I know I'm feeding a Troll, but...

Welcome to 2015.
- A period of time when HIV can be prevented from propagating during sex using an extremely sophisticated method called a "condom".
- A period of time when, at least for the developed world, drugs have advanced to the point where a sick person can be treated and kept alive more or less indefinitely. (although it costs money, and the treatement is a heavy one with some displeasing secondary effect. I would not recommend anyone glossing over "meh, not a problem if I catch HIV, I'll be treated". But I would certainly consider that in the developed world, HIV isn't a deadly disease, merly a chronic one) (that's for the developed world. Poorer region suffer from the fact that drugs cost prohibitively expensive for them and aren't widely available. And also pharma-companies aren't interested in developing cheaper alternatives because they're currently happy with their current earnings, whereas developing cheaper drung doesn't make sens economically to them because they won't recoup the necessary cost from the poorer region).
- A period of time when the drugs have so advanced and are so efficient that, undersome circumstances, it might be possible to reduce the viral load so low that it is almost irrelevant. (These people aren't curred per se. The viral count stay low because they are taking meds. If they stop the virus would rise again. But as long as they keep taking theire meds, virus levels are so low, that from the outside it looks more or less like any random person - including the risks) (again, that's not an excuse to completely forget condoms for ever. But that means, for example, that a man infected by HIV but with a virus level kept low enough, can father a child without risking infecting the mother. And given the preceeding paragraph, that also means that he'll get to see the child birth and see the child grow).

Right thing on *their* own? You know *YOU* can put a condoms on your dick/a femidom inside your pussy (depending on your sex) if you're so much afraid of catching HIV.

Or you know, maybe encourage *you* to but a condom.

Or you know, you could just put a condom on and forget about whole "dying" story.
(Also, you're not going to die of it as of 2015. You'll be on a lot of meds, costing substantial money. But still alive)

Don't engage irresponsible behaviour, use proper protection under all circumstance (except when all people involved have been tested and are known clean).

Depending on availability, either put a condom on (or in, depending on which sets of reproductive organs you happen to be equipped with)
or, when no protection is available, refrain from stick you dick into the pussy (or other similar combination of organs, depending on sex of the person involved) each human being has approximately 2m^2 of skin. Even with only 2 partners, that gives ton of possible combination. Using a bit of imagination, you're bound to find one which doesn't carry an infectious risk and still brings satisfaction to all parties involved.

Also remember: before HIV and AIDS were discovered, nobody knew about risks of AIDS (well, obviously).
But those who used protection (condoms, etc.) where already protected from it even if they didn't knew about it yet. (Maybe they though about avoiding syphilis or ghono. Still that *also* protected them from the yet-unnamed-AIDS).
Same situation now: maybe the person you think engaging sex with hasn't HIV as you think, but maybe the person has some new emerging yet to be formally discovered sexually transmitted disease. If you wear a condom at that moment (on the principle of "always wear one, except with you regular partner once you've both tested") you get automatically protected from the disease even if nobody knows about it yet and no doctor has put a name on it.

A condom is a protection not only against current HIV but against all future STD that might evolve in the future.

And by the way: "keep the people with HIV away to avoid catching AIDS" in practice boils down to "don't stick you penis inside their pussy" (or other combination of sexual orrifices) and don't mix blood (e.g.: by exchanging used syringes).
That enough to avoid transmitting HIV.
You can eat dinner together, you can drink together, you can work together in the same workplace, ... all 0% risk of VIH infection.

(Well, unless your workplace involves that each work meeting must end up as a giant sex orgy)
(In which case I would totally agree to protect you from your fears and switch jobs with you).

Just for the nitpicking: it's not a "classical definition", it's a peculiar definition typical for litterature and movies in the US.
Other parts of the world don't necessarily need a *change*.
(Maybe that's why American have problems understanding european movies).

