No, you wouldn't -- at least, not with any sensible topology.

The way it usually works is like this: You present your Wiegand card to the Wiegand reader, some magic RF resonance happens, and a stream of bits is produced on a wire.

At the other end of this wire, buried deep in the bowels of the building, is a computer (embedded or not) which verifies that your bits are the correct bits. If they are correct, it closes a relay that makes the door open, and (optionally) signals the reader to provide feedback to the user (blinking LED, sound, etc). If they are incorrect bits, it doesn't do anything with the door, and (optionally) provides feedback to that effect (in the form of a blinking LED, sound, dumping poison gas).

Getting access to the data lines at the reader does not magically equate to physical access to the building, except in Hollywood movies and horrifyingly-bad installations (whereby the insecure reader itself does the numeric verification, and/or uses its own internal relay controls the door).

IOW, you can pry the reader off of the wall and twist any wires together that you want..and nothing happens at all except perhaps a blown fuse somewhere upstream and a headache for whoever has to clean up your mess.

A racist laser, literally white power.

A possible solution would be better simulations so that a student can learn by doing. I think it is a very different than working on a cadaver or simulated patient using conventional methods.

You obviously aren't familiar with surgical departments or you wouldn't have missed practice surgeries on live animals.

For instance: a typical cardiac surgeon, shortly before EACH operation on a human patient, does a practice operation of the same procedure on a live dog.

One pediatric cardiac surgeon was much beloved by his patents and their families, because (with parental permission) he would let the kid adopt the practice dog, rather than sending it to be destroyed. The kid would wake up from surgery with the new puppy beside him, with the same bandages, etc. (and a day or so farther along in recovery). The dog having been through the same procedure and having helped save the kid's life even before they met made for very strong owner/pet bonds. (There's always a live, healthy, practice dog. If the dog dies (or is severely damaged) the assumption is that the procedure failed. You DON'T do a procedure on a human if it just killed a dog. You analyze, adjust the procedure, and repeat until success.)

Getting skills up does NOT require, or usually involve, a lot of practice on JUST advanced simulations, cadavers or, live patients. The live patients are just the last step, when the skills are already finely honed, and the animal models provide immediate feedback, real situations, and automatically correct modelling of mammalian life processes.

I deploy pepper spray with my off hand, strong hand on my handgun.

Post away, I'll read it, and argue with you about what it means.

Cite?

I think you're talking about Indiana's Castle Doctrine law, which gives you the right to assume that you're threatened with death if someone breaks into your house or car (some states also include place of business). But the authorization is for self-defense, not defense of property. The Castle Doctrine just means that the law automatically assumes that you were at risk of death or serious injury in those locations, and you don't have to justify it.

Texans have the right to make their laws. But killing over replaceable stuff is morally reprehensible, and I have the right to say Texas is wrong.

I can use non-lethal force. There are lots of options available.

But, no, I will not kill a man to stop him from taking my stuff. I have insurance. The situation changes dramatically if my kid is in the back seat, of course.

Most states allow deadly force for forcible felonies, and include burglary. The rationale there is that the house may not be empty, and so there may be human lives at risk. It's a reasonable choice.

This is even more wrong.

They have the right. Doesn't mean they choose well.

This technology will never work. It can never be improved. The only safe thing to do is to go back to the ancient ways. We should pay people in thinktanks to ponder such things.

Gosh, I hope the new owner does something about this crap.

Crops are not invasive species. They are non-native species but that is not the same thing. An invasive species has a survival advantage over native species. Typically, this is an adaption to a threat not present outside its native environment. Crops are not like that. They are modified to produce more/better food for us. That puts them at a disadvantage against native plants (aka "weeds"). They need help to survive. That is exactly the opposite of invasive.

Direct genetic modification makes it easier to improve all crop characteristics but the basic trade-offs remain. It would certainly be possible to engineer a super tomato or super corn that would out-compete native plants and take over the landscape. It wouldn't be of any use to anyone though since the only one to get there is to make the plant nearly useless for food production.

I look forward to seeing how much extra carbon is pumped into the atmosphere by anti-GMO people burning any crops planted using this.

Which is interesting because, while I share the disgust in theory, I don't actually know much about the reality and the one time I have seen it before (I wish I could remember where) it was being used by someone who actually was producing serious content, you know, an actual output other than good feelings.

That said, what you describe sounds like about the sort of cult of personality bullshit I expect enough people to fall for as to be able to support some small number of professional loudmouths.

However, I am not sure thats terrible either. Money talks, basically this is a form of grass roots advertising. What fuels them is the perception that signal boosting has value, and well, that is hard to argue with when you see what major corporations are willing to spend on it.

I dunno, as distasteful as I find the idea of throwing cash at someone to rant for me (I provide my rants free of charge as a public service)...its probably more effective than voting.

Good UIs should be designed to work with a single mouse button, because that means that they'll also work well with a touchscreen. There's nothing wrong with making some things faster with the right mouse button, which is how most Mac applications work. The right mouse button for the context menu was inherited from NeXTSTEP, where the 'normal' menu was a floating version and you could cause a copy of it to pop up wherever the mouse was with the right mouse button (RISC OS took this further and didn't have any kind of menu bar, using the middle mouse button to produce the menu on demand. Using RISC OS with a touchscreen or pen tablet was... interesting, and it only just counted as discoverable because the machines shipped with a mouse with the buttons labelled).