"In your face from outer space" - Motto of the USAF Space Warfare Center, Falcon AFB.
That's from 1996. SWC never really quite lived up to that motto, and their successor, the Space Innovation & Development Center, is more of an R&D operation. It's becoming closer to reality, though.
We'll know it's real the first time some space-based weapon zaps an individual on the ground.
yeah, fuck people after all... it cost muney and stuff...
Did you bother reading the rest of my post where I go into how we can balance public and private interests here without creating a cluster-f*ck of high cost litigation that ultimately winds up costing all of us? Or did you just knee-jerk your foot into your own mouth?
If you're a spy or diplomat or whatever, don't use Gmail. At the very least it is subject to the US government's laws. Get yourself a secured server somewhere else.
Just them? You'll note it also said suspected spies and terrorists. With "broader definitions" of terrorism coming out every day, and the criteria for being included on a watchlist, paired with these hotlines opening up for anonymous "tips"... pretty much anyone these days can be a suspected spy or terrorist. And being a citizen of the US is very little barrier against invasions of your privacy; They've even talked about revoking citizenship for people simply to avoid any legal hassles.
It might be more accurate to say "If you are writing anything you don't want made public, given to law enforcement, or any of the 170+ governments of the world, don't use Gmail." At least then we'd cover all the bases.
You forgot to consider the keyboard buildup of cheetoes which is much more deadly...
Wanna see an optical illusion? Hold your keyboard over your head, look up at it, and then shake it back and forth vigorously. (trollface)
"We're changing the standards so you can't sue us immediately after the disaster. But if you get cancer 30 years down the line, we and our money will be long gone and no longer giving a darn in Pattaya Beach, Thailand."
Okay, I know you're trying to be funny, but let's be serious for a moment: Why shouldn't the EPA try to limit lawsuits? They cost you and me, the taxpayer, a lot of money. It slows down the entire judicial process, and increases the cost of excercising your rights in the judiciary. There's filing fees now, lawyers fees, and every motion and such you file also costs money. This is fine for corporations who can just pass the buck on to their customers, but for Joe Average, commencing or defending against a legal action can easily bankrupt him. Is that fair? Shouldn't he be able to sue people who have legitimately wronged him as well -- or should that be something reserved only for the wealthy? Conversely, if he is on the receiving end... should he be bankrupted defending against an action that ultimately failed? Any contact with the judicial process tends to be highly corrosive to the average person. It is often ruinous, irrespective of the merits of their position.
Given that, why shouldn't the government try to limit personal injury cases to those where the only evidence of harm won't surface for thirty years? Do you want a legal system that punishes people based on probability, or actuality? If so, thought crime suddenly becomes a lot more justifiable, as well as imprisoning people based on genetic markers, etc.
But I do acknowledge that statistically, we know that in a given group of say, 100 people, if exposed to X intensity of radiation over Y amount of time, Z of them will develop health problems. We can't say with any confidence which of them will develop health problems, but we can say with confidence how probable it is that at least Z of them will. In a case like this where you know harm has happened but the costs won't be known for a long time, a fine seems like a better way to deal with this than lawsuits, provided the fine is proportional to the actual harm caused, plus whatever punitive damages are justified (was it really an accident, or negligence?).
In this case, the government should be the plaintiff, not the individual. Conversely, the government should take the money gathered from these fines and put it into a general fund. If and when affected individuals develop health problems consistent with previously-documented radiation exposure, the government pays out of that fund.
I think this is the most fair method of enacting justice in such a situation -- the companies (or individuals) involved are penalized shortly after the actual accident occurs, so there is financial incentive to prevent it in the future, and no possibility of them profiting from it later, but at the same time recognizing that we may not know for a very long time who was actually harmed, or to what degree.
From the looks of it, this is more or less what the EPA is trying to do. Of course... such an elegant solution will never survive contact with Congress, but... it's the thought that counts.
The sealed pod keeps the coffee fresh. The pressurized system forcing the hot water through the grounds and making each cup fresh makes a huge difference. Especially on the second or third cup of the day.
Toss in creme fresh and real sugar and you are looking at a great cup of coffee every time. Of course it depends on the variety. Surprisingly the Starbucks varieties are actually quite good. They taste like burnt crap if you go to an actual Starbucks.