Yes you'll have *a* serious problem. But this problem isn't specifically the wind mills.
The problem is the whole range of human activities that drove their population down to the point that a hundred of dying condors is significant.
(I suspect, mainly massive changes in their natural habitat, big disruption of the ecological equilibrium, esp. in regards of the prey they usually feed on. Probably environmental pollution. Maybe a little bit of hunting too.)
Banning windmills is only a surface problem. The few condors that might die because of them probably won't. But it doesn't solve the actual main big problem that condors are endangered.
Protected wildlife reservation might help more, for example.

"...and random mutation add to genetic variability, feeding in more differences that could be furter selected this way".
Thus as condition shifts, a new local minima can be reached.
Yup on /. we all know how evolution actually works (no "big plans" or "intention" involved).

Hmm... I've come accross some statistics being done this way (proportion of death of birds hitting their head on glass diminishing in the bird population, etc.). No actual bird-brain studies.
Haven't the reference at hand right now. Will come back to you if I find them again.

Welcome to the fantastic world of "embed controllers" (EC). The small custom chip sitting in the middle of a laptop, and in charge with all the peculiar functionality that are peculiar to this laptop, but don't exist in standard desktop/workstations. (like battery management, etc.)

The problem is that there is absolutely no standardisation of ECs. Every model is its own special snow flake (and when I say "model" I mean model of motherboard. In some case, specially consumer oriented laptop, some product range might have the same model name and the same plastic case and looks absolutely the same from the outside, but is actually different revisions which looks completely different under the hood, depending on which parts were the cheapest during the month this one was produced) (that's why for the same "Model" you have a few different BIOS downloads depending on part number, revision, etc.)

To get it working the manufacturer could write a specific driver. Usually this is done by the hardware manufacturer who write drivers for the target OS they have. Most laptop manufacturer write drivers for Windows, because they produce windows laptops. Here it's an *Apple* don't expect much.

To make things worse: usually these aren't your garden variety of drivers. Very often, platform functionality like ECs are handled by ACPI (now part of UEFI). i.e.: by firmware that is byte-code interpreted by the running system. In theory it should make things more OS-agnostic and portable. In practice it's a nightmare as every ACPI implementation is buggy in its own way, and every OS has a different variety of quirks. So writers of firmware (BIOS/UEFI/ACPI) for laptops have to release new versions of firmware (again, one per model of EC on mother board).
You can count on big brands to release a new BIOS pack download to cover the major flavours of Windows that they ship with this model. Maybe cover an update.

But don't count on engineers working for Apple to scram to release a new firmware update, just because some random schmuck decided to install a newer version of windows whose ACPI implementation is broken in a subtly different way than the preceding.
Their official OS that they support is OS X, they might have decided to add as a bonus a version or two supported as part of their Boot Camp offering.
And that's about it, don't count much more from them.

Funny that *windows* is now at the receiving end of this firmware/EC problem, that usually haunts Linux users on laptop that mostly run Windows.
(The problem that you report trying to run Windows on Apple hardware ? That's the daily plight of Linux users on most Windows laptops).

--------------

Also that might be the reason of the performance gain and "overall smoothness" reported by TFA:
- when running under OS X, the OS balances performance with battery life, thermal limits, etc. hardware runs at an equilibrium. Thus isn't as smooth as it theoretically could, because OS decides to save a bit power.
- Windows 10 has very probably an ACPI implementation that is subtly broken in a different way that its predecessor. Power management doesn't work. GPU is run at max power profile, CPU is run at max frequency. Results are probably smoother, but if the guy had actually carred to measure it in details, he would probably have observed shittier battery life.
Relevant quote (emphasis by me):

Battery life seemed very good from the short time I used it. I didn't fully deplete the battery, but I was on track to get over 9 hours of use with brightness at 40%. Mac battery life is rarely as strong on Windows, but there doesn't seem to be as enormous of a gap here, which is good.

Yup definitely a possibility that shitty battery life and heat that you describe and the high performance that the author got are the same problem.

