ZUZU @#55: If you truly want to give children a choice of cultures, figure out how they can be best outfitted with these tools of autonomy. A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer provides a wonderful sketch of what could be possible.

The "Diary" from that book was wonderful. I'd like to have read some more about the Chinese girls who got more "primitive" versions of that diary to find out how different that version was, and how much linkage it had to the "main" diary. While I think it would be a good tool for children in general, thinking about giving one to my own daughter bothers me. On the one hand, I want to give her the best chances possible to become an independent, autonomous, thoughtful, kind, etc. human. On the other hand, I want to be the one who gives her those chances, I don't want to rely on a book to do it for me. It seems like a cop-out on my obligation as a parent. (In the book, the original "diary" was meant for the daughter IIRC of a wealthy man who couldn't/wouldn't/otherwise didn't spend enough quality time with her as a parent. At least he recognized his own failings and tried to do what he could/knew how to do to remedy the situation.) On the other other hand (hey, who put the mutagen in my coffee?) I doubt whether I'm fully qualified to do so - heck, I'm not even sure what it *means* to be fully qualified in that regard. That old "It takes a village" meme seems to have some roots.

A very big positive for the Amish way of life is how strong a community they appear to form, and how cooperative they at least seem to be within that community. (Have to add the qualifiers, I've never knowingly even met someone Amish.) Barn-raising is an example that many people know about. Neighbor needs a barn? Everyone who's able shows up to help and up it goes. Contrast that with isolated Suburbia (Rush's Subdivisions comes to mind. "Conform or be cast out!" /shudder/ [insert memories of teen-age angst here]) and see which model looks better on that particular score.

We could do with a bit more "community" here in the US in general. (says the guy who doesn't really know his neighbors at all, and who lives in the residential part of a city...)

The "bee up the sleeve on a motorcycle" comments made me remember this.

Man on motorcycle (and cops) vs. Banzai squirrel.

I make no claims for truth or provenance of the story, but the link isn't blocked by the corporate firewall, and no photos on the page linked appear NSFW, unless your employer has something against a picture of a Honda Valkyrie doing a wheelie with a (fully clothed) male rider.

And it is very, very funny. (While also being very, very scary...)

@GREGLONDON #16:

The hard part will be crafting the story in such a way that people see the poorly implemented remote disable technology as the "bad guy", rather than "another crazy hacker dude!" (By poorly implemented I mean "comes from the factory with remote disable disabled")

Otherwise we just get nastier laws against "unauthorized use of remote connection technology".

Which, of course, leads to some kid being put in jail for having the temerity to be trying to operate a toy R/C car that has the same frequency as the toy R/C car the local police chief is trying to use...

@Takuan #74:

hey Cajun, no more by-lines sorry, it's the rules

"by-lines"? Oh, as in "signoff lines" or something to that effect? (wanders over to Moderation Policy post) Oh! .sig lines! I get it now, I'm used to "byline" being the bit in a Newspaper Story between the headline and the main text block. Can do, no more .sig-equivalent text.

Though, here's a fair question: is it a by-line if it is put at the tail of main text body? SO ASKS TAKUAN!

Your question supports my original position, but I think the Moderation Policy bit about .sig lines makes it clear what is intended, at least by way of comparison to .sig files. My wife calls them "siggys" and where she posts they generally have pictures and such attached. In one forum, they are often animated. Some even use the blink tag... (shudder)

(somebody get a long stick and wake up Teresa)

I'll have to decline that one, sorry. I'm not sufficiently privileged (or geographically close enough) to pull that off at this time.

@me #66

Whoops! Missed a few things. When I quoted the FAA press release thusly:

The agency said its analyses showed that, if forced to purchase an extra airline ticket, families might choose to drive, a statistically more dangerous way to travel.

I goofed in my followup.

That bit of the quote applies to child safety seats vs. child on lap - not to child safety seat vs. standard airplane safety belt. My bad.

The statistics are still good though: It's statistically safer for a kid to be unbelted (ie, on a parent's lap) on a plane than to be in a car!

Lap belts alone in cars are sub-optimal. In planes, the dynamics of a crash are probably quite different than cars. If you auger in, you'd a deader no matter what type of seatbelt you are wearing. If you belly-flop, a lot of the force will be up and down stuff, that a shoulder belt probably doesn't do much for. After the hit, the deceleration forces are likely to be spread out over a few hundred feet or more, which isn't the same as the sharp whack a car wreck causes. Beyond that, I'd be speculating even worse.

Many school buses don't have seatbelts at all, for that matter, and what ones I've seen are lap belt only again. Maybe it's a mass thing - big vehicles are expected to spread deceleration out over longer distances?

Later,
-cajun

@ANTINOUS#30:

Just as a matter of interest, was this seatbelt designed for a child of that age or does the airline's much vaunted concern for safety only go as far as cinching a toddler into an adult restraint device, something that has proven its value as a family-reduction mechanism in so many automobile accidents?

The seatbelts on airlines are just lap belts. Most airlines allow "infant on lap" up to 2 years of age. After that, you have to buy a ticket for the kid, but there is no requirement to use a child safety seat.

Here is a link to a press release about not requiring child safety seats on airplanes. An excerpt here:

WASHINGTON, DC — The Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today announced that it will not mandate the use of child safety seats on airplanes because of the increased safety risk to families.

The agency said its analyses showed that, if forced to purchase an extra airline ticket, families might choose to drive, a statistically more dangerous way to travel.

It's worth noting that per the FAA website about traveling with children, most existing child safety seats approved for cars are also approved for use in airplane seats.

Perhaps for kids who have an aversion to new surroundings or unfamiliar restraint devices, the parents could bring the car seat along and belt the seat in?

Note this caveat though:
While booster seats and harness vests enhance safety in vehicles, FAA prohibits passengers from bringing these types of restraints on airplanes for use during taxi, take-off and landing. These restraints should be checked as baggage. Also, supplemental lap restraints or "belly belts" are not approved for use in both airplanes and vehicles in the United States.

