I don't agree... You use the cheapest cable that operates as you want it to...There is absolutely no value in buying a "better" cable over the cheap HDMI cables in the bargain bin if both work.
If you don't need HDMII 1.4, and 1.1 suits your purpose, by the cheap 1.1 cable. If there are two 1.4 2 Meter cables and one is $40 and the other is $1.99 buy the cheap one. If the vendor is selling crap, take the cable that doesn't work back for a refund.
If you are worried about future applications of the cable, DON'T bother unless the "future" is pretty close. Electronics and advanced cables *always* get cheaper over time and it's rarely cost effective to buy more than you need now, over replacing it later.
And yes, one of my primary jobs is system integration. I design and build complex racked systems in the telco space which are high availability (5 nines) call processing platforms. So I professionally make cost verses durability decisions. In a home AV system, for the digital cables, cheap is just fine. What suffers is durability, but most home AV systems are not high vibration, and usually get upgraded often anyway.
Oh for Pete's sake.... You Looney audiophiles need you heads examined..
Buy the cheapest digital cable that works reliably and don't spend a dime more. If offered a $45 HDMI cable over a $2 one, save your money and go cheap, heck by 3 of the cheap ones incase it breaks while installing it, you will be money ahead and you won't hear the difference EVER.
Now, on ANALOG cables, they used to have a point (albeit a barely measureable one). Case in point is speaker cables. For audiophile like performance, speaker cables ARE something that you can demonstrate matter. However, MOST people don't have the ears or the listening environment necessary to justify what some vendors confidently say you need. Most people are fine with 18Ga Stranded, especially for short runs and middle grade equipment, and I guarantee that 12Ga stranded will not be noticeably different for ANY home installation I can imagine, at least not different enough you can hear it.
When will this hold over from the "monster cable" audiophile fad be over? There was a time when that gold plate *might* have mattered to your analog cable so paying 20X the price was justifiable from the technical perspective, but now with digital cables all you are getting is fleeced...That and the justified scorn of those who really know what's going on. Well, that and bragging rights about how much you spent, if that matters to you..
THIS! But testing Ethernet cables passing TCP is pointless anyway... Where is the Bit Error Rate specs here? Digital data is either correct at the bit level, or it's not...
You cannot be serious.... Look they vaccinated using TWO techniques and it may be hard to follow, but they where not doing a placebo double blind study, but a comparative study of two populations, which has value.
First group where vaccinated right away after someone nearby had been confirmed to have Ebola.. In the group of people who got the vaccine, NOBODY got Ebola who was subsequently exposed after 10 days. Yes, some people got Ebola who either already had it before the vaccine or who where exposed to it during the 10 days after the vaccine, but after that, things where great.
Just to be sure this wasn't a fluke, they vaccinated other groups 3 weeks after the confirmed case of Ebola was found and noted that there where then 16 cases of Ebola in this test group after the 10 day wait, meaning they where previously exposed and got Ebola via the normal route, before the vaccine built immunity in 3 weeks + 10 days. This indicates that the vaccine DOES affect the Ebola infection rate, seemingly very well in that after 10 days, subsequent exposure didn't not produce Ebola.
The implication is that the immediate vaccination prevented Ebola after the 10 day period...
You can do this using exactly the same technology that cruse missiles use, terrain following.
All you need is precision terrain/elevation data and you can create a vehicle that can navigate safely from Point A to Point B using a terrain mapping RADAR. You just match the RADAR image to your known terrain map and voilà, instant location, elevation and orientation information that you use to correct your inertial navigation system. Preplan your probes route and activities and say go to that waypoint, land, do science, and return to base when done.
"But we don't HAVE the necessary elevation data yet!" you say? I thought we where in the process of collecting detailed elevation data from Mars. Plus, if you have even a small amount of data which is detailed enough to land the craft with, you can make flights and collect additional terrain data using the very same RADAR you use to navigate with and expand your detailed dataset further and further away from your starting point over time. So you'd fly using the inertial navigation system past areas you knew, collect data and return to the area you already know, send the collected data to earth for post processing and receive an expanded detailed terrain map in return then do your detailed science in this new area. Wash, rinse and repeat as many times as possible.
It seems to me that a rudimentary GPS setup around Mars would be of some use. Why not build that first?