Now for the record, in Unix (Linux vs Mac OS X) benchmarks, mac os X is regularly beaten performance-wise (funnily: even in graphics).
Even with workstation (where power management isn't an issue), even with plugged-in laptops (where battery life is irrelevant, only some thermal management).
So this might actually be a genuine performance difference between Windows and Mac OS X.

That's exactly the point I'm considering.

- The accusation is arguing that Williams is in the specific business of "helping criminal go unnoticed by the polygraph".
As in the typical situation is :
"Ciminal comes with the demand "Hello, I'm a Pirate Pedo-Terrorist! Help me, you're my only hope!", Williams answers: 'Don't worry, here's how you can tell lies to the mind-reading machine!' "

- The defense could argue that this in not actually the case, the indictment is over-interpreting simple speaches by Williams.
The actual most typical situation:
"Random person comes: "I'm stressed that I can fail the polygraph because it's such a random shitty technology", Williams answers: "Come I'll show you how to pass the test" ".
I.e.: lying and colluding with criminals isn't Williams' main business.
It's the undercovers who brought him into that. Before the LEOs, it's was just "boasting" rather than a real world big number of actual criminal that Williams knowingly helped (i.e.: in fact, you could nail him for false advertisement when he said how many time he helped lying).

It's a bit badly formulated, but the argument isn't that much flawed.
- Indeed, although cats are a rather random example, there are TONS of human made things which kill a lot more birds than wind turbines. If you want to save birds, better concentrate on these bigger causes first.

The "birds" argument tries simply to say in a humoristic way: Even "putting hi-tech bird saving contraptions(tm)" (a.k.a.: bells on their collar) on house cats will be much more efficient than scratching your head about wind turbines.

More seriously: even if it is spectacular (because its a new technology, because these are big impressive devices, and because the bird "victims" tend to pile up in a limited place) wind turbine are far from the most dangerous things to birds.
I would strongly suspect (but don't have precise numbers) that pollution is among the highest bird-killing human-made factor. (But it's a lot less mind grabbing: we're used to polution, it's a boring subject for refular people. Also birds dead by it would be spread allover the region instead of forming a nice pile at the feet of the turbine).
Given that wind turbines tend to lower pollution (even more in countries that would otherwise burn fossils to produce their electricity), it might happen that the bird-killing machine would be actually saving birds life at the larger scale.

- Also there's another smaller factor not to forget:
Darwin's law, and evolution. Birds do adapt.
There's a very impressive example: glass. A few decades ago, our industry progress to the point of being able to produce huge glass pannels. Instead of small window, big glass walls started to appear. Problem: birds couldn't see or even notice the glass. You had accounts of lots of city birds hitting their head on glass walls. And poor city birds trapped inside big glass building (in the cafeteria) trying desperately to fly against this huge "invisible (to them) forcefield" (the glass wall).
Fast forward to now: there probably a couple of city birds happily living in your building's cafeteria. Feasting on left-overs, and hidden from predators.
There's such a huge advantage (avoid death, avoid getting lost, free shelter, free food, etc.) at slightly tweaking the visual system until glass become noticeable that city birds have evolved to the this point.
If it's so deadly to them, birds will probably slightly tweak their brains until able to grasp the concept of "big huge mass of turning metal" (it's not impossible it's totally within the realm of their capabilites). When you look at it, some members of the corvidae family have grasped the concept of cars as "big heavy metal box which blindly follow roads". They don't run away scared. The use car as nut opener: leave them on the road and wait patiently at the road side until a car smashes the nut open (whereas their great-gand-parents need to fly way up and crack them by dropping them from a high altitude onto a rock. Or onto the occasional bald greek theatrical author). Compared to that, grasping the concept of a wheel turbine is well within the realm of possibilities.