This means you can't wear your infant in a Snugli or similar "sling" type carrier during takeoff and landing. Booster or other "belt positioning" seats are not only prohibited, but their function is moot as airplanes don't yet have shoulder belts.

Also on the FAA site is a link to the *only* FAA approved airplane-only 22 to 44 pound child safety harness, if you don't want to lug the car seat along. It essentially turns the seatbelt into a 5-point harness similar to what you get in a car seat.

Traveling with kids is probably hard - so far my 16mo daughter has flown two round-trip tickets on my lap, and hasn't been much of a problem at all. We haven't even gotten much in the way of dirty looks, which surprised me. What worked for me (YMMV) was being active with her - bouncing her, rocking her, reading to her, holding her up so she could see over the seats sometimes, etc. Oh, and since they offer to let you keep the in-flight magazine it becomes an instant toy. I only let her tear out the pre-perf "join this expensive buy things club" cards, though, not shred the magazine. If I'd let her do that, my own magazines would not be safe at home...

My take on this kerfuffle? We don't know enough. I'd have taken the car seat with - presumably, given this is a US-based story - the kid has to ride in cars so said kid is probably "used to" their car seat. At least the parent likely has more examples of the kid's behavior in said car seat than on a plane, and a 5 point car seat harness is harder to get out of. Oh, and what MARTHA_MACARTHUR said @#56 about the mother: The first time the attendant spoke to them she should have explained her sons situation and assured her that he would have his belt on for take off. She should have also said very firmly, "Please, do not touch my child."

That right there would have put the focus squarely on the mother, where it belongs. Note that this does not mean any less compassion should be shown in the situation (ie: much more than was shown at least from what little we know about the situation) but it would have allowed/required the mother to act as the appropriate intermediary between airline/FAA policy and kid.

Later,
-cajun

@ENOCHREWT #28:

Yeah it's silly that they want this, but why do they want it?

It looks like a control thing to me. (I'll leave aside the ridiculousness chances of success for now.)

This little "free family-friendly ISP" is a test case. If this little ISP can make a go of it, then powerful interest groups will have something to point at "This works, why can't all y'all (ISP's) do that?!? Think of the CHILDREN!!!!"

Then they lobby, and the FCC smacks all ISP's with the same requirements.

As it is "easier" to apply the same rules to everybody than to split out service, the "filtered" version becomes the default version.

Unfiltered access becomes very expensive, and as far fewer people will pay for it they will be easier to watch.

Everybody else doesn't see what the gov't and special interests don't want them to see, and thus get further behind in the "well-informed" department.

Very anti net-neutrality, of course.

Side "bonus": It becomes easier to sue/indite providers of non-filtered wi-fi.

As for why the little ISP and their prospective customers want it? Short answer: They appear to consider humans in general to be base animals that can't control themselves when exposed to "naughty bits" - they appear to want to remove all "temptation" from the world, to make us more "pure" in the eyes of their God.

Long answer: Read the three books of "His Dark Materials" by Pullman. Excellent depiction of people who want to at all costs return Man to a pre-Eve level of purity, and use that goal to justify the means of total dictatorial control...

Later,
-cajun

Too bad it was only 35. I'd have preferred it be 37.

<clerks>"37!?!"</clerks>

later,
-cajun

Here is an article from ~20 minutes ago from the Belfast Telegraph that lists all 35 articles. Decent litle summary, but no transcript yet. Anyone found a good transcript yet? No video at work...

Later,
-cajun

@PROTO OPUS #6:
how about copyrighting all one's personal data, and then suing for copyright infringement?

Hmm. While I think that may work as a distraction attack, I'm not sure that it will actually be effective. The way I understand it, a list of data is not covered by copyright - just the specific formatting. That's why phone books can proliferate. Since most of these companies that have our data either transcribed it, scanned/OCR'd it, or entered it in by hand the formatting is likely not the way it was when you last wrote it down. Plus there are all those pesky EULA-like things that one must sign for various services that give them the OK to keep/share one's data...

@TAKUAN #1:
too late, we can't. For your children; multiply their identities

I've seen this idea of "multiple identities" before. (Here on BoingBoing IIRC, but I can't find the thread.) What legal means are there for this sort of thing? My daughter is 15mo, I wouldn't mind laying the groundwork for her so she can better protect herself in the future. Heck, I wouldn't mind a few for myself!

Later,
-cajun

Hey Takuan,

"Convoy" is not evil. I first heard it on Dr. Demento. Nothing that Dr. Demento plays is evil. Silly, sure, but not evil.

CUPCAKE FAERIE is right at #29, though, you can't get a complete list of "bad songs" without including country.

Later,
-cajun

Hmm. ISTM that the 15yo (or, at least, his parents if they are at all sympathetic to the kid) who lives in the apartment building to which this thing has been attached would have a case against it. It is a device that makes it uncomfortable/painful for him to enter or leave his home.

Sounds like assault and/or battery to me, though IANAL. Complain to the landlord, if no relief complain to some agency that has jurisdiction over the landlord and/or the property, then potentially move to small claims court or somesuch.

If I lived there, and my infant daughter started being terrified of going home or leaving home, and I made the correlation to this device, I'd likely escalate to calling the cops on the landlord for assault/battery of my kid.

If laughed off, or otherwise brushed off, and no relief could be found, one method to remove the source of irritation would be to "accidentally" back the corner of one of those rental box trucks into the thing. Should be able to fold the mirror tight enough against the cab to allow the box to all but scrape the side of the building while positioning it "just right" to get the couch to the door... Get the simple add-on insurance that covers minor damage in the rental contract, and you're golden (Again, IANAL). Baseball bat or other direct methods would be simpler, but the intent would be far clearer in the eyes of any video cameras.

@TOFOOMEISTER: The 180 degrees out of phase idea may be capable of creating a "safe passage" corridor (for static installations), or "cone of silence" feature (for mobile applications) for someone entering or exiting the building, but I don't know that it would be able to blow the speaker on the thing without someone actively turning the device's volume up to speaker-damage level while the damping is on, then having the damping abruptly cut off. I've seen the XKCD comic, and I've dreamed often of a "sound hole" weapon...

later,
-cajun

@COCOBOLO #40: (this is also why most commercial greenhouses have CO2 generators)

Eh, what? (Does a quick Google. *Boggles*)

That is crazy! Every single Commercial Greenhouse CO2 Generator I looked at burns *fossil fuels* directly to make CO2 - and most are designed to minimize the heat output!