GPS is pretty dependent on ground stations which monitor each satellite in the constellation and provides "corrections" to the whole system for it to work. It also requires a minimum of 3 (usually more like 5) satellites to be in view to come up with a location solution. So, you are talking about a bunch of independent satellites with some remote monitoring capability from the surface to fix positions and keep the system accurate enough. That's a LOT of very expensive infrastructure to get to Mars..
Simpler solution is to just go with a Loran type system. Drop 3 or more fairly simple devices onto the surface that transmit a bit of coordinated RF and you have a solution to easily navigate within the line of site of the transmitters. It's really just the precursor of GPS and gets you pretty good relative location information.
Even better, would be to use a RADAR system and previously obtained map data like many cruse missiles use. It only requires precision terrain elevation data which can be easily obtained from ONE orbiting probe, and allows you to give the "flying" vehicle some autonomy in navigating from point A to point B. As you can obtain more precision terrain information you can further refine your data set and go more places with better and better assurance you know where you are.
All this really does is cause these poor guys to face charges that prosecutors now must try to prove. Given that all the other methods of getting an indictment on these guys failed, one can easily infer that the chances they get convicted of anything is next to nil.
This is basically a political witch hunt by some PR hounds who want to make it look like the accused are somehow guilty of gross negligence because it was their plant (which satisfied the government's safety requirements) blew up and made a mess after some natural disaster that nobody foresaw or even considered possible happened. It's like holding the tornado shelter installer criminally liable for not protecting the occupants of the shelter from earthquake damage and chemical attacks.
So my "follow the money" joke, really should be this. IF the people in charge are asking for it, find and suggest a solution that can do it safely. If they are not willing to pay for your solution, find another, albeit less safe solution and present it with a list of assumed risks. Rinse and repeat until you have a solution they are willing to pay for with risks they are accepting, then do that.
They want easy, and cheap. That limits you slightly...
Understood, but the POINT of this little exercise is to educate the people asking about the true costs and risks they are assuming before you implement anything. Responsible bosses appreciate this kind of iterative process that allows them to choose their level of risk and cost, and if you are dealing with irresponsible bosses who will come back and blame you for failure at a later date, you are going to need the CYA documentation that shows THEY agreed to this and you already told them of the risk.
If they don't accept the CYA documentation, then you work for bad people and should be moving on anyway...
If that's true, and many times it is, you are playing a loosing hand to start with. You work for people who don't care about you or value what you say and do and it's a BAD place for you.
Best thing to do if you work for people like this is start to plan your departure. Update your resume, get your online profiles updated and start looking at the employment ads. It might be a very good idea to start putting money away for the "rainy day" that's surely coming.
Maybe YOU can be that consultant they hire over your replacement's objections. Charge them lots, collect in advance, and laugh all the way to the bank...
That's why you present your "solution" before implementation and that includes documentation of the provisos and risks they are taking.
It may not save your job when the chips are down, but having a bit of hard documentation that you told them what the risks where and they choose not to spend the money to eliminate that risk is always a good thing. Besides, if they assume the risks, then fire the underling when a risk bites them, you really don't want to work for them anyway because it's just a matter of when they will fire you, not if.
Like I said to the other guy who doesn't want to listen...
Your issue is with the law, not the courts, with the people who WROTE the law, not the judge or the process. Stop saying it would be an unfair trial.
I'm not going to engage in the debate over the law being fair or not because it's pointless and largely meaningless to this situation. The law is what it is, I didn't write it nor wish to argue about it. You need to go after the people who wrote it if you don't like it.
Do what the military does... Just convert all this to acronyms, mostly with 3 letters... Trust me, you will feel better in no time, just nobody will know for sure what you are talking about.
Follow the money.. Who pays the bills? Do what they say...
Seriously, keeping your factory's networks separate is a pretty simple firewall issue for someone competent to install and configure it. I'm not sure how this cell phone connection is going to work, but there ARE ways to make cell phones connect to you via VPN's that can be made to require usernames/passwords (not to mention specific devices) before you are allowed to connect. There are solutions out there to do what they ask, they just cost a little bit to acquire, install, and manage.
So my "follow the money" joke, really should be this. IF the people in charge are asking for it, find and suggest a solution that can do it safely. If they are not willing to pay for your solution, find another, albeit less safe solution and present it with a list of assumed risks. Rinse and repeat until you have a solution they are willing to pay for with risks they are accepting, then do that.
