Sorry...that should have been "...poorly educated...".

Maybe not hard if one is educated, with a measure of economic security, perhaps belonging to the ethnic group that holds local community power, or simply among those who are good at keeping their heads in stressful situations. Maybe more difficult if one is poorly uneducated, perhaps somebody who both respects and fears authority, who doesn't have much economic cushion that might embolden them to assert their rights because they actually *could* call a lawyer, who has skin color different from the interrogating officers, or is just plain scared of police for whatever reason at the time.

The law has to work even for (and especially for) those who don't know their rights, or who can't for whatever reason of circumstance assert them. Regardless of whether you're scared, intimidated, stupid, ignorant, or disenfranchised, you've got rights under the law. It's better for all of us when that's how our justice system operates.

If authorities can make it sufficiently complicated to assert your rights effectively, then effectively you don't have them.

I concur with your caution that peoples' brains differ, so we might expect that YMMV regarding the results of TCDS. I disagree that "When actual scientists do this they do multiple high resolution MRIs...". That's the exception, not the rule.

In my collection of 108 papers on TCDS, use of advanced imaging methods as a study enrollment screener happened in 7 of them. The technology seems (so far, anyway) pretty benign. For example, in one study of 815 TCDS sessions in 100 migraine patients, there were no observed adverse events ("Safety of the transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): evaluation of 815 tDCS sessions in 100 chronic- pain patients"). Not to say that it's free of risk, nor that longer-term adverse effects won't crop up, but for those who stay within the generally used current density limits, etc., there probably isn't a lot to worry about.

I'm much more concerned about people deciding that a 9v battery is just so inconvenient, they'll run it off that 9v wall wart. The one with the failed ground isolation. The really cheap one that fails in a way that puts line voltage on the scalp electrodes just when the user happens to touch a grounded thing. etc. Some think that because they can buy a case and motherboard at Fry's and boot Windows, they're a biomedical EE. These folks may get selected out, or become somewhat dimmer bulbs.

I thought that US government activities have been exempt from state taxation for quite a long time, starting with McCulloch v. Maryland way back in 1819 and affirmed and expanded down to the present day. I can see so many bases on which the NSA, for Jebus' sake, could argue that they live above mere state taxation laws. Any genuine attorneys want to comment?

I had started to babysit a wonderful dog for a friend. The dog liked to sit under my desk when I was working. One day, my Mini wouldn't boot. Dog toothmarks were evident on the low voltage (thank heavens) side of the power block, making it pretty easy to troubleshoot. As he got used to his new surroundings, no further wire chewing, but it could have been a disaster for all concerned. My animal house friends tell me rabbits are the worst, like frustrated EEs with buck teeth...

Anyway, think about animals, little kids, etc. when you're electrifying your furniture.

Thanks, your comment is interesting. True, the spacecraft rotational inertia is put on the momentum wheel bearings when they're used to reorient the spacecraft. The force exerted on the bearings should be proportional to the slew rate - faster slew, more force. You'd think a mission like Kepler would have mainly very small slew rates (high pointing accuracy = low angular excursion rates). Vacuum effects on lubricants, for sure. Does anybody use magnetic bearings on spacecraft momentum wheels? Particularly for high pointing accuracies on celestial 'fixed' targets that don't need high slew rates, these would seem to be the ticket. No wear because no physical contact.

These seem to be a relatively common source of woe for spacecraft that use them. I understand it's moving parts and all that, but surely in 0-G there can't be *that* much wear on bearings. Anyway, there seems to be plenty of work on magnetic bearings for momentum wheels, which would eliminate mechanical wear. Or is it not the bearings that fail? Can any /. readers shed some light on why these things seem to pack it in so frequently?

I watched when a vehicle he built launched launched on a successful ISS resupply mission. I've driven one of his Tesla S cars. Don't know if he's the next Steve Jobs, but gotta say, he's actually making things happen. Beats posting as AC on /., don't you think?

Thanks for describing a genuinely constructive action many of us could emulate. I would much rather contribute propellant to an American student's life launch than pour more fiscal gasoline on the political bonfire by contributing to lobbying groups, even those whose values I endorse.

And anyway, 3,120,000cm = 31,200m = 31.2km

of Ray Harryhausen, I watched Jason and the Argonauts again this evening. I first saw it when I was about 20, and I've never been able to look at a skeleton quite the same way since. What a talent he had!

This is exactly right. Show them the before/after videos, tell them how proprietary your algorithms are, and give them a market analysis that shows why somebody will buy your tech/company, etc. The VCs want to invest and then transfer the risk asap to an acquiring entity or to the public sector (IPO). They don't care about the technology beyond its ability to get to that outcome.

The inverse correlation between incubation period and symptom severity is what one would expect from successful in-the-wild pathogens. I get that evolutionary processes have given us the pathogen behavior you describe.

However, I don't think what we currently know is that's all that's possible. I suspect the set of potential (engineerable) pathogenic behavior is broader than what we observe in the wild, and broader than what we currently think probable.

Your statement "Engineered bioweapons cannot propagate" seems (to me, anyway) unlikely to be valid given the complexity of the systems involved and human creativity. I regard it as only a matter of time, just as the transition from chemical to nuclear explosives was only a matter of the time needed to understand new physics and do the engineering, once the motivation was there. "Cannot" isn't the bet I'd place.

That said, it's silly to think that intrusively monitoring bioresearchers will help anyone but the security theater types. It will only add friction that will delay beneficial applications of the research.