Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Hacker Wins Right to Extradition Hearing

Posted by samzenpus on from the just-send-him-over dept.

E5Rebel writes "Gary McKinnon, the UK-based ex-systems administrator accused of conducting the biggest military hack of all time, has won the right to have his case against extradition to the U.S. heard by the House of Lords."

5 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. Re:aliens are for real by dclozier · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Is that you Gary? :D

  2. Re:Video of the Minnesota bridge collapse -- graph by begbiezen · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    link no good nothing (new) comes up for bridge or minnesota

  3. Re:aliens are for real by RockoTDF · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Well there is this car my dad bought me that drives off and shit....

    --
    There is more to science than physics!

    www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
  4. Re:aliens are for real by DarkIye · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Exactly. And since the only way to feed yourself is to run your own farm, you need quite a few farm hands to carry out all the necessary tasks. The only free labour (no money to hire anyone) is your own children. Add in the fact that there's no way in hell you're going to have savings for later life (and thus you need a progeny), that most of your kids will be miscarried, die in childbirth or early life, or get shot by/recruited into a gang or child army, and you realise that your only option is to have kids, and lots of them.

    --
    To prevent this day from getting worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD TH
  5. Re:aliens are for real by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    From what I understand, families in highly impoverished areas with high mortality rates do tend to have a lot of children, with the hope that some of them will actually survive, and maybe even prosper, but I would suggest that's more an effect of poverty rather than a cause of it. The reason that average American doesn't have tons of children isn't because we're smarter than the rest of the world, it's because all of our children have a reasonably good chance at survival, and a good chance at a comfortable life. Their chances at success are made better if we only have a few children, so we can afford to pay for their education, but in a region like Darfur, having just 2 children and hoping for the best probably means none of your children will make it to adulthood...
    That accounts for some of the difference, but not all of it. It does not explain the fact that, in most First World countries, the birthrate is low enough that population in fact decreases, while in most poor countries it does instead increase, and it does that in the poorest African countries in particular.