(Ob. car analogy: "Traffic incidents kill at least an order of magnitude more poeple than car collisions")

Uh. No. You're completely bogus on this one.
YA*N*AMD, whereas I*A*AAMD.
With diabetes, in the long term, the things that most likely will kill you (baring an accidental hypo glycemia due to treatment error) is the slow and progressive destruction of the blood vessel.
Diabetes is considered by some as a type of cardio-vascular disease. (Strictly speaking, it's an endocrinal disease. A disruption of some hormonal/messaging/etc system. Insuline's proper response to sugar. Type I have a broken production system and lack it. Type II have receptors that responds badly to it. But due to the fact that over time the elevated sugar levels tends to damage blood vessels, some do consider it from the point of view of cardiovascular disease).

NatasRevolt cat analogy works because:
- cats and wind turbine have little to do in common
- wind turbine kill a lot less birds than lots of other man-cause things (inclulding house cats, funnily enough).

Yours is a strawman because:
- In practice diabetes are more or less lumped togetherr with the cardio vascular disease (they are not something completely different).
- cardio vascular disease are 1 of the 2 major causes of death in the developped world. (diabetes, specially type II which is linked to obesity, is rising in the developed world. It's far from insignificant).

You want actual example regarding diseases or human death cause ?
Use terrorism-caused death.
In the developed world, terrorism kill in practice very few people. In the USA, the total number of death caused by terrorist is a very small number, compared to the thousands that regularly die of cardio vascular diseases. (or traffic inicident).
And should the US thus concencatrates more on preventing cardio vascular diseases (or traffic accidents). Yes, they should. And that's an actual problem.
Was on terrorism (and the subsequent wars in the middle east cost an aweful lot of money. For such a small number of deaths, that an aweful waste of taxpayer money. That's the least efficient ever way to throw money for saving lives.
USA should instead invest money in a "War on Obesity and other cardio-vascular problems". Way much more lives could be said at a fraction of the price (trillions) of the wars in middle east.
Heck even spending more money on preventing car accident would save more lives. And I'm not even speaking about high-tech / high-profile technologies like robotic self-driving cars. I'm speaking about things as simple as putting image-processing and accident avoinding helpers inside the firmware of dashcams (e.g.: "lane departure warning" and "collision warning". Functionality that used to be available only on high range expensive cars. Nowadays available on dashcam sold for a couple of hundreds by Transcend or no-name asian companies). Compared to military spending in war, it's metaphorically a shoe-sting budget (might also be *litterally* a shoestring budget given the prices at which federals buy hammers). But in the future it might probably save way much more lives.

So yeah, the same NatasRevol's Troll logic should actually be applied to cause of human death. Specially in cases of terrorism vs. cardiovascular diseases/traffic accidents. But saddly isn't. Which *IS* a problem.

Or you want only disease examples ?

Well there's a category of diseases called "orphan" disease.
It's extremely rare diseases which concern a very small amount of patients. (e.g.: Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva.)
And guess what? All the big pharma companies - i.e.: the only entities with deep enough pockets to be able to pay for the whole development of drugs - consider them not worthy to throw money at, specially with such low target market. Doesn't make sense on an economical scale.
Yup. Real world application of NatasRevol's Troll logic in the realm of disease.
You can't argue that they are not logical, even if cold hearted.

(Now if that's ethical and moral as a consideration, well - that's a different subject. And some think that money should be spent to study such disease. And thus, infrascuture are setup, to be able to coordinate reasearch programs spanning universities accross whole Europe to study some of these rarer diseases. - the only way to gather the necessary budget, as it's well beyond the pocket of a single research group or a single university. It's both hope for the people who are victims of rarer disease. And it might also bring overall scientific progress that could have wider applications - one neutral/rational argument to study disease even if it doesn't make economical sense).

And, again, surprise, surprise, that's what the real corporate world does outside.
For many many companies, it doesn.t make sense economically to consider Linux. Or to throw money at more than a couple of developers.
Except of some specific fields (e.g.: science. specially computing. Unixes like Linux and OS X are *THE* dominant platform in the -omics field) Linux is considered to rare.
Where it has gained traction or made inroads, total numbers have never been the main initial argument. But people have seen other advantage that are attractive to them. (Low price, customisation, no central strong control, etc.)