(Thinks a bit and calms down.)

I suppose that current (or at least, the last few decades...) market economics are such that this is the "least cost option" to get a higher CO2 content in the greenhouse. At the very *least* I would expect smart greenhouse operators that need local on-demand CO2 generation to install fossil-fuel powered *electrical power generators* that have their humid, CO2-laden exhaust streams properly routed and monitored. If you are going to burn the fuel just to get the CO2 out of it, you might as well get some *work* out of the fuel!

And, of course, stationary gensets are readily switchable to bio-fuels. Heck, a properly constructed "agrichar" biomass gasifier setup could run a genset quite nicely, and provide not only power, heat and CO2 to the greenhouse but a carbon-enriched soil additive that could be used to increase the viability of the soil. Look up "terra preta" for why adding agrichar is a good thing. Here is a decent article about agrichar and terra preta.

As for Ted Turner, well, I've not much to say there, other than I'd love to be rich enough to be considered "eccentric".

Later,
-cajun

Regardless of the artistic merit of any given "work", if the person who creates said work does so without the permission of the owner of the surface on which it is affixed, said creator is liable for any damages should the property owner take offense.

There was some "clever" advertising done at one point by a company that selectively cleaned a dirty piece of public property. I can't dig up the case, but I know the city in question was peeved, even though no "damage" was done. They probably got written up on some "failure to obtain the necessary license/permission" rules or similar. Chalk or other "gone after a rain or few" methods may have similar issues.

That all said, I find some graffiti attractive and have entertained the thought of securely parking a stripped (no glass, trim or other removeable/breakeable bits), pure-white basecoat painted motor vehicle body in a neighborhood that is often "tagged" and leaving a box of good spraypaint inside. Remove tags and re-park as needed until desired "urban camouflage" has been applied, then properly prep, seal and clearcoat the result. Aside from the legality of parking a "nonoperative motor vehicle" and/or "distributing spraypaint to minors" I think it would produce interesting results.

In the case of these "inspiring stencils", I don't think I like them personally but I'm not the one to ask about it. Ask the public with which they interact on a daily basis.

Later,
-cajun

Oh my, this is interesting. Defacing a website in such a way that actual, measurable, physical harm is the direct result. Not merely inciting to, nor egging someone on, nor starting a chain of events, but directly causing harm.

IMHO (and, of course, IANAL), this is assault (showing known trigger images) and battery (causing seizures). That it occurred via the internet is beside the point for those who were affected, but the chosen vector/weapon is likely to get most of the attention.

It will be very interesting to see how this is treated in court if a) charges are filed and b) those responsible are caught. It also depends on whether the case is civil or criminal - if assault and battery, I would guess criminal.

BTW, article comments note that this isn't the first such attack, one occurred in November:
http://www.pr.com/press-release/60959

While it reminds me of the attack in "Snow Crash", and I, too, am curious about "brainhacks", I don't find this particular application either cool or funny. Thinking for a bit, I'm not sure what application would be both cool and funny to me. To be cool, it would at least have to effect non-epileptics. To be funny, it would at least have to "do no real harm". I'll leave it at that for now, 'tis a complicated subject.

I hope we'll see updates on this, if only to read that the affected sites/users have better filters/security.

later,
-cajun

@#345 Technogirl:

As you left it open for anyone to comment, I would like to offer a few answers to your questions.

1. For me, personally, it makes a difference to know who the moderator is. Knowing who they are (or, in this case as in most cases, knowing that a particular online moniker belongs to the moderator) helps me keep in mind that the moderator is a person. Put another way, it makes it harder to dismiss and/or dehumanize the moderator as some unknowable outside "force". It's a personal preference in my case, not sure about others'.

2. I don't know which name you meant - poster or moderator - but I will assume you meant both. It is more effective with names attached as that allows the site owner to look at all posts by the specific complainant and all moderations by the specific moderator and thus have a better data set to base decisions on. This, of course, can also be accomplished without the complainant knowing who the moderator is so long as the site owner can distinguish who moderated what post and when, but see my answer to 1. above as to why I think knowing the moderator's identity is important. If the complainant is unknown, has no comment history, or both, then it makes it more difficult for the site owner to know whether the complainant has a legitimate complaint in cases other than "I see spam!" or "I see foul language!".

3. I do agree that with great power comes great responsibility. I do not believe that in this case we can move over to the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" position from that basis - the moderator is in the employ of the site owners, so power is limited. (No you didn't go there, I did, just for the sake of discussion.) Therefore, avoiding even the appearance of impropriety appears to be to tight a specification for the job. I'd rather let the moderator comment and let the rest of the participants figure out for themselves whether impropriety has or has not occurred, and whether it is worth noting. Besides, if the moderator is participating, then the moderator has a further vested interest in moderating well - the reward is a better conversation. In my experience, as discussion groups develop, the frequency of comments that require moderation goes down, whether due to "cleaner" comments or better internal filters on the part of comment readers.

That was long, but I hope it makes sense.

later,
-cajun

I definitely want to read the book when it becomes available. Moderation is not easy.

About the only thing I struggle with on Boing Boing and other sites that use comment deletion as a part of moderating is that usually the comments that follow the deleted ones don't keep the comment number they had originally, which can make it difficult to follow a thread through a rough patch. The more I read a given site, though, the easier it gets.

Disemvowelling appears to be a good way to "take the heat out" of a comment - it requires some thought to parse out the meaning, and while one is thinking one generally doesn't fly off the handle as readily. Kind of like speed bumps for knee jerks, to horribly mangle a metaphor or few.

Keep on keepin' on, Boing Boing and TNH!

Later,
-cajun

Takuan #20, #33, and Tom #81, you're both wondering about and/or suggesting ways to keep smoke away from people who don't.

