The easy solution to that is to always have two ubikeys registered with all apps/sites and keep one in a safe location. One breaks, disable it and order a new one to replace it, after which you add it. Sure it requires some amount of work to maintain and it'll cost double what you expected to pay originally but what do you want? Good security ain't cheap. Redundancy is a must.
I just don't see that many legitimate uses.
How about a politician traveling to a less than friendly country?
Rather boring and uneventful. How did this ever get posted anyways?
It sounds to me like either you're either dishonest in your submission or your client client told you a load of crap and you believed him. Why would someone (with good intentions) who wants to monitor his family's Internet activities be worried about legal stuff? Perhaps the husband believes his wife is cheating on him and is trying to put together some kind of proof?
Stop being so freakin ignorant, it's not because you got pulled over before you killed someone that it couldn't of happened. Yes, it sucks, the person didn't ask to be borned with diabetes, but he/she was! Just get over that and accept it, that person shouldn't be driving if he/she can't keep it under control. It's really that simple... I've looked into (and started) classes to obtain my private pilot's license, however one of the requirement for doing your solo flights is "not to have high blood pressure" Of course, there's a certain range that's considered acceptable... I personally don't fall within that range. What does it mean for me? I'm not going to be allowed to do my solo flights this year, that simple! It's up to me to exercise and to work to lower my blood pressure so I can hopefully start my solo flights next summer, otherwise the one after. If I'm not successful, as much as it sucks, it's very simple: The captain's chair will never be mine. The fact that my blood pressure isn't within the acceptable range doesn't mean I'll have a heart attack, but guess what? They're not willing to take any chances (and I don't blame them, although flying has been a long time dream of mine and it's quite disappointing).
Someone doesn't ask to be borned with a bad vision (some people can actually see, but their vision is so much diminished they're considered legally blind) but even if they didn't ask to be borned this way, if corrective lenses doesn't improve the situation enough so they can be safe on the road (both for themselves and the public), guess what, THEY SHOULDN'T BE DRIVING. Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.
You seem to have this idea that, if they have good intentions, it's ok. How wrong you are... Someone can have "good intentions" and still end up killing someone. This simply isn't acceptable.
Btw... Because of the simple fact that the breathalyzer didn't show the person as being over the limit, doesn't mean he isn't drunk. As pointed out earlier (read my previous reply again) yes, you can get charged even being below the limit. 0.08 isn't this magical number that, if you keep below, guarantees you'll never kill someone or come into an accident. Your reflexes are still impaired even if you're not above 0.08.
Everyone knows that breathalyzers can be inaccurate for various reasons (sloppy code as it was once pointed out in a slashdot story once the code was opened for examination, maybe it wasn't calibrated properly or maybe the technician didn't supervise the test and ensure it was conducted as it should of...) That being said, urine/blood sample is definitely a more accurate measure and I don't think it's unreasonable for a LEO to ask for further testing if he has reasonable reasons to do so.
Now, to address the article you linked to (http://www.wlwt.com/news/20693221/detail.html) it reads, and I quote
"The test showed that Lockard's blood-alcohol level did not exceed Indiana's legal limit, police said. However, police said subsequent tests of the samples obtained tested positive for six drugs including MDMA, also known as ecstasy"
So what, now you're upset that someone got charged based on drugs being found in his urine sample? I'll tell you my honest opinion (and you should realize based on this comment of mine that I'm not just trying to be a troll)
If the guy got pulled over because he was drifting from left to right in his traffic lane, after which they did the urine sample and found drugs in his system, in that case, he deserves to get charged. If the guy was being investigated because of a road block where they were testing everyone, maybe not...
I have to admit, as someone else pointed out much earlier, to me it sounds like you're trying to defend drunk drivers. I personally find that disgusting.
"The difference is intent" Bullshit. I don't care if you intended to be borned with diabetes or not, simply said, if you can't control it, stay off the freakin roads! Regardless if it was your intent or not to be borned with diabetes, you're still a danger. This is a binary decision.. Either you're safe for the roads, or you aren't.
If someone is wrongly reported as being drunk however is actually having a complication because of his/her diabetes, what's the difference? If he's driving erratically, it doesn't really matter if it's because of alcohol or diabetes, someone needs to pull him over. Someone who can't control his diabetes properly shouldn't even be driving in the first place... Would you want a pilot with a heart condition to be piloting an airplane if he was the only pilot on board? In regards to the tweet of him being drunk, even if he wasn't and it a problem related to his diabetes which caused him to drive this way, I would say it was still irresponsible on that person's behalf.
Second, in regards to "being convicted of a DUI without a breathalyzer", that really sounds suspicious... Do you have any actual proof to substantiate that claim? Maybe what you meant was "you can get charged even though you're not above the
To tell you a little bit about where I live... The machines I've seen in use (and I suspect this is the norm) usually have 3 results: pass, warning (between
First time caught with a warning: license suspension for 3 days
Second time caught: 7 day suspension, driving school for drunks
Third time caught: 30 day suspension and they force you to go into an alcohol treatment program.
The information stays on your driving record for 5 years. Is it harsh? Perhaps. Lots of businesses weren't happy with the decision! (upscale restaurants serving wine, clubs, etc..) however that's what happens when a few people screw it up for everyone else. I'm quite ok with these new laws...
One last thing.. I agree with you that cops probably have more pull than they should to stay out of the spotlight for stuff like this, however this doesn't mean we should make the laws more relax for everyone else. You're simply looking at this backwards.
When someone is charged with a DUI, there really isn't any questions about if they were drunk or not. If they get away with an innocent verdict, it just means they know how to work the system (or, I guess every so often, someone might be victim of a faulty machine however these are calibrated/tested before every use).
Simply because one gets away because of a mistake/technicality doesn't mean they weren't drunk. I've read about people beating a DUI charge a few times around here in Toronto, usually cops. Unless they got stopped by the RIDE program, the cops must of had a reason to pull them over in the first place (i.e.: drifting from one lane to another)
Do people really care if their name is published on Twitter? If they'd really want to embarrass drunk drivers, force them to drive around with a pink license plate (or any other flashy colors)
It's easier to keep downloading new ISOs than finding a CD or even keeping a CD in good and usable condition.
Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin
