I think there should be alternatives and once a candidate medication advances many tests the last test before Human trials should be animal trials, it is more unethical to try it directly on humans. It is simply better that a human is spared suffering if complex interaction not caught by the alternatives exist.
Does not matter if it is opensource if a piece of rock is designated a National Security Risk because the Rock came from CHina that is it, that rock is a national security risk. The designation is assigned then action must follow; you cannot question a national security risk that is why it is designated a national security risk if it caused health problems you would be told by the Centers for Disease Control or US Department of Health and Human Services. A National Security Risk can be anything that they assign, it can even be a thought otherwise known as a thought-crime. Stop asking why?
It is amazing but this one won't be practical the way it is right now when scaled up, but there is a unique element in there that probably could be re-used.
Anyone commenting please watch the video first. Would a reasonable jury determine this to be Attempted Second-degree Murder? perhaps it is, any thoughts from a person with criminal law experience? We clearly see the car turning, going out of its way towards the person. Additionally, a pursuit on foot would have been possible the car qualifies as a deadly weapon in this case I think.
So IANAL, let alone a trial-lawyer, but I did spend weeks/days with 11 other people listening/deliberating after a cop-adjacent defendant non-fatally shot somebody.
> Attempted Second-degree Murder?
Hold up, what this means varies by state: Illinois law says that second-degree still requires an intent to kill [0], and I think the prosecution may have a hard time proving beyond reasonable doubt that the driver intended to turn the victim into road-splatter.
In contrast, the next step down of (attempted?) "Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide" seems much easier to prove, and explicitly draws in a surprising number of vehicle-related details.
Did you read the link with the law? You are begging the question that the driver's direct intent was to run the victim over. (Not recklessness, idiocy, target fixation, etc.)
It's quite possible, but if you're going to prosecute someone in a court case, you've got to have a lot more than just "it fits the pattern for these assholes."
Not to mention the "re-positioning" of the victim's vehicle to shore up ICE's narrative.
Don't worry though, just like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50090246 someone will be along to say "mistakes are inevitable, but we need to enforce immigration law, and this is an acceptable price, though not ideal".
he he boi that's right cooking videos are entertainment if you actually cook you read something called a recipe (it's the algorithm that returns the food you want)
This is nice, hopefully they don't start selling cheaper implants supported by spotify ads imagine an ad that is streamed directly to your auditory nerve you can't turn it off or change the volume
the will need to take a picture everytime they are lazy but stealing all the people who ever stayed at that hotel is a simple copy past taking less than 10 minutes
reply