were not) looking for, they get a search warrant. In terms the submitter can understand: the cops show up at your door asking about a murder. You didn't commit it, and you alibi is that you were at the bar till 4 am, had 18 drinks and then drove home. You committed the crime of driving drunk, but not the murder. Or, instead of being at the bar, you were somehow in the bed of the cop's spouse. Try to answer the question asked without the 5th and without jail or a beating by the armed thug at the door.
Not even an outlet, just an extension cord and surge protector shaped like 2 outlets.
I've got a surge protector under my desk that cost less (and one behind the tv, and . . .) came with more outlets, and USB plugs, a known rating for maximum surge stopped, and it even has fairly standard holes on the back to mount to exposed screw heads. Like telephones, surge protectors have has these holes on them for years; people just don't use them for mounting purposes.
Since you bring up AA, you might want to look at the 12 steps? I don't agree with them, but the premise is that you have to admit that you suffer from a disorder and that this disorder doesn't have to be the center definition of your life.
Survivors did survive something, again, state of being. But those survivors don't walk around saying "I am breast cancer" . . . "I am a breast cancer survivor." sure, they say that.
It's become correct, but it shouldn't be. "I suffer from bipolar disorder" should be the correct phrase. Hungry is a state of being, one can be that; as is being depressed, but no one says "I'm depression" (one is a state of being, the other is a illness that causes that state of being more often). One might be having a bipolar episode, in which case the phrase might be correct, but they are not constantly in one state or the other if treatment is working. There is no reason to allow mental illnesses to be a label that defines a characteristic about a person any more than high sodium or high blood pressure does. They are all medical disorders, they are all things one deals with from time of diagnosis and usually before that, but they do not need to be labels.
Someone with some mod points throw them at this AC. The stats posted, uncited, by the OP are vague and, if true, self selected as the AC points out.
Because there are roughly 3 times more people than there were 60 years ago?
Depression meds work no better than placebo.
Since they don't cite which study they are talking about, I can't begin to pick apart it's actual problems. In 2010, there was a study (damned if Scholar isn't finding it right now) about SSRI treatment of 'mild to moderate depression'. It showed, and was widely quoted at the time, that placebos were as effective as SSRI and tricyclics. Sure, sounds damning, except that the definition of 'mild depression' is as vague as the rest of your post makes it sound.
Severe depression, on the other hand, is not vague and "I'm feeling run down". It's "I can't get out of bed, and a general practitioner has ruled out other issues, and I just want to die so can someone hand me that gun because I don't feel like getting up to get it." Yes, JAMA published research has shown that placebos need to be given in studies to see that antidepressants are actually working. Other studies show that, in meta-analysis, TCAs and SSRIs do work; though by narrow margins. And if the article in 2010 was the Kirsch one, you can read the abstract here on what the data says when corrected for what the patients reported or doctor measured (i can't read the article from here) their depression symptoms to be.
In total, you remain wrong in thinking that the statement of "the use of the scientific method in psychology is crap" has any merit. Reading a pop-psy article of course skims over the actual details and avoids bringing up what the statistical values were; that would confuse readers who want it condensed into bite sized bits to throw around. But for gods sake, don't cite wiki in an article complaining about the scientific method.
When your poor, you're are nutty: when you're rich; it's called "eccentric".
When you're poor, you're called an asshole. When you're rich; you're called forceful and driven.
Actually, in both cases if your behavior is causing you harm, you are not nutty or eccentric, you are mentally ill. The qualifier of the DSM has, and remains, that the behavior is causing harm. Hear voices that aren't there, but they just are normal conversations or Jesus/Batman telling you to do good deeds? Not a problem unless you want it to go away. Same voices telling you that people are after you and that you need to hurt other people? That's a mental illness. Same for behavioral problems, like narcissistic personality disorder. Someone poor might be called an asshole, someone rich might be called driven, but a good psychiatrist wouldn't care about that. If it is causing harm in relationships with other people or to the patient, it's a disorder and illness.
As for who gets to determine whether it's causing harm, that's still not an issue. The patient, 99% of the time. The doctor has input, and can overrule with 72-hour holds if they feel someone is a danger to themself or others but that is the only time that a doctor gets to determine whether it's a treatable illness or just a personality trait.
The problem with a diagnosis is that it's a label. Someone who says "I'm bipolar" can expect that every action will be judged harshly as to whether it's actually their intended "normal" action, or the manifestation of their depression or mania, whichever happens to be the case that day (or hour).
And any person who says that needs some behavior modification anyways. No one walks around saying "I'm heart disease" or "I'm the flu" when they are suffering from those disorders or illnesses. Only mental health and diabetes have that distinction. And it's a bloody stupid one that continues to allow people with mental illnesses to continue to blame their illness for everything, because they treat it as a label. It's stupid for the reason you bring up as well, because it allows others to blame that one thing instead of anything else.
If people with mental illnesses treat it as an illness, not a defining feature of themself . . . well, there is a reason that's part of behavioral therapy already.
My notebooks from highschool were filled with that sort of stuff. Listen to anything from the early goth to late industrial music, from the Cure through NIN to Assemblage 23, and some of the lyrics would disturb anyone. Metal music has entire genres devoted to it.
Point being, writing is therapy for some people. Putting the hate, rage, depression, anger, isolation, abuse, whatever into words makes it real. That's a reason writing therapy, and music therapy, are proven counseling methods. Getting those emotions out, on paper, where they can be looked at and understood is a good thing, I agree. But it can be counseling too.
I see something different in the story being told. The characters spend a bit of time building something amazing, and then worry that it's going to be taken away from them. They set out to figure out the reason for that.
Maybe because I've read his blog, or just because of http://xkcd.com/931/ that I see something darker in the story he's telling. Maybe it's just a metaphor, all good stories are. But that, as of now, the characters are almost visually back to where they started seems . . . poignant.
Can still be used as case law, or persuasive precedent, in other cases. "Look, your honor, here is how another judge ruled and his reasoning. You don't have to agree, but you should consider this ruling."
I didn't see the warrant specifically mentioned, but "normally" the search warrant has to specify exactly what is being searched, and is thus ONLY valid for what is being searched. For example, the search warrant would say "the file named kiddie_porn.jpeg", and thus only that file (and not ccfraud.txt) becomes evidence. That said, warrants can also be broad - the hard drives themselves were presumably seized because the search warrant said "any computers and electronic storage devices located at 123 Perpetrator Street". Fishing expedition warrants saying "all files showing evidence of kiddie porn" tend to get thrown out, but a warrant saying "all files under C:\kiddie_porn" backed up by evidence (a P2P log) showing that files in fact were placed within C:\kiddie_porn is probably valid - and a warrant backed up by a P2P log is almost certainly what the search warrant this judge is ruling about says.
Not being a lawyer, I can't tell you what happens if the person examining the encrypted contents happens to see evidence of some other crime. But the physical analogy is this: if the police show up with a warrant to search your house for "computers", they are obviously entitled to seize all computers. And if they walk through your house and see illegal drugs sitting on the table, that's admissible evidence ("in plain sight") (Interestingly, it cannot be seized because the warrant does not specify "drugs". But what happens is the cop calls the judge and says "I'm executing warrant A for computers and see drugs on the table, can I get warrant B to seize the drugs?" and the judge faxes over a warrant right away). But they are not allowed to rifle through all your drawers and closets - drugs found there are not admissible evidence because they are not "in plain sight". (Unless you give the police permission - and they WILL ask. Which is why lawyers always advise saying "I do not consent" - you cannot stop the search / seizure, but not consenting makes any evidence found without a warrant inadmissible and the police potentially liable for misconduct). It's difficult to guess how courts would apply this standard to searching a HDD, but they would do it by starting with the physical analogy and figuring out how it applies to electronics.
What's happening in this case is that the prosecution knows files with kiddie porn names were downloaded. But they still cannot prove the files contain actual kiddie porn. (Maybe this guy is sick and thinks naming his legal porn files with kiddie porn names is funny). So the prosecutor was hoping to compel this guy to hand over the encrypted files (whose names they knew), under a warrant that compels him to be truthful about their contents (by having a neutral 3rd party do the work). The judge decided that the prosecutor does not have enough evidence to prove this guy actually knew what was in the files (maybe he operates a repository with files stored on an encrypted disk, but does not himself have access to the files). The judge also implied that if the prosecutors DID have evidence of what was in the files (maybe 1 or 2 got left on unencrypted drives by the P2P program as intermediate files and the filenames matched?), he probably would authorize the warrant and require this guy to decrypt his drives.
