I have digressed quite a bit from the primary topic, but I hope this research will shine some light into the stupidity and inhumaneness in capital punishment. In fact, while you cannot kill people to test that this is true in humans, you can use those that are being executed as such. All it takes is a portable EEG unit at the execution. I bet many would volunteer, but the states would block it in some fashion.
While I don't approve of capital punishment, due to the errors that have been made in identifying the guilty party, the excessive cost when compared to life incarceration, and the fact that it just doesn't deter crime, this has to be the least of my concerns. If we're only considering lethal injection, then of the several drugs that are administered, the first is to put the sentenced to sleep. Once effectively drugged into sleep, the rest of the drugs merely terminate all the functions of the body that keep it alive. There probably isn't much left to experience that last surge of brain activity.
As it happens, though, if someone is sentenced to death I don't think 30 seconds of pure terror is really relevant. Ultimately, we're killing them, and they've been dealing with their impending death for years.
More interestingly, they were looking at ways to block or delay that signal. So then even if part of a multi-cellular organism died, the rest of it wouldn't know about it and keep going in a zombielike state.
What could possibly go wrong?
"I called for a thorough review of our surveillance operations before Mr. Snowden made these leaks. My preference - and I think the American people's preference - would have been for a lawful, orderly examination of these laws; a thoughtful, fact-based debate." - Obama
Mr. President, how are we supposed to have a thoughtful, fact based debate about programs which are so secret nobody knew about them until a whistle blower revealed them directly to the public. About a court who's orders are so secret that entire companies shut down when the thread of an order looms, and they can't even say what the threat was.
Without transparency, there can be no debate. Without Snowden, there would be no transparency on this issue.
Perhaps the spec could be augmented by allowing a randomized MAC address that is not tied to the device. Define the first octet so manufacturers don't assign anything to it, and leave the remaining bits as completely random. Make the next part of the packet the public half of a key pair that the device expects responses to come back to. Allow the same random MAC address scheme to be used by either side of the connection. Only accept packets that can be properly decoded with the private key of the key pair, which eliminates the problem of random MAC address collisions. As a part of negotiating the secured connection, when exchanging the private key also exchange the real MAC address only after the secured connection is complete. Or, never use the real MAC address and retain the random MAC address for the duration of the connection.
In fact, it is 1/(2^11) = 1/2048 ~= 0.5%. A thousand times more than "5 thousandths of a percent".
Actually
Which means we're both wrong, because it is
1/2048 ~=
I should have said 5 hundredths of a percent, I misspoke in the original. (My math was correct, but I saw
None of the above is counter to philanthropy - these are Foundation investments, not Bill's personal portfolio.
Have you also considered that the Foundation disagrees with your viewpoint that these investments have practices running "counter to the foundation's supposed charitable goals and social mission"?
Also bear in mind that substantial investments in major corporations can give the investor some sway in the corporation's decisions. If a major stakeholder threatens to pull out, it can injure the corporation, so when a major stakeholder tries to effect change, the corporation is more likely to listen.
Oh please. Blink is as well written as anything written for a weekly TV show. Which is amazing since the lead is a female and Moffat can't write females (which happens to be the best reason for not having a female doctor). Yes there are also terrible episodes.
Actually this is one of the better reasons for casting a female Doctor for one regeneration. Moffat would end up (possibly inadvertently) writing the Doctor as a male personality even though the Doctor would have regenerated as a woman. There are many character traits that the Doctor carries through regenerations, and it might make sense that a female Doctor, an individual who's been a male for thousands of years, wouldn't act the way we expect a human female to act.
OK, what kind of musk do you attract drones with? When are they in season? Anybody know a good make of drone call? Are the readybuilt stands any good?
My cousin bagged a 9 point drone once. Got it hanging up in the rec room.
Any illegal drug will suffice to draw it out, though growing a food plot visible from the air of an appropriately illegal drug may be a better idea. Baiting is poor sportsmanship.
They're always in season!
For a good drone call, pick up any handy cellphone on any major provider, call a friend, and discuss your food plot, above. PRISM will take care of the rest.
A good blind should provide cover and be part of what the drone expects to see, disguise it as equipment for your food plot, such as a water tank.
WARNING: drone calls and attractants are also highly effective attractants for federal agents, who may be accompanying the drone from the ground. They may dispute the drone season defined by local law and may not understand that your food plot is solely for the drone's benefit.
This is not a gimmick, this is 'Murica!
Although, given an average altitude of 8,000 feet for a drone, this is not an easy shot. Nor is the fact that the drone will be flying at ~100 MPH and winds at that altitude could easily be 50 MPH. It would be a hard task for even the best shot. And that math would be terrible.
You just need the right bullet for the job.
"You shouldn't make my toaster angry." -- Household security explained in "Johnny Quest"