In addition, Tesla(whether or not you see this as an improvement is a distinct issue, it simply is so) sells cars much more like an enterprise IT hardware vendor sells hardware: at least within the warranty period, there is very much an ongoing interaction between the hardware and the vendor. System health information gets sent directly back, on site techs with specialized parts and firmware get sent out and so on. More traditional car companies are closer to buying a PC: the dealer will offer (often absurdly priced; but available) maintenance; and the vendor may become involved with certain warranty or recall cases; but they are otherwise largely out of the loop, with third parties handling the ongoing interaction with the hardware.

Something has to provide coordination and theatre-level intelligence for all deployed Highlander batteries, no?

Waiting to put on a black shirt?

Who is first on your extermination list?

We will, of course, run all your errands for you without gathering the data for marketing and other purposes; because doing that would be just too easy...

If the civilian police could do the search, then they probably should have.

If the search was done on-duty, it used military resources and so should not be reported.

The assorted 'laws of war' are heavily leavened by what their framers suspect that they can actually get at least some people to agree to; but the overall theoretical foundation always seems to be an attempt to steer weapons in the direction of "Kills outright, or leaves a wound that, if treated, will heal with comparatively limited permanent damage."

It's not an easy standard to maintain(both in terms of convenience, mass-maiming is a hell of a shock to morale and logistics, and engineering, something that will kill if it hits you as designed will likely cause serious tissue damage and/or amputation if it scores a sub-par hit); but it's not really a terribly strange shared desire, from the perspective of the warring European powers of the 20th century that wrote most of them.

I'm fairly out of my depth with this stuff, so this is an honest inquiry: how do the magnetic nanoparticles fit into the equation?

I realize that, once coated with a suitably tailored binding protein, the particles will collect whatever target the binding protein was specified for (presumably this could even be tailored, for any target where a suitably tame binding compound is available), and probably fairly efficiently because of the absurd surface area of nanoparticles.

What I don't understand is the necessity of using the nanoparticles. It was my understanding that, outside of seriously immunocompromised victims, T-cells(and possibly other flavors of phagocytes, I'm fuzzy on the details) are extremely adept at engulfing and destroying foreign bodies, including 'clumps' produced by targets bound to the antigens produced by B-cells. This technique appears to be using a synthetic/introduced antigen(which makes sense if the immune system isn't producing the necessary antigen, or not ramping up production fast enough); but it also introduces the nanoparticles so that the antigen clumps can be magnetically scrubbed from the bloodstream, rather than cleaned up by the T Cells.

What is the peculiarity here that would make introducing the novel clump-scrubbing mechanism necessary and worthwhile?

The Protocol contains a loophole large enough to drive a truck through, never mind some photons:

"Article 3 Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol."

As long as the blinding is a side effect (mitigated by "all feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision") of a non-blinding purpose(setting things on fire, destroying machine vision/optical sensor gear, 'dazzling', and basically anything else you might feel like using a laser for, it's all legal. That is not exactly fertile ground for any sort of serious arms control, even if lasers weren't comparatively cheap and trivial to build, especially at the modest powers that will really boil your eyeballs but aren't subject to the engineering challenges of aspirational air-defense and antimissile systems.

It gives me no pleasure to say so; blinding is a pretty ugly thing to do; but the Protocol as written is about as effective as forbidding murder; but making it legal to put a bullet through any hat you see, regardless of whether it contains a head or not.

You'd be surprised how much use can be made of 30 minutes of information. Also, in the absence of an accident, the information you mentioned cannot determine if anyone was actually put at risk. Practically no car has GPS connected with control positions and few record 30 minutes.

Will legacy cars have an automatic out since the recorded information won't be there?

How about if the black box malfunctions or "malfunctions"

Interestingly, your brief description of the method was enough to google up a heap of research on Google.

Since you said non-sterile and mentioned surgery, I'll guess this is isolated intestinal loop dialysis?

What was the improvement?

So it's public domain, used by thousands but you can't say what it is and I couldn't possibly read about it? Not even a little hint?

Is it in Dan Brown's next novel by chance? You realize you make the whole thread sound like 'beef by-products', yes?

In this case, it is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (look up a few posts). That act is what keeps the military from doing civilian law enforcement. It ran afoul of it because an NCIS agent did a search on civilians.

The perp isn't terribly sympathetic in this case but the act is very important and calls for strict protection.

You're going to need a much more expensive black box to log enough to make the results unambiguous. They'll have to log enough information to make them prime targets for warrant-less searches for non-safety purposes.

The crazy prison population comes mainly from non-violent drug offenses.