If, during a reasonable search, something else illegal is found while conducting the search in a lawful manner, that evidence is valid. See cases where the cops show up for a domestic dispute, and arrest everyone on drug charges because the heroin/crack/meth is sitting on the table. If, on the other hand, the warrant was just for the computer and drives on the suspect's desk, and a cop decided to go looking through the sock drawer and found some weed, that should be inadmissible.
Wrong. The government can force you to turn over the 'key to the safe'. They know you have a safe, they know you store stuff in it, they have reason the believe it's relevant to the case at hand, they get search warrant and you either unlock it or face contempt. As long as they know it's your safe, they can compel you to open it. They can compel you to open your filing cabinet, or diary too. Just because you wrote it doesn't make it safe under the 5th.
yeah, that sounds about right.
Keys to the safe. It's been a long history of rulings saying that if the cops know or have reason to believe you put something in a safe, and they have reason the believe that those documents are valid to the case at hand, they can compel you to open it with a warrant. Your diary and handwritten notes are not protected from a search if they are sitting on your desk, and they are not protected if the cops have reason to believe that you put them in a safe either.
Difference in this case appears to be that the cops only know that there is encrypted data, but they can't provide reasonable evidence that the defendant put it there.
I read it yet another way, as "providing the password would imply that he knew the encrypted data was there to begin with".
How many viruses now days encrypt stored spaces to hide warez and other crap from antiviruses? How do the cops know that the guy didn't let a friend use the computer and the friend put the data there. If all the cops know is 'there is something encrypted it', legally it seems like them demanding this guy opens it without proving it belongs to him. Cops find a safe, they think there may be proof of a crime inside, and demand that CivilianX opens it or faces contempt charges. . . with no proof that CivilianX is involved. Same legal grounds, it seems, according to this judge.
Doesn't look like this is the same kind of noodle as those. That looked like just pre-made dough out of a pack, and would almost have to be to allow the robot to shave consistent sized noodles. Seems like that at the rate they need noodles, they had to pay someone to do only that and nothing else. Imagine a fastfood company here paying one person to 'just cut buns in half'.
I think they mistook the 2xPRU as DSP chips. They are a good way to feed data quickly to a DSP, or get data from one, but they lack certain instructions that a DSP really needs.
Baseball scoring isn't just the two teams points at the end of the game. Take a look at a baseball scoresheet, it's not something that just records who got points when. Like football passing and rushing yards, receptions, completions, picks, sacks, etc, baseball records where each player ends up at the end of each play. It started simple, just tracking whether you hit a single, double, triple, home run, ground rule double, in field home run, and how many RBI for the batting team, and catches, outs, errors, strike/ball for the throwing team. It's way more complex than that now.
If you thought the Blernsball scoresheet was complicated, you haven't looked at a real baseball one.
That's something I can't figure out, though. You have a falling object, and a moving shutter that I hope is moving vertically downward. A sideways moving shutter should create some amount of distortion at 1/40,000 of a second. Even a vertical shutter should have some lag, unless I'm vastly mistaking the moving rate of a snowflake.
As a note for the non-photographers, high speed shutters do not open and close completely at 1/40000th. The normal method of off the shelf equipment is that the shutter opens, and while it is moving, the second closing shutter closes 1/40000th later. It still takes up to 1/400 or so (depending on the camera, look at the sync speed to get the right neighborhood of numbers) for the shutter to fully open and cover the shutter.
Two of those things are not like the other. IBS was diagnosed back in the 60s, and treated with phenobarbital; it got called restless bowel, crohns, and a few other names. Fibromyalgia was separated from chronic pain disorders long before the current marketing push to treat it with GABA or GABA prodrugs; I vaguely recall tests of certain pressure points being the separating factor between Fibro and other pain disorders some time in the late 80's or early 90's.
I can't speak to restless leg. I don't know anything about that one. But the fact that disorders suddenly get lots of coverage when there are finally drugs that work to help those suffering . . . how can that be a bad thing? Yes, there are people who diagnose themselves with what ever the disease du jour is. Their doctor is supposed to act as a filter between them and the rest of the world.