I’m surprised it isn’t already. In the EU all ID cards must have a ICAO 9303 compliant chip. The US passport already does, so I would have expected the ID card to implement it as well.

It’s strange that the US is at the cutting-edge for some technology and decades behind in others (banking, basic government administration).

EDLs make it easier for U.S. citizens to cross the border into the United States because they include:
        A Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chip that will signal a secure system to pull up your biographic and biometric data for the CBP officer as you approach the border inspection booth.
        A Machine Readable Zone (MRZ) or barcode that the CBP officer can read electronically if RFID isn't available.

No personally identifiable information (PII) is stored on the card's RFID chip or can be transmitted electronically by the card. The card uses a unique identification number that links to information contained in a secure DHS database. This number does not contain PII.
When you get an EDL, you will also receive:
        Information on how to use, carry, and protect your license.
        A shielded sleeve that prevents anyone from reading your license.

11. One individual remained at the worksite. One HSI Special Agent approached the individual, later identified as Plaintiff’s brother, Carlos Garcia-Venegas, who did not understand questions posed to him in English. ERO Deportation Officer came to assist through asking questions in the Spanish language however, the individual exhibited body language indicating an intention to flee. Once the ERO Deportation Officer found that Plaintiff’s brother posed a flight risk, the ERO Deportation Officer began to apprehend Plaintiff’s brother. Plaintiff then began to move quickly toward the arresting ERO Deportation Officer, posing a possible safety threat and potentially attempting to intervene in an ongoing apprehension.
12. An HSI Special Agent moved in between Plaintiff and the arresting ERO Deportation Officer and asked for Plaintiff’s identification, which Plaintiff vehemently refused to provide, insisting that he was not required to produce any documents and became confrontational.
13. Plaintiff began moving away from the HSI Special Agent in an effort to go around him. The HSI Special Agent instructed Plaintiff to stop, but the Plaintiff quickened his pace until he was circling around the arresting ERO Deportation Officer and his brother. The HSI Special Agent stopped Plaintiff by grabbing his wrist, as the HSI Special Agent was concerned for everyone's safety due to the presence of a concrete pad with exposed rebar and other sharp objects in the area, and due to Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with any commands given.
14. Plaintiff, continued to refuse to comply with commands and stated for the first time in the encounter that he was a U.S. citizen. The HSI Special Agent stated that if Plaintiff could provide identification demonstrating his citizenship, he would be released.
15. Plaintiff continued to use physical force against the HSI Special Agent by wrenching his arms and body, in an effort to resist law enforcement actions and create a risk of bodily injury to the officers. The HSI Special Agent employed multiple deescalating control techniques to secure Plaintiff for both the safety of officers on scene and Plaintiff until another HSI Special Agent was able to assist. Plaintiff continued to resist and was directed to the ground by two HSI Special Agents. Plaintiff was then handcuffed, with his hands restrained behind his back.
16. Only after being cuffed, Plaintiff stated that he had identification in his pocket. He was then brought to stand by the government vehicles. A subsequent search of his pocket by the HSI Special Agent located Plaintiff’s wallet, containing Plaintiff’s REAL ID-compliant Alabama driver’s license, as well as a second driver’s license. The HSI Special Agent needed to further verify his U.S. citizenship because each state has its own REAL ID compliance laws, which may provide for the issuance of a REAL ID to an alien and therefore based on HSI Special Agent training and experience, REAL ID can be unreliable to confirm U.S. citizenship.
17. Plaintiff agreed to communicate with law enforcement while the officers verified his U.S. citizenship. Plaintiff informed the HSI Special Agents that he knowingly transports illegal aliens for Southern Home Crafters following his employers’ direction and with the owner’s knowledge.
18. I was advised by HSI Special Agents that Plaintiff was referred to the U.S. Marshals Service for further investigation under Title 18 in reference to resisting federal officers and interfering with a federal investigation. I am unaware of any resulting criminal charges or the outcome of any investigation. 19. After U.S. citizenship was verified, the handcuffs were taken off and Plaintiff was released. Plaintiff was handcuffed for approximately 18 minutes.