You willing to bet your liberty in a (snip)
No, he probably just looked up the statistics on the number of people that have been killed with their own gun. This is why police officers are trained to always keep their hand on their weapon during a traffic stop or during any other time when they're questioning someone who isn't in custody, and why once their gun has been drawn, they typically move away and don't holster it again until backup arrives and a second officer can approach and subdue. The risk is very real.
self-defense case on microcircuitry that is never checked or maintained
Your computer has tons of microcircuitry. Far more than this technology would require. If your life depended on being able to complete a call to the police using a VoIP product, do you think you could do it as fast as with a regular, land-line phone, assuming you had the software already installed and configured?
The fact that something isn't checked or maintained is not an indictment against its reliability. Maintenance usually happens on a schedule -- days, weeks, years, even decades. You don't just assume your car is going to run out of oil because you haven't checked the oil since the last time you started it -- you know that as long as you check it every 7,000 miles, or whatever the manual says, you do not have to worry about that. Why would a gun be different?
a lens that might be obstructed or smeared,
You know, you're working this technology all crabbed. A police officer could be issued a gun with a RF component in it that operated around 800 MHz or so. At this frequency, the signal clings to a person's skin and clothing. A low-power, short-range transmitter, perhaps embedded in the officer's radio, could complete the circuit. Thus if the officer was not in physical contact with the gun, it wouldn't fire.
Biometric identification isn't the only way of securing a weapon.
and the assumption that if there isn't a perfect picture, you're hiding some kind of guilt?
That's a social and legal problem, not a technical problem. Let's try and keep on topic here; This is a feasibility study, not an exhaustive analysis of "what if" scenarios...
"Mr. Johnson, how do we know you didn't put your blood all over the end of that gun before your wife used it to murder a poor, helpless transient you two had lured to your home for deviant sex? There's no picture. You must be trying to hide something."
Strike my last;
Now, as has become increasingly common on Slashdot (I miss the old days), nothing in what I've said is either for or against whatever political cause or position you're advocating. It is simply, and purely, an engineering analysis. What Congress is, or isn't doing, or whatever your political beliefs are, or even mine, are irrelevant here. This about answering IF we can do this with the technology available today, not should we do it.
You might sound convincing, but what you are describing is BS.
Hackers take aim at prison locks and other real-world targets
Vulnerability allows hackers to open prison doors, hiding activity from central command
Hacking Prisons - John Strauchs, Tiffany Rad, & Teague Newman
Researchers Say Vulnerabilities Could Let Hackers Spring Prisoners From Cells
Clearly, they're all full of shit too.
Electronic locks require voltage to unlock, which is not local to the door, especially in a prison.
The electronic locks run on magical sky energy. There is no voltage in those wires.
Also, this doesnt take into account the cameras, and doors that do not have card readers for egress. These doors require remote unlocking with visual verification.
Right, because there has never been a case of a system being thought of as so foolproof that it didn't need to be monitored. (Ominous look upwards) And what the hell is this "visual verification" you speak of? It sounds impressive, but it could mean "I had to look at the lock," in the same way I have to visually verify that my car's ignition and not just blindly stick the key wherever.
Of course, a bag of potato chips has 3,500 picocuries, so go figure.'"
So slashdotters are safe then, since we only eat cheetoes... which I expect have been so thoroughly processed to remove any and all traces of this "potato" thing you speak of to render it both nutritionally and radiologically inert.
That certainly is not true. There is nothing on small arms training for the majority of the Navy for instance. And the vast majority of the population has no military background.
Well regulated in the context and time referred to well trained not regulated by the state. The right to bear arms and the right to maintain a well regulated militia are two separate clauses in that amendment as well.
"Most gun owners that I've met know very little about GUN PHYSICS (or anything else requiring above a 6th grade education)."
I don't recall saying they did. I said the people I've met who do were gun owners. Actually, if you isolate it to just gun physics that may not be true. But if you include some or all of the other things I said, yes they own guns.
Just potential causes of MS symptoms
True, it's a debilitating and surprisingly widespread affliction. But who brought Windows 8 into the discussion?