And how many of them die due to windturbin ? A massive amount ? Only a few individuals ?
Was their current status of endangered specie caused by all the (few) wind-turbine deaths?
Or was it mainly caused by other human activities like the massive reduction of their natural habitat and other ecological impacts?
So what does it make more sense to target? Wind turbine which happen to kill a few of them? Or try to rethink the human activities that actually brought down their number to the current status? (Natual habitat? Pollution? Systematic hunting? Others?)

Exactly what I though too:

Meh, they are all basically in the same ballpark (including humans). No breakthrough achievement. Wake me when some one achieve 10x better than humans and competition.

As an actual sociopath, let me say... no.

Even if we lack emotionnal response (we don't fear to be judged by society, we don't feel guilt when doing whatever is disproved by society, etc.) that doesn't prevent us from being rational beings.
And we can rationally decide to be nice. The fact that I won't necessarily feel bad for doing evil doesn't FORCE me to do evil.
I can rationally understand why some action should not be done (e.g.: other people will feel harmed) and I can rationally decide no to harm them.

How many people come to him telling "I am an actual criminal. And I want to lie about this information. And I want the polygraph not to know this ?"

I doubt that he has tons of clients talking about actual committed crimes to him.

Had the undercover agents not come to him with this story, he probably would never been in the situation where he knowingly helped criminals.

And given the scientifically provable reliableness of a polygraph (i.e: nothing more than an oversize and overexpensive "love tester"-kind of novelty gadget), chance are the majority of his clients are usually thinking along these lines:
"I know a polygraph is a piece of shit. But I want my job badly, because I badly need a salary to survive. And I don't want to lose my job and my pay, just because my employer is persuaded I told a lie on a question about stealing stuff as a teen, where in fact I just happened to be arroused because the red-head assistant taking notes reminded me of a crush of mine. Help me."

The agent had caused him to do something that wouldn't have otherwise done.

Now that enters a *VERY* interesting point.

He could be accused of helping people *lie* to a potential federal employer.
But that would require that people could *LIE* to a Polygraph. I.e.: that a polygraph has anything remote to do with truth, and thus can be lied to.
If you consider that polygraph is just a novelty gadget, an elaborate gadget that is nothing more than a glorified "love tester", working on a slightly different principle but just as reliable, i.e.: not at all, he is not helping people lie.
He is not helping people hide truth from a contraption design to detect truth, he's helping people how not to get their application rejected by a more or less random process (i.e.: it would be like teaching people how not to get ripped of by a casino, were the main strategy would be "avoid betting any money in the casion").

To the prosecution, he commiting federal fellony, by is assisting people lie and hide critical information to a device/procedure designed to get the truth.
"Sure, you're a child predator, I trust you with this information. A polygraph is totally able to tell teh government that you are a child predator. Let me show you how to lie to the government and lie to the machine."

To the defense, he's just giving general techniques not to get randomly rejected.
"Sure, blablabla, whatever you say. Actually it doesn't matter. You know, A polygraph isn't a truth machine. It's just a vague detector of some autonomous response which might be weak signs of stress/emotions. The federal agency might be persuaded that you were lying about not shoplifting when you were a kid, when in fact you're just midly arroused because the young redhead assistant taking note just reminded you now you of an old crush of yours".

In one case it's a fellony, because he is actively helping someone lie to the government: i.e.: hide information.
In the other it's not, he's not helping someone lie, because the machine isn't truth based and doesn't give a damn about the information. There's no lie because there's no actual machine from which to hide a truth. That would be like trying to "lie" to your favourite dice. The dice doesn't give a damn about lies, it's just d20. An inanimate object without any concept of lies or truth. A person using dices to determine truth isn't actually any information in the first place that could be lied/falsified.

Given a good defense lawyers team and enough budget, he could actually plead not guilty.

Disclaimer: I*A*AMD, but just not in this field (I'm doing research).

That would sound plausible.