Something that really riled me about the Minneapolis Smoking Ban (and I'm a formerly asthmatic never-smoker - Hi Anne K at #50!) is that it was a blanket *ban*, there was no provision to allow the establishment/owner to provide an air exchange/filtration system that would rid the air of smoke. It is technically feasible, there are tests that can be done to ensure efficacy, it would create inspector jobs to make sure the systems are functional, what's not to like? They are very expensive - especially in the winter in Minnesota - but shouldn't the owner/establishment have that option? There's at least one restaurant/bar in the Twin Cities that was building an expensive annex/porch type thing as a room where people could go smoke - servers could not go in, etc. They were forced to not put window glass in it, as if it had window glass it was "indoors" and thus smoking would be banned.

IMHO, businesses should be able to provide a suitably ventilated space for smokers. Do it right and you won't get any secondhand smoke smell or effect, aside from maliciously directed exhalations (intentionally blowing smoke at the server while they are putting your food/drink on the table...) and those, being malicious, can be dealt with the same way many other malicious activities are: throw the rude people out!

TNH @ #41 thanks for the excellent description - I've never knowingly been addicted to a substance (unless carbs count?) so I've never really known "what it's like". This makes empathy for the addicted (or formerly so, though from your description "former" doesn't really happen...) even easier, thanks!

Later,
-cajun

Congratulations, and Welcome to the World to Poesy!

Sing to her a lot, hold her a lot, let her know she's loved - though it's sometimes heart-wrenching to have to tell my daughter "bye bye" in the morning when I'm off to work (if she's even awake yet...) she knows who Daddy is and breaks into a huge smile when she hears the door opening at That Time Of The Evening.

Being a Daddy will change you, mostly in good ways, and you and your wife will become a stronger team than ever. Best of luck to you all!

I like "Poesy" as a name, too. We gave our daughter first and middle names and call her a nickname put together from them, so she'll have plenty of names to pick from when she decides who she wants to be known as. Poesy will have even more!

Spend time with her - she'll only be small once...

Take care,
-cajun

@#92 MUJADADDY: Eh? USL '98 here, transplanted to Denver for $. Comment tallez-vous, cher?

Je suis bien, merci! (Apologies, French class was many years ago and conjugation of verbs was never my strong point)

USL? Not a familiar acronym, sorry. "Cajun" was my BBS handle back in the early 90's, and I've held various online identities with that root ever since. Comes from my love of Jambalaya, Crawfish Etoufee, Red Beans and Rice, Gumbo, Po-Boys, all helped along with Tabasco, of course.

(cajunfj40, finding himself far afield of the topic, tries to think of something relevant to type. Having already done so at #91, post ends)

Later,
-cajun

@#89 MUJADADDY: The purpose of technology is to provide me with stem-cell caviar.

Zing!

(Apologies: CAJUNFJ40 is not properly trained in Forum Bingo.)

And even though IBARNA checked out, and the thread has moved on somewhat:
@#60 IBARNA: Why I should buy meat products for my emergency kit, I have yet to see anyone explain.

Here I'm taking the view that the survival kit would be for a prolonged disaster scenario, with attendant breakdowns in food distribution, looting, serious societal unrest, etc.

One explanation could be that, if you've been abstaining from meat and/or meat-related products for long enough your digestive system doesn't handle it well. (I've known a few people who get ill if they ingest even small quantities of meat or meat-related foods unknowingly.) If you stock some meat-derived foods, you can gradually add them to your vegetable-derived foodstocks when you eat them so as to re-gain the ability to digest meat in a controlled fashion. This would seem preferable to being unable to digest a potentially life-saving food source.

Perhaps technology could allow us to make a non-animal-derived pill or similar long shelf life treatment that one could take to "re-set" the digestive system to be able to digest meat? Something like the enzymes that one can take if one is lactose-intolerant and want to enjoy some dairy products. That could be "better" as one wouldn't have to take it until right before one really needed to eat meat.

Later,
-cajun

From the website, it was originally developed for preemies. There is a decent FAQ on there that has some history and even a study link or two.

I can't find a decent link (though this one has some good summaries and links to data: http://www.prematurity.org/baby/comforting-touch2.html) but preemies need lots more touch and comforting than they generally get (at least in most places in the US). The summary on the page I linked said that "gentle touch" calms preemies in most cases, and in most cases has no negative effects. Even if it doesn't "smell like Mom" the touch alone can help.

As with any parenting aid, it should only be used as an aid, not a substitute for parental involvement. In the case of preemies, it is one of the few "tested and approved" things that can be put into the incubator with the infant. Very much a substitute for parental involvement, but the parents can't do anything if the infant is too fragile to come out of the incubator yet. This is something, at least. Add it with a "rocking" incubator (can't find a link, but it's related to that "cloth mommy/wire mommy" thing that PeterK alluded to. You can find that study - or at least abstracts about it - online. It is very disturbing to read. They found that with monkeys, being held and rocked by "mommy" was more important than food to the baby monkey.

Sure, it looks creepy: I suspect something a little less "hand-like" in form would be far less creepy to us adults (search the web for the Uncanny Valley in robotics for reasons) but I suspect the manufacturers wanted to simulate parental contact as well as possible. Reading the website where it is offered lists a lot of information about it - the FAQ is quite good.

As for how you "put Mom's scent on it" that's pretty easy: have Mom hug it like a teddy bear while she sleeps. The FAQ even points it out.

Gotta go back to work...
later,
-cajun

I haven't watched the video (at work) so the only constructive thing I can add here is that one can look up the relevant statutes and/or rules for "use of force". For Utah, it's found in the Utah Code, Section 76-2-403:
" 76-2-403. Force in arrest.
Any person is justified in using any force, except deadly force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect an arrest or to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making an arrest. " (source: http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_02023.htm)

I can't find a Utah State Patrol department policy online for "use of force". Anyone out there with better web-fu who wants to give it a crack? I'm looking for the policies for "escalation of force" so we can see the steps from "Do X." to "ZAP!".

Since I can't get much traction finding the relevant Utah State Patrol policies, I'll look to my hometown.

The Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) policy 5-300 (here: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/mpdpolicy/5-300/5-300.asp) cites the Minnesota Statute 609.06 on "use of force", and has this quote from Graham vs. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (found here: http://supreme.justia.com/us/490/386/case.html) regarding "reasonable": "Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including:

• The severity of the crime at issue,

• Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and;

• Whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." (emphasis in the original)

It also mentions that usage must be in compliance with current MPD training.

IMHO, (IANAL) the driver has a case against the trooper here for excessive force. The technicalities to be argued will probably be:
A.) whether the driver could reasonably be expected to know that he was under arrest (and thus know that walking away would be considered resisting arrest or fleeing from arrest).
B.) whether the officer followed Utah State Patrol policy in the escalation of the incident and the use of a non-lethal weapon on the driver to prevent the driver from fleeing.
C.) whether the use of the taser, to a reasonable officer in possession of the facts at the time of the tasering, is reasonable.

The non-substantive thing I can add is that IMHO the officer's actions were not reasonable. Officers, when making an arrest, please say "You're under arrest." before threatening to use or using any force, mmkay? Words before volts, please!

Later,
-cajun
(IANAL, I just have some mild Google-fu for finding laws.)

Any sources for this article not on that crave.cnet site? There are apparently "games" on that site, rendering it unreachable.

Thanks,
-cajun

I read somewhere, a long time ago (I know, not helpful having no links) that the concept of "road melodies" was tried in the US. Not sure if it was for advertizing jingles or what, but it happened I think in the 50's or so? This is a novel way to control speeders, but unfortunately any system that relies on grooves running across the pavement or any raised portions above the pavement wouldn't be available in MinneSnowTa, as it would either be damaged by or damage the snowplows.

If the noise it makes doesn't get far from the road (thus not spoiling the sound of the landscape any more than the cars already do) I can see it applied to the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum's tour road though. It doesn't get used in winter for cars so it doesn't get plowed, and getting everyone interested in driving at a slower speed would be very nice. I get tired of cars "zooming" (if you can call 15mph zooming) up behind me as I'm enjoying the scenery.

Later,
-cajun

Anyone else here feel like Harrison Bergeron?

A little restriction here, a little additional burden there, some court-mandated "fairness" sprinkled over the top, and on and on. One of these days I may reach the point where I feel strong enough to throw it all off and either (a) do something constructive about it or (b) go somewhere else that is more free...

Maybe one of these days I'll even look up where that somewhere else is...

I'm with TNH @#1 and THE UNUSUAL SUSPECT @#5 on this one - maiming is not a suitable punishment for DUI/DWI/(insert appropriate acronym here) and abhorrent acts are not justified by other abhorrent acts.

Here in MN, I don't know the current laws about forcible blood extraction, but I have been advised that (IANAL) saying "no" to a breathalyzer and/or blood test results in an administrative crime and suspension of your license for a year, but no criminal record unless they convict. (source: here.)

So, if you get pulled over in MN, and you are the driver, and you are asked if you have been drinking, the answer is always "no". If you have any doubt at all whether or not you would pass the test, refuse the test politely and otherwise cooperate with the nice occifer. (IANAL, and my prepaid legal won't even touch cases where alcohol is merely mentioned...) Me, I rarely drink (wife's allergic, I don't like drinking alone, meds mean 1 beer without food makes me not feel like driving for at least 2 hours regardless of BAC) so I likely won't run into this, but given the choice between a certain administrative license revocation and a low-probability of DUI conviction (absent any BAC info or egregious behaviour, a $$$ lawyer should be able to prevent a conviction) I'll take the bus for a year rather than have any BAC level on record that can be used against me in court! (IANAL!)

Note, however: "If the person is unconscious, consent is deemed not to have been withdrawn, and the chemical test may be administered." Hmm, in any other interaction between sane adults that I know of, being unconscious means being unable to give consent...

Later,
-cajun
P.S. I, too, have the "no post option after preview" bug - luckily firefox stores the form info when I hit the "back" button...

@MAGGIE LEBER:
"You need to make sure wherever possible that your providers are "participating" with whomever you have coverage with; this usually means that in return for being considered "preferred", they agree to accept what the insurer *offers* for each procedure, rather than why they present as the invoice amount."

I got a bill a few months ago from an ENT specialist who visited my wife while she was in labor for our child. Apparently, though we were in an "in-network" (what you refer to as "participating") hospital with "in-network" nurses, "in-network" doctors, "in-network" anesthesiologists, etc, the ENT was "out of network" and thus had a different coverage level and did not count against the family's/my wife's "in-network deductible" or "in-network out of pocket" limits. I was totally blindsided by this one. There seems no rational way to explain how I was supposed to ensure that the doctors present and/or made available in an "in-network" hospital were all individually "in-network". That bugs me, but all the paperwork checks out.

HSA's seem to make sense, especially when you get a debit card to use at the pharmacy. Then a pregnancy wipes out the whole thing and you get to pay everything it doesn't have available funds for up front, and get paid back in little increments as it gets deducted from your paycheck, and the fund cuts you a check... What's even more annoying is that when I can't use the HSA debit card ('cause the HSA is perpetually empty) at the pharmacy, the insurance company doesn't know I'm paying for my meds, so they aren't calculating it into my out of pocket cap for the year.

Got a meeting next week to hear about the "new" benefits package for next year. Wonder how that'll go. Never once has a change meant things were cheaper...

As for MRFITZ's comment, I'm not sure Canada would be far enough away, what with all the other U.S. nonsense going on...
later,
-cajun

@Frauenfelder

I take issue with your parenthetical statement:

"(other than the fact that you'll die if you drive it on the road)"

While it is a fact that in a car to car collision the smaller car usually suffers more, I do not believe that it is automatically the case that you'll die if you drive this particular vehicle on the road. Besides that, this particular car (per Wikipedia article here) was initially designed as a town car and has a top speed of about 38mph. This is very similar to current U.S. "Neighborhood Electric Vehicle" legal limits of 25-35mph top speed. This vehicle would be illegal on most U.S. inter-state and intra-state freeways, due to minimum speed limits (generally 40mph) on most of them. At the lower speeds involved on city streets and the like, this vehicle doesn't appear to be any more dangerous to drive than other legal vehicles. That it has three wheels may require it's registration as a motorcycle in some States in the U.S. The small engine capacity and low speed capability may also downgrade it to "moped" registration status in similar States, which restricts it from freeways as well.