Like I said, I'm not arguing with you about the fairness of the law.. All I'm saying is the laws (as written) will be fairly applied by the court using the age old practices and standards of evidence and proof. I get that you don't like the law, but the courts will fairly apply it, especially in Snowden's high profile case.
BTW... What you NEED to be doing is to stop yammering about how unfair all this is and start working to change the law you think is so unfair. You do that by supporting the election of law makers who, in this case, serve in congress and will get the laws changed to something you like better... All I can say to you on that front is, good luck, you are going to need it because I get the feeling the majority of people who vote in this country don't support a change in law big enough to get Snowden off the hook. Plus, it's not the pressing issue of the media's day, so nobody really cares anymore politically. I know I don't...
With that, I don't look forward to your likely reply. I'll read it but if you keep arguing about the law being unfair I don't suspect I'll find the time to respond as I refuse to be drawn into a debate over the fairness of the espionage laws...
Actually the issue is the amount of power the device dissipates. Lowering the resistance of the device the current is flowing though, lowers the voltage for the same current flow. Power = Voltage X Current So if you lower the voltage for the same current, the device heats up less, it wastes less as heat.
Disputation is how much heat the device must get rid of to stay within it's working temperature range. If it gets too hot, it will stop working, so you have to get rid of all the power it wastes as heat. If you cannot get rid of the heat, you must slow the device down, or make it bigger so there is more surface area to get rid of the heat.
So this power issue really is a heat issue and if you can lower the power being turned into heat, you can make devices that run fast and are smaller.
Shesh.. Look, the trial would be "fair" as in done by the rules. Let it go...
Again, if you want to claim the LAW is not fair, fine, but don't confuse the LAW with the trial. I'm not arguing that the law he will be accused of violating is fair or not, all I'm saying is that he will get "A FAIR TRIAL" as defined by the centuries of legal practice in this country. He is innocent until proven guilty, will be afforded an attorney, will be given a trial before his peers, face his accusers and present evidence at his trial. This is NOT a kangaroo court.
You see, I really get frustrated with people claiming that the courts are unfair, that a "fair trial" isn't possible, or didn't happen just because the outcome is not what they wanted. With VERY few exceptions the criminal courts in this country ARE fair, too fair some times if you ask me. Snowden does face certain conviction (IMHO) because he clearly broke the law, but this outcome is NOT about the fairness of the courts, it's about the law.
Go a head, argue the LAW here, call it unfair if you want, just stop with this "the trial won't be fair" garbage, and absolutely stop comparing our legal system to the likes of North Korea. Our legal system is the best system in the world at protecting individuals rights and any claim otherwise is false.
What's really going on here is you don't like the law.... You think the LAW is unfair.... Stop maligning the courts and argue your real issue...
Certainly not a fact checker - have you heard of the internet?
LOL... Love you too...
It's got to be true, I found it on the internet!
Wish I knew what "facts" you disagreed with so we could continue this discussion, but I'm afraid you left that part out...
Have a nice day and keep that tin foil hat squarely in place... Hey, isn't that your mom calling you from upstairs? I think she want's you to come upstairs and read the Help wanted adds with your breakfast...
I say again, the trial would be fair, your argument is with the law, which is a different debate. I'm encouraging folks to be careful with this distinction because the issue you are having is not with the courts or the legal system but the writers of the law...
Well... Not exactly....I think there is more to what they want.
They want a TRIAL and then the death penalty if they can get it from the jury.
Otherwise, why is he alive now? If they just want him dead, that's easy to arrange in Russia for what amounts to chump change.
No they want him alive and I presume so they can take him to trial and make a huge example out of him, either that or they simply don't care what happens to him...
Totally different circumstances, but you already know that, you are just grasping at straws. OBL's death was a military action on foreign soil that resulted in the death of a non US citizen who was a known combatant. He died in a war.
I've said before that if this administration wanted Snowden dead, he'd already be dead. I'm arguing that they don't want or need him to die for what ever reason and my evidence of that is simply that he's alive. So I seriously doubt that if he turned himself in they would skip the trial and just kill him. Too many people would be looking, it wouldn't be legal, and I contend there would be nothing to gain.
Seriously, he was just a two bit system administrator who took data off the systems he managed, he wasn't some high level operative but some dude in the basement changing out backup tapes and resetting lost passwords. He didn't do that for very long either. He doesn't really know anything beyond the documents he took....