Note that technically, it's not exactly the vaccine's fault. It's your genetic tendency to develop auto-immune disease that runs in your family that caused your nephropathy, and that *happens* to have been triggered by the vaccine. But had it not been the vaccine, it could have been any other trigger that disturbs your immunological system. One susceptible person could trigger an autoimmune disease after a cold. (In fact, Diabetes Type I, the one that more frequently in youth - is strongly suspected that the auto-immune disease is triggered most often by the immune response to infection). In fact that might also have been your case: the trigger might have been some virus you caught while serving, but you overlooked because it's frequent (even more so with lots of people packed in the same place like barracks) and thus forgot about it, but when thinking back you remember the vaccine.

(Same as psychedelic drugs:
Smoking pot doesn't force people to become psychotic. But there are a few people who have a genetic predisposition to psychosis and the joints happened to be the trigger that started it. But the guy could have just as likely gone bonkers after experiencing an intense emotional experience, etc.).

Well, you might be surprised but actually *there is* research into these kind of stuff. There is a whole branch called "personalized medicine" which tries to gather *which exact* risk factors, variations, etc. you have, and adapt treatment to your specific needs.
(example which are already in production:
- analyse a collection of liver enzymes which play an important role in the destruction of chemicals, and thus influence critically the dosage of some meds.
example currently in study:
- for some cancer (like breast) it might make more sense not to do the same control regularly (currently, mammary X-rays, every 2 years for all susceptible women) but to adapt it (women with certain variant of BRCA genes should get yearly or every 2 year, the general female population might as well do the X-ray only every 5 years).
I don't happen to know where exactly is the research about genetic predisposition to autoimmune disease.
But that exactly the kind of stuff personalised medicine and the "your whole genome for less than a few k $" are for.

Indeed there's a huge difference between:
- Must skip the vaccine for medical grounds (e.g.: known allergy to some compound inside the vaccine)
- Want to avoid so because it says so in a magical book that is always true and contains the true word of some beardy deity sitting on a cloud, and was written down by a bum who basically spent a year in the desert completely high on mushroom while seeking for divine inspiration).
The former is a valid reason to skip the vaccine for a given person, the latter is a good reason why I agree with Rchard Dawkin's "God Delusion".

Also as research advances, it might become easier to predict risks like yours. (Given genetic make-up XyZ, there's possibiliy P% to tigger the auto-immune disease).
If risk become predictable, one can better analyse the benefits/cost odds.

Currently, such benefits/costs analysis is only done at a large scale:
- it's overwhelmingly better to vaccinate the population and thus keep above the critical threshold of herd immunity and thus prevent an epidemy - even if that comes as a risk for a few individuals...
- rather than banning vaccines because some could get a few secondary effect, but thus letting the herd immunity drop to the point where a virus can freely jump from one non-immune person to another and freely spread this way accross the population, causing lots of sick people.

(Well depends on the vaccine. So sometime some vaccine is exchanged for another - e.g.: the OPV vs. IPV mentionned by others - or dropped because it doesn't make sense - e.g.: tuberculosis has more or less been eradicated in the western developed world, and needs anyway victim with a compromised health to be able to spread. No need to vaccinate people absolutely everywhere).

Now with future advances of personalised medicine, it might be possible to predict *your exact* risks:
- given your gene variants and your family history there's a risk that the vaccine will trigger autoimmune disease.
- comparing the risk of you triggering an auto-imune disease vs. the risk of you not getting the vaccine and catching the disease vs. the risk for the general population of letting an epidemy spread due to lower herd immunity: it might be possible to take an informed decision.
- maybe it would be better to skip the vaccine: because in your case, due to your peculiar HLA gene variant, there's a very high probability that you'll develop nephropathy triggered of the vaccine, there almost no risk that you'll trigger it otherwise, there's a huge risk of you catching the virus without the vaccine, and as there are very few of you with this HLA, it doesn't matter much for the herd immunity.
- or maybe it would still matter to do the vaccine anyway: there's a low chance that this peculiar vaccine will tigger your HLA to cause an autoimmune disease, there's a chance anyway that by the time you're 50 the autoimmune disease will get triggered by anything else (like the mononucleosis that you'll happen to catch in a few year), getting the polio will suck badly and that's a high risk if you don't get the shot, and if every body with your HLA skipped the vaccine, the Polio could roam freely among the population.