Given how unique-looking this car is, it may even enjoy a better accident record than other more ordinary cars because it stands out more, and thus drivers may be more likely to see it and less likely to hit it.

Don't mind me, I just can't understand the general U.S. disdain for small cars given today's fuel prices... and I want one of these too!
-cajun

@MARSHALL,

Yes, you are referring to the {pulls wallet out of back pocket and reads end} ACM Wallet, available many places on this here interweb. I gave them to my groomsmen at my wedding, engraved. When they arrived, I was kicking myself for not ordering one for me. My lovely wife gave me one for my birthday when it rolled around, and I love it!

Pros:
Looks nifty, and gets lots of "dude, where'd you get that?!?" questions.
Keeps my cards organized.
Has a money clip on the back. I can tell by feel whether I've got cash or not.
Only holds 6 cards (or 5 when one slot is filled with obligatory wedding photo) and does not have room for lots of other crud. This was the only way I have ever found to cut down on the sheer amount of crap I used to carry around. Now I have the most important cards already loaded, and have one slot I swap out day to day depending on what I'm doing. One or two "cash card" or "gift card" type cards will fit in the moneyclip ok too, if I need to pack more.
It's smaller than my wallets used to be with all the crap in them.

Cons:
Causes a different wear pattern in rear pants pockets - I've one pair that has a hole now that never would have been there with a regular wallet.
Collects dust internally and needs occasional cleaning to maintain grip on cards.
Hard - takes some getting used to and/or rearrangement in pocket so your butt doesn't get sore.
As ROSSINDETROIT mentioned, it's darn hard to use with gloves on.

Really, all in all I like it. So far it's lasted at least as long as leather wallets I've owned, though the eelskin wallet I put aside to use this one wasn't worn out yet. Eelskin is the ticket for "standard" style wallets - wears much better than leather, and I got one for ~$10 at a flea market. Outlasted the probably $50 one that I had recieved as a present some 2-3 wallets prior.

As for the Keyport device, it looks kind of neat. I rather like the "switchblade" style key my wife's new Mazda5 came with - been trying to track down a non-transponder "generic" with blank to fit my old Chevy. I don't know that I would want more than 2 keys in one package - say both car keys since you're only likely to be using one at any given time. The house/garage keys could go on another one, with a BallSeal quick disconnect between them like I have now - allows leaving engine on while running back into the house for a forgotten item. This device would prevent that.

As for popularity, I think it was George Carlin who said something along the lines of "People will buy anything - you could nail two boards together in some odd way and someone would say 'I'd buy that for a dollar!'"

Don't forget the "exclusivity" bit - given the pricetag and the requirement to be on the preorder list and that's there. Give it a few months and there'll be knockoffs flooding the market from overseas.

Have fun,
cajun

Wait, Bender had kids? And they went for caffeine rather than alcohol? That must be an interesting story...

Seriously, though, those things look extremely nice. I would love to have one, but it'll have to wait until I get a new kitchen so I have space to put it, and even then it's behind all the other gadgets/toys I must have.

If you want high tech, check out Illy's new Hyper Espresso machine/system here: http://www.illy.com/int/coffee/illy-coffee/pods-capsules/HES.htm

They totally re-engineered the espresso "brewing" process. I so want to find the patents so I can modify my home machine...

Stay hyper,
-cajun

This reminds me of the "entheogens" in Bruce Sterling's Holy Fire book.

@Theresa, DCulberson, et al on the "everything is just electricity in the brain" thread:

Theresa jumps right on one of my favorite topics: the interaction between our sensorium and whatever is out there as the so-called "real world". Every sensation that reaches our brains goes through our sensorium - one set of "filters" - and is then processed by the relevant portions of the brain - another set of "filters" - and finally we have information we can think/emote about. Lots of solipsism, phenomenology and existentialism to be found in this area. I recently was conversing with a few friends about Ayn Rand's Objectivism, and one of her statements - roughly "It is and I know it", referring to objective reality - provided a good basis to build on. Unfortunately, woe is me, I forgot the rest of that conversation - I'll have to ask my friend again if I get the bug to try and build up my philosophical worldview from scratch again.

While it may appear to be a specious argument - "it's all in your head" - there is some truth there, at least by my way of thinking. Everything we know is all in our heads. That we can apply the things in our heads to make predictions to others about what will enter their heads after we do something that is supposed to affect the "real world" shows that this isn't necessarily so. Unfortunately I am not well equipped to argue this topic, though I'm certainly game to discuss it.

Hmm - from "searching for the part of the brain that is "responsible" for religious experiences" to "what is reality". Eh, I do that sometimes...

Ouch!

I once made the mistake of sauteing some Habanero peppers in an improperly vented apartment kitchen. The effect on the sinuses, lungs, eyes and other delicate tissues of the ensuing fumes was identical to the effects of sulphuric acid vapor. I know this because I once had a '74 Toyota FJ-40 with a transplanted Chevy V8 and an unsecured standard "flooded" (liquid electrolyte) lead-acid type starting battery. While horsing around with it on some rough terrain, the battery proceeded to leap off of the battery tray and commit suicide on the exposed exhaust manifold. The plastic casing melted, the sulphuric acid electrolyte (battery acid in water) poured out onto the hot manifold and flashed into hot mist/steam/vapor, which then billowed out of the hood vents and into the passenger compartment (no doors or top on this truck). Very nasty!

Definitely need to have a properly vented kitchen when working with hot peppers - exhaust the fumes outside the building!

In this case, while "terror attack" may sound extreme, I imagine if the fumes were bad enough that several people called the authorities, it must have been plenty strong. No way in heck would I go into that Thai kitchen without breathing apparatus! I like the quote from the restaurant supervisor though: "Because we're Thai, we're used to the smell of chillies." Having the recipe next to the story was a nice touch, too.

