Jan. 25th, 2008

eyebeams: (Default)


It's not the best picture I got, but it was the only one I managed to come home with. A nice pair of Nillies with sub-machineguns took the good camera. I got this driving by, with a cheap camera I was using for holiday snaps.

NILY (I suppose it should be NIY, but nobody calls it that, apparently) did let us take plenty of pictures when they did demonstrations for the press. Here, they're showing us how they'd enter a vehicle that might be smuggling "animate parabiologicals":



What you don't see in this photo are the two guys from Novivat on the microphone, talking about how rare these incidents are and the benefits of paramed research. So on one hand you hear all kinds of things about NILY being an enforcement agency that's above interference, while on the other, you've got these guys spouting ad copy during a police demonstration.

I wonder what I could have gotten out of analyzing my *good* shots of the NILY building.
eyebeams: (Default)


It's not the best picture I got, but it was the only one I managed to come home with. A nice pair of Nillies with sub-machineguns took the good camera. I got this driving by, with a cheap camera I was using for holiday snaps.

NILY (I suppose it should be NIY, but nobody calls it that, apparently) did let us take plenty of pictures when they did demonstrations for the press. Here, they're showing us how they'd enter a vehicle that might be smuggling "animate parabiologicals":



What you don't see in this photo are the two guys from Novivat on the microphone, talking about how rare these incidents are and the benefits of paramed research. So on one hand you hear all kinds of things about NILY being an enforcement agency that's above interference, while on the other, you've got these guys spouting ad copy during a police demonstration.

I wonder what I could have gotten out of analyzing my *good* shots of the NILY building.
eyebeams: (Default)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ALINE L. HINRIKSEN v. NOVIVAT INC.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit


Petitioner alleges that agents of Novivat Inc. retrieved spouse Francis Hinriksen for post-mortem internment before death, arguing that as resuscitation methods have been used to revive patients in similar situations as Mr. Hinriksen, lack of heart function alone is insufficient to establish death and contractual internment. Rejecting the petitioner's claim, the Ninth Circuit accepted defendant Novivat's statements that the cessation of brain activity reduced the commercial viability of the resultant product and that the internment contract explicitly requires an honest attempt at internment while the contractor's corpse adheres to ideal conditions.

Held: In entering into an internment contract Mr. Hinriksen established the definition of his own death. This is inherent to the contract; it may not be entered into without accepting this consequence. Other citizens fall under a medical practitioner's duty of care even after heart function ceases (but before other lifesaving options have exhausted themselves) but internment contractors are property, not persons, at the moment heart function ceases. The existence of any animate process is not in itself sufficient to nullify the contractual obligation. Lugosi v. United States is a clear precedent, showing that even human bodies with more varied and vigorous animate processes are not necessarily persons.
eyebeams: (Default)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ALINE L. HINRIKSEN v. NOVIVAT INC.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit


Petitioner alleges that agents of Novivat Inc. retrieved spouse Francis Hinriksen for post-mortem internment before death, arguing that as resuscitation methods have been used to revive patients in similar situations as Mr. Hinriksen, lack of heart function alone is insufficient to establish death and contractual internment. Rejecting the petitioner's claim, the Ninth Circuit accepted defendant Novivat's statements that the cessation of brain activity reduced the commercial viability of the resultant product and that the internment contract explicitly requires an honest attempt at internment while the contractor's corpse adheres to ideal conditions.

Held: In entering into an internment contract Mr. Hinriksen established the definition of his own death. This is inherent to the contract; it may not be entered into without accepting this consequence. Other citizens fall under a medical practitioner's duty of care even after heart function ceases (but before other lifesaving options have exhausted themselves) but internment contractors are property, not persons, at the moment heart function ceases. The existence of any animate process is not in itself sufficient to nullify the contractual obligation. Lugosi v. United States is a clear precedent, showing that even human bodies with more varied and vigorous animate processes are not necessarily persons.
eyebeams: (Default)
Mr. Gone, master of character sheets for a variety of games, has created both standard and editable sheets for Opening the Dark:

http://mrgone.rocksolidshells.com/pdf/Misc/OpeningTheDark1-Page.pdf

http://mrgone.rocksolidshells.com/pdf/Misc/OpeningTheDark1-Page_Editable.pdf
eyebeams: (Default)
Mr. Gone, master of character sheets for a variety of games, has created both standard and editable sheets for Opening the Dark:

http://mrgone.rocksolidshells.com/pdf/Misc/OpeningTheDark1-Page.pdf

http://mrgone.rocksolidshells.com/pdf/Misc/OpeningTheDark1-Page_Editable.pdf
eyebeams: (Default)
Nothing is so capable of making us monsters than identifying the monsters outside and saying, "We are not them."
eyebeams: (Default)
Nothing is so capable of making us monsters than identifying the monsters outside and saying, "We are not them."
Page generated Jul. 13th, 2025 06:42 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios