I don’t think I’d be willing to comply with the law and watch them as a doctor, and I hope most doctors would agree, because I’d personally far prefer to get treatment than follow the laws in an emergency.
Well I can totally agree with this, life is greater than law. I would assume Good Samaritan laws would protect anyone practicing medicine without a license in that case.
But if someone is constantly doing a procedure where death is not imminent, then that's something different, and it should only be done by license personnel.
There's two different scenarios described (risk of immediate death, vs not), and what I've seen done usually by people who support protesting by regularly doing the procedure, is that they mix those two scenarios together, in essence creating a legal loophole.
Save lives, definitely do it. Just protesting, you better be licensed.
Fair enough, but if she's not surprised, and knows it's illegal, I'm not sure what else to say, except for, if you're going to protest you might get arrested for the protest, especially if that protest is practicing medicine without a license for the procedure.
You want to protest a law do it another way. Transport the people to another state where they can have it done legally, if it's feasible to do so healthwise. And yes I'm aware there's probably a law against transporting them, but it's a lot less risky protest than practicing medicine on someone without a license to do it.
Otherwise campaign to have elected officials that won't pass laws like that.
this seems more like an issue caused by the laws in Texas than helped by them.
If midwives are "licensed" to do that procedure, then they shouldn't be using that as an excuse for their arrest. Would just depend how the laws are written, really.
Bottom line though, if you’re not legally cleared to do the procedure, then you should be arrested if you do the procedure.
The FTC has based its investigation of “tech censorship” on a belief that tech companies are intentionally restricting access of individual users to their platforms, based on the content of the users’ posts or their affiliations.
Based on an analysis of copyright law and policy, informed by the many thoughtful
comments in response to our NOI, the Office makes the following conclusions and
recommendations:
• Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law,
without the need for legislative change.
• The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect
the availability of copyright protection for the output.
• Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author,
even if the work also includes AI-generated material.
• Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there
is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
• Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute
authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
• Based on the functioning of current generally available technology, prompts do not
alone provide sufficient control.
• Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are
perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination,
or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.
• The case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI-
generated content.
The Office will continue to monitor technological and legal developments to determine
whether any of these conclusions should be revisited. It will also provide ongoing assistance to
the public, including through additional registration guidance and an update to the
Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices.
Hot take, but anyone should be arrested for this, regardless of what procedure they were doing.
(Assuming the states 'Good Samaritan' laws doesn't protect them from practicing otherwise.)
Edit: Everybody is forgetting that back alley abortions used to be a horrible thing, stopped for a reason. Find other ways to protest, keep people safe.
In June, Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy declared in a major advisory that gun violence in the United States is a public health crisis and demanded urgent action, calling for more research and stronger laws to reduce harm.
This effectively means that, if you get banned by the Bluesky company, you're out. Sure, you could still host your own Personal Data Server, wait for a non-existent independent Relay to fetch your data and interact with users of third-party Bluesky applications. But you won't: you're effectively at the mercy of the Bluesky company.
Point two, and more importantly: this approach provides an "exit strategy" in the event that Bluesky "goes evil".Right now, that's false: parts of the social network are still centralized and it's impossible to avoid that. But even if we limit ourselves to PDSs and Relay, the current situation is that federation is only achievable in theory and no one has done it in practice yet.
And it’s quite funny if you happen to have some programming background. If not, you tell me.
I am a software developer, and I just didn't get the joke at all, even after reading the explanation...
The comic relates this to a common issue when editing documents or coding, where the author accidentally makes changes to two separately created versions of documents, when they meant to only edit one, which can result in changes to both (or all) resulting documents functionally essential parts of the completed project
Honestly not trying to be pedantic, joke just flew over my head I guess. 🤷♂️
Other AI tools are really good at filling in the blanks in images, too, but Gemini Flash is particularly good at it
Other AI models can do this too, but you have to be a bit smarter about how you ask about it. As Verge highlights, Anthropic's latest Claude model, and OpenAI's GPT 4o will refuse to alter watermarked images. We can confirm that when you add copyright-protected images to Microsoft Office applications, its Copilot and Design tools will refuse to modify them directly.
Point being FM coverage is almost universal in any area where there’s a significant number of people, not just lone homesteaders, uncontacted tribes, suchlike. Yes there may be people there that could be reached but the total number is small and if they want any news, they’re getting them from the town over once a month.
[Citation required]
There's no need for us to keep arguing this point, I totally agree that the coverage of listeners of shortwave radio today is a lot less than what it was in the past, but my point is that it's a lot more still than you're imagining.
but let’s face it the amount of people that you can only reach via short wave is dwindling, they mostly switched to satellite. They rather feed into the local FM broadcast network, and of course you can stream over the internet.
You would actually be surprised how many poor regions in Central and South America as well as in Africa and Central Asia actually rely on shortwave still.
A lot of it is Christian and right-wing broadcasts, but still, it's used more than you would think. Not everyone can afford expensive satellite rigs to receive.
So if the cops then again identified themselves without screaming bloody murder, she may have dropped the knife.
She knew who they were already.
I still lay the blame for all of it at cops’ feet where it belongs. They carry guns and ‘legally’ murder far too many people, then far too often lie about it, for me to give them the benefit of doubt.
Im speaking towards this specific one event, and not all police situations in general.
Hate for hate's sake is not beneficial to society (either side).
Well I can totally agree with this, life is greater than law. I would assume Good Samaritan laws would protect anyone practicing medicine without a license in that case.
But if someone is constantly doing a procedure where death is not imminent, then that's something different, and it should only be done by license personnel.
There's two different scenarios described (risk of immediate death, vs not), and what I've seen done usually by people who support protesting by regularly doing the procedure, is that they mix those two scenarios together, in essence creating a legal loophole.
Save lives, definitely do it. Just protesting, you better be licensed.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0