Chalk it up to another learning exercise for the authorities - "Note: if a call comes in about a chemical attack, ask what it smells like. If it smells like acid/burning/mace/pepper spray or similar, check for restaurants nearby that use hot chillies and call them/go there first."

It certainly isn't nice to breathe if you're not used to it...

Later,
-cajun

Hmm, this is a sticky one. Pretty much all of the arguments have been made, so anything I post about the AT&T thing would be a "me too".

As for this debate about moderation - I find it rather interesting. I'm a moderator of a different sort, I moderate a local Socrates Cafe discussion group every Thursday night at 7PM at the Ridgedale Public Library in Minnetonka, Minnesota. See www.socratescafemn.org

We try to provide a nice safe place for a good deliberative discussion to occur. This is different from a debate or an argument in that in our Socrates Cafe discussions, the idea is not to try to prove one's point to the exclusion of others, but rather to share our viewpoints so that everyone learns something. Agreeing to disagree is our minimum specification, too. Go ahead and challenge any ideas or opinions that are presented, and expect that your ideas and opinions will be challenged, but do not attack the person that has them. We get "trolls" in physical space too. It gets very frustrating to the people who are trying to have a discussion when someone keeps ranting off-topic, won't let anyone else get a word in edgewise, keeps repeating the same thing over and over again, uses rude or crude language that is not germane to the topic or that is well outside the usual "comfort zone" that a generally patient non-prudish person has. I can't disemvowel anyone, nor can I make their statements dis-appear. All I can do is spend some of our limited discussion time telling someone to cut it out or to leave. My groups are limited to a maximum of 30 people, and then only if the participants know each other enough and have been around enough to want to try to do a 30 person group discussion. Generally 10-20 is a better size. When we get too many people, we split up into smaller groups. Here on BB, everything is linear and the potential group size is far larger. I don't have "sock puppet" problems either - the jerk who tried to take over the conversation last week doesn't generally have the option of sending a mind-controlled replacement that looks different to try again this week!

I don't read every set of comments on BB, just the topics that interest me, so I don't know what all is going on regarding who's getting suspended, who's consistently getting disemvowelled or deleted, or whatever. I do know that it can make a thread difficult to read when posts go missing, as replies suddenly appear to refer to nothing. A solution to this would be interesting to figure out. As I view now, in the comment post window, the existing comments are not numbered. A quick check shows that they are numbered when I'm just viewing the comments. If I can be so bold as to make a suggestion, please show the existing comment numbers on the page where we enter our comments, and when deleting a post, leave a blank line with the comment number all alone. If everyone responds by comment number as well as or instead of by username, this will at least show that respondents to deleted posts aren't crazy. That or don't number the comments at all and encourage people to respond to usernames. The former makes it easier to see if comments are missing, the latter leaves it up to the reader to figure out who's talking to "thinned air" and does look a bit cleaner. At least in both of these options you generally don't get a response pointing to the wrong comment.

Either way, I like the comment section and I hope to be able to spend time on here. This post has taken up way too much time today... I need to get back into the cleanroom and get back to work!
Later,
-cajun

@PHASOR3000
This is all about what's typical versus what arouses suspicion. Most people know about Civil War reenactments, and easily recognize the blue and gray uniforms, etc.

@NED2
If someone in my neighborhood were "recreating some germ warfare experiments" and somebody "suddenly died" in his house, I would certainly hope the authorities would take more than a cursory glance around.

You both touch on something I think is important here. I can agree with the overall sentiment that "very odd things should be looked into", but that once it is proven harmless is where the problems lie in this case. Any mess created should be cleaned up and any confiscated equipment/materials should be returned or appropriately (market/replacement value) compensated for. The innocents caught in the middle (in this case Steve) should not be on the hook financially for the fallout from the whole debacle, regardless of how annoying or unsympathetic their case appears.

In such cases, let the various three-letter-agencies and local cops write it off as a "live" terror response training exercise. It can only augment their own simulations and training. In the case of the Mooninite thing, I say the same thing. Don't punish the people that just gave you some of the best feedback you could ever get (short of a *real* terror incident) on how effective your training is to date! This case, and especially the Mooninite case, had everything that gov't planned exercises lack - primarily the uninformed involvment of the public, complete with blind unreasoning panic, etc. You just can't simulate that well. Sure, it cost a ton of money in both cases. The training and information feedback is cheap at the price.

Then again, I'm not sure I want the gov't treating massive peaceful protests as "live fire" exercises in food riot crowd control or similar.

Anyways, the DOJ involvement in what is ultimately a contract dispute between a pharmaceutical supplier, a university, and an artist seems way off the mark and does, as has been mentioned, smack of "finding something, anything, to punish these upstarts with." That I don't like at all.

The only thing that I think should legitimately arouse action on this level would be if the original supplier of the harmless bacteria has only one form and/or contract that covers all of their samples - and they also offer non-harmless strains. The CDC or similar would probably want to make sure said suppliers and their contractees are not playing fast and loose with potentially hazardous bacterial supplies. This is most easily solved with a two-level contract or similar - one level of validation for harmless bacteria, a separate, stricter level for harmful bacteria. If the supplier and university don't have such a split-level agreement, this should prompt them to put one in place. This would allow maximal sharing of harmless supplies (lowering the cost of business for all parties) and better concentration of "security" dollars on those bacteria that are harmful. This would prevent labs from losing their license because someone spilled or lost something harmless, while still allowing for penalties for mis-using or improperly securing dangerous substances.

@KYLE ARMBRUSTER
Yeah, this is one libertarian internet cause I just cannot get behind. A waste of taxpayer money, etc., to be sure, but I'm just not sure that creating kits to test for GMOs can even be considered "art." I mean... Is making a tool art?