(Perhaps, in real life, you happened to actually be in the second case: the bad nephropathy you got was a shear bad luck but it shouldn't have been.
Or perhaps, one day, your kids could avoid the dialysis because the doctors will know what to avoid).

And keep *our* kids/family members from getting sick of it as epidemy spreads.

Anti-vaxx lowers herd immunity, and thus increases risks of epidemy. Once the fraction of immune people drops bellow a critical threshold, a virus can freely spread among the population. That will not only affect anti-vaxx-ers, their kids, but also anyone else unlicky enough to not have immunity.
(Kids who didn't get the shot yet, people who CAN'T get shot because of allergy to some compound, people with lower/compromised immunity, people who had health problems at that specific time making them more weak and prone to additional diseases, etc.) these people aren't immune because of some weird believe. But they'll suffer too, just because there was a big enough amount of people with weird believe.

That's exactly the kind of situation where "One's freedom stop where the others' freedom starts".
People have the freedom to have any bat-shit crazy religion or other weird believe they want, as long as they don't pose a threat to the society. Anti-vaxx are a big biological danger to the society.

How would you react if a religious group claimed that they have a sacred ritual consisting of juggling with armed explosives in the middle of mall that needs to be explicitly crowded? Would you allow them on religious grounds? Or would you suggest that these peculiar weird ritual is too dangerous for the public and they'll have to skip?

Well anti-vaxx-er pose a similar risk.

Yup, just like countries with the lowest rates don't have it too:
Lichtenstein, Monaco, Iceland, France, Switzerland, Macau, Sweden...

(And except Guatemala, Lesotho, etc. which DO have death penalty, despite having high homicide rates).

If anything, that proves that criminality and death penality doesn't seem correlated.

Common, it's DRM. The kind of thing where cryptography's canonical "Alice" and "Eve" are both the same personl (= the end user). You can't both simultaneously lock out and give access to the same persons.
Of course DRM is bound to be useless and stupid. It's stupid by definition.
It's not useful, only annoying.

Currently, given the way it's written: as far as I know: No, nothing is preventing you to wrap a dumper function outside a CDM plupgins. Neither firefox's Adobe CDM, nor Google Chrome's Widevine's etc.

The official specs might pose a problem. In addition to the current mode of operation ("encrypted stream goes in, decrypted goes out"), EME specification offer another mode of operation where the CDM plug-in is in charge of presenting the video on the screen. (i.e.: it does decrypt the stream, and subsequently decompress it, and display it on the screen).

Currently that should not work because it's a clear violation of the sandbox limitation that Firefox imposes on CDM plugins, but in theory this is doable according to the specs.

And - Surprise! - that too would be just as stupid and useless:
- now instead of storing the output stream into an MKV, you'll just need to do a screen grab instead.

(Also, this mode is very problematic, because it will bypass the video decompression by the usual video stack and, e.g., miss any hardware acceleration supported by it (gstreamer's vaapi / vdpau)
"Store into an MKV" is far from the only thing that you could do to the output of a CDM plugin. "Pipe it to hardware decoding" (for a portable device) or "stream it over the network to a wireless enabled display" (think Wifi enabled TV / chromecast / etc.) are legitimate usage.
By forcing a CDM that handles the display it self, it would be the nightmare of Flash all over again:
- a plugin that is less easy to lock inside a sandbox
- a plugin that isn't really compatible with the HW video acceleration (don't get me started about flash only supporting VDPAU and some cards only having VAAPI)
- a plugin that doesn't work correctly with the sound mixing daemon ...etc...)