Try taking a GoPro into any public bathroom and see what happens..

Stand in my front yard with camera, filming my family without permission and see what the cops say when they arrive. Different states have vastly different laws about recording individuals without consent.

Not everywhere. Stand in my front yard after I've asked you to leave and you risk being cited for trespassing. Delivering a package I've requested to be delivered? Allowed. Filming through my windows where I expect a reasonable level of privacy, and using that video for business purposes? Time to check with your lawyers.

The tragedy is that nobody actually wants peace enough to make it happen. All it would take is the U.N. declaring all of Israel to be a demilitarized zone, ordering the Israeli government and Hamas to both disarm, shooting anyone who refuses to comply, and then keeping those million or so troops in that region to help rebuild, slowly drawing down the number of troops over... say 200 years, so that by the time they are gone, no one alive still remembers the horrors of this day.

Are you talking about the cyclist not stopping at a stop sign? You realise they don't need to right? AB 122 scrapped the requirement for bicycles to stop.

(d) A person riding a bicycle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall, upon arriving at the sign, yield the right-of-way to any vehicles that have stopped at the entrance to the intersection, have entered the intersection, or that are approaching on the intersecting highway close enough to constitute an immediate hazard, and to pedestrians as required by Section 21950, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles and pedestrians until it is reasonably safe to proceed.

Incidentally here we have a computer unable to stop despite detecting the situation, this implies poor field of vision both by the car which was required to stop, as well as the cyclist who was not.

The cyclist was still in the wrong here, but that's the issue with shitty 4-way stop intersection. It all goes to shit when a large vehicle comes through and stops providing perfect vision.

Waymo spokesperson Julia Ilina had more details to share. The Waymo vehicle was stopped at a four-way stop, as an oncoming large truck began to turn into the intersection. The vehicle waited until it was its turn and then also began to proceed through the intersection, failing to notice the cyclist who was traveling behind the truck.
“The cyclist was occluded by the truck and quickly followed behind it, crossing into the Waymo vehicle’s path,” Ilina said. “When they became fully visible, our vehicle applied heavy braking but was not able to avoid the collision.”

That might work in professional and enterprise editions, but not in Windows Home. Microsoft routinely removes firewall rules that interfere with its applications. You'd need to block it in an external firewall if you want it to hold.

Assuming this is accurate, how does a worker install this door plug, that requires several bolts to secure, and fail to also install the bolts? Smoke break? Shift change? If you're going to start a procedure, finish the procedure or leave a clear indication that it hasn't been finished, like a BIG red tag. On the other hand, kudos to the door plug design for staying on as long as it did w/o any bolts.

Current Boeing employee here – I will save you waiting two years for the NTSB report to come out and give it to you for free: the reason the door blew off is stated in black and white in Boeings own records. It is also very, very stupid and speaks volumes about the quality culture at certain portions of the business.

A couple of things to cover before we begin:

Q1) Why should we believe you?
A) You shouldn’t, I’m some random throwaway account, do your own due diligence. Others who work at Boeing can verify what I say is true, but all I ask is you consider the following based on its own merits.

Q2) Why are you doing this?
A) Because there are many cultures at Boeing, and while the executive culture may be throughly compromised since we were bought by McD, there are many other people who still push for a quality product with cutting edge design. My hope is that this is the wake up call that finally forces the Board to take decisive action, and remove the executives that are resisting the necessary cultural changes to return to a company that values safety and quality above schedule.

With that out of the way why did the left hand (LH) mid-exit door plug blow off of the 737-9 registered as N704AL? Simple- as has been covered in a number of articles and videos across aviation channels, there are 4 bolts that prevent the mid-exit door plug from sliding up off of the door stop fittings that take the actual pressurization loads in flight, and these 4 bolts were not installed when Boeing delivered the airplane, our own records reflect this.

The mid-exit doors on a 737-9 of both the regular and plug variety come from Spirit already installed in what is supposed to be the final configuration and in the Renton factory, there is a job for the doors team to verify this “final” install and rigging meets drawing requirements. In a healthy production system, this would be a “belt and suspenders” sort of check, but the 737 production system is quite far from healthy, its a rambling, shambling, disaster waiting to happen. As a result, this check job that should find minimal defects has in the past 365 calendar days recorded 392 nonconforming findings on 737 mid fuselage door installations (so both actual doors for the high density configs, and plugs like the one that blew out). That is a hideously high and very alarming number, and if our quality system on 737 was healthy, it would have stopped the line and driven the issue back to supplier after the first few instances. Obviously, this did not happen. Now, on the incident aircraft this check job was completed on 31 August 2023, and did turn up discrepancies, but on the RH side door, not the LH that actually failed. I could blame the team for missing certain details, but given the enormous volume of defects they were already finding and fixing, it was inevitable something would slip through- and on the incident aircraft something did. I know what you are thinking at this point, but grab some popcorn because there is a plot twist coming up.

The next day on 1 September 2023 a different team (remember 737s flow through the factory quite quickly, 24 hours completely changes who is working on the plane) wrote up a finding for damaged and improperly installed rivets on the LH mid-exit door of the incident aircraft.

A brief aside to explain two of the record systems Boeing uses in production. The first is a program called CMES which stands for something boring and unimportant but what is important is that CMES is the sole authoritative repository for airplane build records (except on 787 which uses a different program). If a build record in CMES says something was built, inspected, and stamped in accordance with the drawing, then the airplane damn well better be per drawing. The second is a program called SAT, which also stands for something boring and unimportant but what is important is that SAT is *not* an authoritative records system, its a bullentin board where various things affecting the airplane build get posted about and updated with resolutions. You can think of it sort of like a idiots version of Slack or something. Wise readers will already be shuddering and wondering how many consultants were involved, because, yes SAT is a *management visibilty tool*. Like any good management visibilty tool, SAT can generate metrics, lots of metrics, and oh God do Boeing managers love their metrics. As a result, SAT postings are the primary topic of discussion at most daily status meetings, and the whole system is perceived as being extremely important despite, I reiterate, it holding no actual authority at all.

We now return to our incident aircraft, which was written up for having defective rivets on the LH mid-exit door. Now as is standard practice kn Renton (but not to my knowledge in Everett on wide bodies) this write-up happened in two forms, one in CMES, which is the correct venue, and once in SAT to “coordinate the response” but really as a behind-covering measure so the manager of the team that wrote it can show his boss he’s shoved the problem onto someone else. Because there are so many problems with the Spirit build in the 737, Spirit has teams on site in Renton performing warranty work for all of their shoddy quality, and this SAT promptly gets shunted into their queue as a warranty item. Lots of bickering ensues in the SAT messages, and it takes a bit for Spirit to get to the work package. Once they have finished, they send it back to a Boeing QA for final acceptance, but then Malicious Stupid Happens! The Boeing QA writes another record in CMES (again, the correct venue) stating (with pictures) that Spirit has not actually reworked the discrepant rivets, they *just painted over the defects*. In Boeing production speak, this is a “process failure”. For an A&P mechanic at an airline, this would be called “federal crime”.

Presented with evidence of their malfeasance, Spirit reopens the package and admits that not only did they not rework the rivets properly, there is a damaged pressure seal they need to replace (who damaged it, and when it was damaged is not clear to me). The big deal with this seal, at least according to frantic SAT postings, is the part is not on hand, and will need to be ordered, which is going to impact schedule, and (reading between the lines here) Management is Not Happy. 1/2
2/2
However, more critical for purposes of the accident investigation, the pressure seal is unsurprisingly sandwiched between the plug and the fuselage, and you cannot replace it without opening the door plug to gain access. All of this conversation is documented in increasingly aggressive posts in the SAT, but finally we get to the damning entry which reads something along the lines of “coordinating with the doors team to determine if the door will have to be removed entirely, or just opened. If it is removed then a Removal will have to be written.” Note: a Removal is a type of record in CMES that requires formal sign off from QA that the airplane been restored to drawing requirements.