I invite you to look at some of the rather beautiful old wood-carving tools that I come across from time to time, and the simple elegance of some modern tool designs. Special notice should be given to anything optimized for the backpackers out there - lightweight in the extreme with either as many uses as possible per gram, or the least number of grams possible per use. Industrial design is as much a school of art as any other, and while form most certainly should follow function for tools, that does not mean tools cannot be beautiful. In this particular case, though, one would be better suited to referring to that category of art referred to as "performance art". Designing and using a tool to test for the presence of GMO foods where they are expressly labeled not to be present, and then setting up a booth where you do this with the public watching, qualifies. It grabs the eye, and gets people to think about what they are eating.

This is something that I think is hurting them more than maybe even they realize. It's very hard to sell this stuff to most people as art. It looks a lot more like subversive activism. Take that and add to it obtaining bacteria (harmless or not) illegally, and yeah, I can see why people would be upset.

What's wrong with subversive activism? What is subversive? Why is this subversive? Why is showing people how their tax dollars are being spent and uncovering the potential lies the gov't and/or businesses are telling subversive? People don't like GMO stuff, for their own and varied reasons. People trust most labels. If those labels are false, people should know - so that they can complain and get what they ask for rather than something that is just labeled as what they ask for regardless of actual content.

I still think it's still at least performance art.

As for not being able to sell this sort of thing as art, many people can't understand stuff like Jackson Pollock paintings as art, let alone some of the stuff that Marcel Duchamp did, so I'm not buying that argument for defining art.

Then again, I've got a rather interesting aesthetic - when I go visit a converted grain warehouse that's full of artist studios for a big art show (North Minneapolis Art Crawl) I look as much at the remaining industrial parts of the building as I do at the art! I would just *love* to have one of those gorgeous old metal-clad and automatic closer equipped fire doors as the door to my as-yet-nonexistent workshop.

Oh, one more thing:
@PHASOR3000
They try to make it sound like "they can get you for filling out a warranty card incorrectly," but they never say exactly what the "technicality" was.
If the DHS/DOJ et al establish precedent allowing them to prosecute at the federal felony level in what would otherwise be a civil contractual violation, it very much could lead to "they can get you for filling out a warranty card incorrectly and mailing it" (emphasis added from the original interview). Steve is going up on mail fraud charges. This move by the DHS/DOJ et al could vastly expand the definition of mail fraud unless the court findings are very explicit. This is dangerous, as any expansion of the ability to bring felony charges against otherwise innocent parties (or at most civilly liable parties) makes the punishment for activism or similar that much more draconian. Everyone has done something illegal in their life, but very few have done something at the felony level. Moving the bar for "felony" down a few notches is nasty. Such activist tricks as sending checks to religiously conservative political parties from presumably made-up groups like "Gay Abortionists for the Abolishment of Marriage" that exist only as a checking account would go from snarky blog-fodder joke (Look! That conservative hypocrite cashed a check from these guys!) that is generally responded to with a refund or donation to felony crime that strips one of one's right to vote at minimum. Serious chilling effect possibilities there.

later,
-cajun

@ MR.UNIVERSE,

Good points there, but given that there is such a large public perception that what they do on the internet while "at home" is private, doesn't that suggest that perhaps it should actually be private?

There's also the argument that, while anything you do in public is not private, up until recently it was quite difficult to put together a comprehensive "dossier" of your movements, purchases, habits, etc. This difficulty, to borrow a metaphor, is much like how books used to be inherently difficult to copy. The inherent difficulty in collecting and collating the data on any one person was much like the inherent difficulty in setting up a printing press and copying a book (or photocopying and then binding, etc.). The side-effect was a bit of extra privacy that people took for granted. Sure, anyone could see them walking into an adult bookstore, but the likelihood of it being anyone they know or the fact getting back to anyone they know (or who cared enough to cause trouble) was much more remote. If everything is defacto stored and indexed, that veil of privacy goes away.

While it may be "easier" to try and convince people that the privacy never actually existed, I would argue that it is "better" to try and get that privacy nailed down as an actual legal right rather than a result of "benign neglect". Especially while people still "expect" said privacy. If we wait until people no longer expect such privacy, it will be far more difficult to get it "back". Not that more laws is inherently better than less laws, but IMHO more laws that say what the gov't cannot do are better than existing laws letting them do things we don't want them to do.
-cajun

Cory's story is quite a good read. Reminds me strongly of a story it just took me a while to track down again: "The Consultant" by Jeffry Shwartz"
available here. (Wayback Machine)

There are many laws (supposedly) preventing the gov't from collecting and retaining data on most citizens without probable cause, etc. There are few preventing the gov't from buying that data from private companies. If there is a market for data, someone will provide it. As the story I linked to surmises, though, if there is a market for getting around said databases, someone will provide said way...

Granted, the story I link is rather dystopian, but so is Scroogled.

Personally, though I worry from time to time about privacy intrusion, I really have not actually done anything truly effective about it. It is far too easy to let the pressures of day to day work and family life push such concerns out of mind, and I know that this is how rights get lost... "Frog boiling" indeed.

later,
-cajun
(P.S. Sorry for any incoherence and/or excessive "me too" in this post, I mainly wanted to put the story I linked out there - it was devilish to find when I couldn't remember the title or author, and I think it is worth having available to read!)

@William Morriss, who said:
"A good article, if a little bit depressing for people who try and control information for other reasons (e.g., preventing personal data from disappearing) given the relationship between DRM schemes and information security (something I wrote about here)."

Disclaimer: I'm a layperson in this field, not an expert.

That aside, I think you are dealing with a different kettle of fish with information control on what I presume to be semi-centralized systems (Hospital/bank/other business backoffice data systems and the like). In that case it's more like straight-up cryptography, at least the way I understand it, where you are trying to prevent leaks to the outside world - not to the legitimate user. The failing in that model is the whole "users writing down the password/using easy passwords" problem, plus the "portable mass storage devices" problem you point to in your linked blogpost.

DRM is different, as Cory puts it, in that the person legitimately using the data in question is also the person the cryptographic/DRM system is supposed to prevent from getting the data. (that doesn't parse well, but I think it's understandable).

This isn't to say you don't have a difficult job - security is never easy - but at least your problem isn't as large as that of the DRM pushers!
-cajun