What you can and cannot argue as a defense to a crime is spelled out in the law. Defense is usually given wide latitude in what kinds of arguments they try so I see no reason why the argument wouldn't be tried, but I do see where it wouldn't be successful. However, that's for a judge to allow and a jury to decide based on the law.
Also, comparing our legal system to that of North Korea is very unfair. You may not believe it, but our legal system is generally unbiased in it's application of law, In North Korea if dear leader says guilty, NOBODY can argue the point, regardless of the law or they suffer the same fate. There is a huge difference.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't agree... You use the cheapest cable that operates as you want it to...There is absolutely no value in buying a "better" cable over the cheap HDMI cables in the bargain bin if both work.
If you don't need HDMII 1.4, and 1.1 suits your purpose, by the cheap 1.1 cable. If there are two 1.4 2 Meter cables and one is $40 and the other is $1.99 buy the cheap one. If the vendor is selling crap, take the cable that doesn't work back for a refund.
If you are worried about future applications of the cable, DON'T bother unless the "future" is pretty close. Electronics and advanced cables *always* get cheaper over time and it's rarely cost effective to buy more than you need now, over replacing it later.
And yes, one of my primary jobs is system integration. I design and build complex racked systems in the telco space which are high availability (5 nines) call processing platforms. So I professionally make cost verses durability decisions. In a home AV system, for the digital cables, cheap is just fine. What suffers is durability, but most home AV systems are not high vibration, and usually get upgraded often anyway.
I meant "gold plated" as in "over designed" and not necessarily actual gold plating.
Oh for Pete's sake.... You Looney audiophiles need you heads examined..
Buy the cheapest digital cable that works reliably and don't spend a dime more. If offered a $45 HDMI cable over a $2 one, save your money and go cheap, heck by 3 of the cheap ones incase it breaks while installing it, you will be money ahead and you won't hear the difference EVER.
Now, on ANALOG cables, they used to have a point (albeit a barely measureable one). Case in point is speaker cables. For audiophile like performance, speaker cables ARE something that you can demonstrate matter. However, MOST people don't have the ears or the listening environment necessary to justify what some vendors confidently say you need. Most people are fine with 18Ga Stranded, especially for short runs and middle grade equipment, and I guarantee that 12Ga stranded will not be noticeably different for ANY home installation I can imagine, at least not different enough you can hear it.
When will this hold over from the "monster cable" audiophile fad be over? There was a time when that gold plate *might* have mattered to your analog cable so paying 20X the price was justifiable from the technical perspective, but now with digital cables all you are getting is fleeced...That and the justified scorn of those who really know what's going on. Well, that and bragging rights about how much you spent, if that matters to you..
THIS! But testing Ethernet cables passing TCP is pointless anyway... Where is the Bit Error Rate specs here? Digital data is either correct at the bit level, or it's not...
You cannot be serious.... Look they vaccinated using TWO techniques and it may be hard to follow, but they where not doing a placebo double blind study, but a comparative study of two populations, which has value.
First group where vaccinated right away after someone nearby had been confirmed to have Ebola.. In the group of people who got the vaccine, NOBODY got Ebola who was subsequently exposed after 10 days. Yes, some people got Ebola who either already had it before the vaccine or who where exposed to it during the 10 days after the vaccine, but after that, things where great.
Just to be sure this wasn't a fluke, they vaccinated other groups 3 weeks after the confirmed case of Ebola was found and noted that there where then 16 cases of Ebola in this test group after the 10 day wait, meaning they where previously exposed and got Ebola via the normal route, before the vaccine built immunity in 3 weeks + 10 days. This indicates that the vaccine DOES affect the Ebola infection rate, seemingly very well in that after 10 days, subsequent exposure didn't not produce Ebola.
The implication is that the immediate vaccination prevented Ebola after the 10 day period...
You can do this using exactly the same technology that cruse missiles use, terrain following.
All you need is precision terrain/elevation data and you can create a vehicle that can navigate safely from Point A to Point B using a terrain mapping RADAR. You just match the RADAR image to your known terrain map and voilà, instant location, elevation and orientation information that you use to correct your inertial navigation system. Preplan your probes route and activities and say go to that waypoint, land, do science, and return to base when done.
"But we don't HAVE the necessary elevation data yet!" you say? I thought we where in the process of collecting detailed elevation data from Mars. Plus, if you have even a small amount of data which is detailed enough to land the craft with, you can make flights and collect additional terrain data using the very same RADAR you use to navigate with and expand your detailed dataset further and further away from your starting point over time. So you'd fly using the inertial navigation system past areas you knew, collect data and return to the area you already know, send the collected data to earth for post processing and receive an expanded detailed terrain map in return then do your detailed science in this new area. Wash, rinse and repeat as many times as possible.