If you have been paying attention to this situation closely, you may be able to spot the critical error: regardless of whether the door is simply opened or removed entirely, the 4 retaining bolts that keep it from sliding off of the door stops have to be pulled out. A removal should be written in either case for QA to verify install, but as it turns out, someone (exactly who will be a fun question for investigators) decides that the door only needs to be opened, and no formal Removal is generated in CMES (the reason for which is unclear, and a major process failure). Therefore, in the official build records of the airplane, a pressure seal that cannot be accessed without opening the door (and thereby removing retaining bolts) is documented as being replaced, but the door is never officially opened and thus no QA inspection is required.
This entire sequence is documented in the SAT, and the nonconformance records in CMES address the damaged rivets and pressure seal, but at no point is the verification job reopened, or is any record of removed retention bolts created, despite it this being a physical impossibility. Finally with Spirit completing their work to Boeing QAs satisfaction, the two rivet-related records in CMES are stamped complete, and the SAT closed on 19 September 2023. No record or comment regarding the retention bolts is made.

I told you it was stupid.

So, where are the bolts? Probably sitting forgotten and unlabeled (because there is no formal record number to label them with) on a work-in-progress bench, unless someone already tossed them in the scrap bin to tidy up.

There’s lots more to be said about the culture that enabled this to happened, but thats the basic details of what happened, the NTSB report will say it in more elegant terms in a few years.

Some non-Slashdotters actually have hp printers and may be quite upset about MS removing something that *was* supposed to be there. Remember this entire thing started because of a printer name mismatch. As far as Microsoft can tell hp pushed out a legitimate driver to a legitimate hp owner. There's no telling which users legitimately needed the driver and which ended up having it installed by accident.

That's great as long as the garage door opener has decent safety features, like stopping and backing up a bit when it feels extra resistance.

Unattended operations like that need extra safety measures.

Yes, it is used in humans, when the benefits outweigh the risks.

And any human can go and get some from the pharmacy so long as they have a valid medical reason to use it, as evidenced by a prescription. And the pharmacist hasn't run out because they've been selling it as a dangerous placebo to easily-guided marks.

However, being in the "top 500" most prescribed drugs is a *long* way from being "very commonly prescribed". You're not quite out in the weeds of extreme specialty drugs, but you're well past the drugs any given person is particularly likely to to ever receive.

Though I suppose I may be quibbling semantics - on a planet of billions, there's millions of "one in a thousand" cases. That's "common" from an absolute perspective.

All Middle Eastern, Asian, North African, Latin American, and Caribbean refugees should receive presumptive therapy with:
        Albendazole, single dose of 400 mg (200 mg for children 12-23 months)
        AND
        Ivermectin, two doses 200 mcg/Kg orally once a day for 2 days before departure to the United States.

All African refugees who did not originate from or reside in countries where Loa loa infection is endemic (Box 1) should receive presumptive therapy with:
        Albendazole, single dose of 400 mg (200 mg for children 12-23 months)
        AND
        Ivermectin, two doses 200 mcg/Kg orally once a day for 2 days

The informed snide commentary was less to do with the fact that it's mostly used on horses

than the fact that since respectable doctors wouldn't prescribe it for covid, those taking it were almost all buying the non-prescription formulation intended for horses that was difficult to dose precisely enough for humans - risking overdose on a dangerous medicine that has a modest risk of heart problems and other nasty side effects in humans even at approved therapeutic doses.

That, and the fact that the reason no respectable doctor would prescribe it (coupled with the risks) is that there has never been any credible evidence that it does anything against covid. A couple *very* small exploratory studies very early on showed some benefits - but the studies were of a size and rigor that only let them determine whether the treatment warrants further study, rather than offering any statistically relevant results. Later placebo-controlled studies that involved enough patients to be statistically relevant showed no benefit.

So, basically, your doctor was putting your long-term heart health at risk with a "treatment" that had no medically credible evidence of doing anything.