I think you are perfect for a career opportunity with the TSA!!!

The only reason that the FDA wouldn't approve LSD as a drug is it isn't patentable and the FDA doesn't do ANYTHING unless it benefits a major pharmaceutical company.

Yeah, the ARPANET never really went anywhere...

The magnets are GREAT for hanging stuff on cube walls They will stick to almost anything with a minimal quantity of iron in it. If you have a number of the magnets they can even pinch hard enough to injure...

Back to the original point...
To 'wipe out' a laptop drive just hit it with a hammer. The platters will shatter.
To 'wipe out' a desktop drive go get one of those 6' steel spikes used for breaking up concrete or ice. The spike will go right through the drive with almost no effort.

Ding,ding,ding,ding! We have a winner!!!

Government unobserved very quickly starts to smell very bad. Often government only has to obfuscate their actions in plain sight to hide their actions. The City of Bell in Los Angeles is a prime example. Take an organization that is granted extraordinary powers, self regulated, and (when caught out) investigates itself and you have a recipe for disaster. The only protection that the public has to protect itself is to be able to observe in a meaningful manner the actions of the police.

Do you think that police are good and magically 'special' so they can be trusted? It is a pretty well excepted fact that a single person, observed, will tend to make choices that we would describe as moral simply because they are being observed. You put together a group of like minded people and then you can start to see really questionable behavior. When you get really large masses of people in a hierarchy then you can get truly obscene, despotic behavior. Question any police officer you know and you will find seeds of this. They have a culture ingrained with the idea that the laws don't really apply to them combined with equal parts of "they are a brotherhood that stands apart" and the fact that they investigate themselves.

Ask any police officer you know if they have chosen to not give a 'brother officer' a traffic citation simply because they are a police officer ("One of the brotherhood"). They will say things like "professional courtesy" and if pressed for a better reason will come up with something like, "I don't give them a ticket because this is someone that I might have to count on to back me up in an emergency situation at a moments notice". Really!??? The police officer's excuse breaks down to, "a policeman might be so unreliable and sophomoric to not pitch in during an emergency situation because someone gave them a traffic ticket"? I don't believe that answer for a minute even though the officer probably believes it, because it has been ingrained in him through the culture of his department and training.
Let's break it down:
- They can choose which laws apply to their brotherhood.
- They have a culture of protecting their own before they protect the public. (all people are this way)
- They are put in situations where on an average day they see the worst in humanity and the normal human thing to do is to anticipate/expect/look-for that behavior out of of every new person they meet.
- They have a culture of secrecy.
- And then they investigate themselves and only they can decide to send one of their own in front of a judge.
- - - - - - - - -

Trust your government as far as you can spit upwind in a hurricane. A government unobserved is a recipe for tyranny... and the baking time till ready is almost instantaneous. Remember that Morality is a function of consciousness, and a government (or corporation) is not conscious so it cannot make moral choices. They may appear moral or the actions may agree with your moral choices but that doesn't make them moral choices.
It is actually just a big process populated by people wanting to justify their own positions and to a large part by people who think citizens are accountable to 'The Process instead of the other way around. A big thing to look for are governments that think that the constituents are their source of revenue. This tells you what the people at the top think the relationship is. And everyone else in the hierarchy is sucking from the teat above them so you know how the Kool-Aid is distributed.

Exactly what part of our government has shown a molecule of respect for privacy and free speech?
Any "Respect" went away a while ago. Only a thin lip service to it remains.

Yeah and exactly how crazy will that make the DHS? Every encrypted message would probably put you on a terror watch list.

(It is probably a good thing that no one has pointed out to them that 100% of terrorists breath air. They would probably regulate that or put all people who breath air on the 'no fly' list...)

And you responded to the apes on this board?


(ignoring the fact that I did too...)

Actually it depends on how good your lobbyist is...

And while you are at it you should incorporate because Washington recognizes that the rights of individuals are subordinate to the rights of corporations. Don't go in groveling. If you go in as a corporation they are already trained to do whatever you ask.

45 minutes of previously unknown audio tape discovered this week:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/207343-newly-discovered-jfk-assassination-tapes-made-public

J. C. R. Licklider is about the most important person in the development of the Internet. He worked in the Pentagon and had three different dedicated terminals to three different systems in his office and each had its different connection procedure. He asked the question of "Why can't these things be connected together?" (probably to save office space...)
He took his question across the hall and in 5 minutes had the funding to start what became the ARPAnet. He was as close as the computer world gets to an expeditionary explorer.
In other words: He funded the startup of the Internet.

For a really great read get a copy of "Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins Of The Internet". Besides learning about the incredible minds that built the foundations, you can read a number of entertaining anecdotes. (Like AT&Ts refusal to believe that it was possible long after it was working!!!)

Ding, ding, ding, ding...
We have a winner!!!

More to the point:
Everyone has an interest in having a well funded retirement plan...

This happens right before they read their "undying love's" email from that other REALLY hot person and change their whole lifestyle to a goth theme to match the blackness in their heart.
(It also allows them to express their individuality... just like all of their other friends...)

Traffic courts are the end point of a revenue supply stream. Judges do not make, "Gee, was there a valid reason?" types of decisions. They make "Is it humanly possible to apply this law here and are all the 'T's crossed?" types of decisions.

The enforcement and fee structure of our traffic laws are based on extremely low chances of getting caught. If every possible infraction was enforced in every possible instance the average driver's license would be ticketed to the point of suspension within an hour. The policeman is the point were discretion should be applied to decide, "Should I enforce this", and the idea that infractions should be blanket enforced by an automated, 1984ish, mechano-fascist system is insane.


Also there is a general "knowledge" that speed is the ultimate "safety sin" that is so far from correct. The government's own NHTSA report that was released after 10 years of the "55 mile-an-hour limit" had background data that when analyzed (by someone other then the government) showed that the safest speed to be traveling was 5 to 10 mph faster then the general flow of traffic. That same study "proved" that 55 saved lives: after ignoring any other possible source for a reduction in deaths per mile such as much safer cars, massive improvements in tire safety, seat belt laws, etc... So after going with the spin that nothing else could have effected the number of fatalities, the best number they could come up with worked out to it costing an additional 150 man/years (from the reduced speeds) on the roads for every life saved. (One independent analysis pointed out that you could get the same expected reduction in fatalities by increasing the actual tire pressure in all cars by about 2 psi.)
When a more sensible look is made at the data, it is pretty clear that once you factor out increases in passenger car safety, tire safety, and seat belt use, it shows that drivers had become worse, most likely because they had lost driving ability and when at a slower pace it encourages people to do "other things" besides drive.

Lets be serious. Traffic enforcement is about revenue. Speed is easy to prove, it is fun/interesting for cops to enforce and the public has been led to believe that SPEED is the big scary thing, ... and lets be honest, there is something in the back of the average person's head that doesn't want someone to pass them. If speed was the CAUSE of an accident then there would be a speed where when you reached it the accident would ensue.
If traffic enforcement was about "safety" there would be a mandate to enforce the laws as they relate to the generation of accidents: Failure to yield right-of-way, inattentive driving, and just plain incompetence.

----
Oh, and the correct civilian use of drones is to create an open source project of mesh networked drones to monitor our government...
And that includes detecting speed traps from above!