It seems to me that a rudimentary GPS setup around Mars would be of some use. Why not build that first?
GPS is pretty dependent on ground stations which monitor each satellite in the constellation and provides "corrections" to the whole system for it to work. It also requires a minimum of 3 (usually more like 5) satellites to be in view to come up with a location solution. So, you are talking about a bunch of independent satellites with some remote monitoring capability from the surface to fix positions and keep the system accurate enough. That's a LOT of very expensive infrastructure to get to Mars..
Simpler solution is to just go with a Loran type system. Drop 3 or more fairly simple devices onto the surface that transmit a bit of coordinated RF and you have a solution to easily navigate within the line of site of the transmitters. It's really just the precursor of GPS and gets you pretty good relative location information.
Even better, would be to use a RADAR system and previously obtained map data like many cruse missiles use. It only requires precision terrain elevation data which can be easily obtained from ONE orbiting probe, and allows you to give the "flying" vehicle some autonomy in navigating from point A to point B. As you can obtain more precision terrain information you can further refine your data set and go more places with better and better assurance you know where you are.
Make it look like a big black rectangle! Please!
I'm sorry, I can't do that Dave.
All this really does is cause these poor guys to face charges that prosecutors now must try to prove. Given that all the other methods of getting an indictment on these guys failed, one can easily infer that the chances they get convicted of anything is next to nil.
This is basically a political witch hunt by some PR hounds who want to make it look like the accused are somehow guilty of gross negligence because it was their plant (which satisfied the government's safety requirements) blew up and made a mess after some natural disaster that nobody foresaw or even considered possible happened. It's like holding the tornado shelter installer criminally liable for not protecting the occupants of the shelter from earthquake damage and chemical attacks.
So my "follow the money" joke, really should be this. IF the people in charge are asking for it, find and suggest a solution that can do it safely. If they are not willing to pay for your solution, find another, albeit less safe solution and present it with a list of assumed risks. Rinse and repeat until you have a solution they are willing to pay for with risks they are accepting, then do that.
They want easy, and cheap. That limits you slightly...
Understood, but the POINT of this little exercise is to educate the people asking about the true costs and risks they are assuming before you implement anything. Responsible bosses appreciate this kind of iterative process that allows them to choose their level of risk and cost, and if you are dealing with irresponsible bosses who will come back and blame you for failure at a later date, you are going to need the CYA documentation that shows THEY agreed to this and you already told them of the risk.
If they don't accept the CYA documentation, then you work for bad people and should be moving on anyway...
If that's true, and many times it is, you are playing a loosing hand to start with. You work for people who don't care about you or value what you say and do and it's a BAD place for you.
Best thing to do if you work for people like this is start to plan your departure. Update your resume, get your online profiles updated and start looking at the employment ads. It might be a very good idea to start putting money away for the "rainy day" that's surely coming.
Maybe YOU can be that consultant they hire over your replacement's objections. Charge them lots, collect in advance, and laugh all the way to the bank...
That's why you present your "solution" before implementation and that includes documentation of the provisos and risks they are taking.
It may not save your job when the chips are down, but having a bit of hard documentation that you told them what the risks where and they choose not to spend the money to eliminate that risk is always a good thing. Besides, if they assume the risks, then fire the underling when a risk bites them, you really don't want to work for them anyway because it's just a matter of when they will fire you, not if.
Like I said to the other guy who doesn't want to listen...
Your issue is with the law, not the courts, with the people who WROTE the law, not the judge or the process. Stop saying it would be an unfair trial.
I'm not going to engage in the debate over the law being fair or not because it's pointless and largely meaningless to this situation. The law is what it is, I didn't write it nor wish to argue about it. You need to go after the people who wrote it if you don't like it.
Do what the military does... Just convert all this to acronyms, mostly with 3 letters... Trust me, you will feel better in no time, just nobody will know for sure what you are talking about.
I'll crank up my SUH (Sports Utility Hospital) for you. It does eight robotic surgeons per patient.
I here the SHUH (Sport Hybrid Utility Hospital) can do 12 now using regenerative technology...
I think you are right... Time to start raising leaches again and bleeding for a fever.
Maybe we can apply some leaches to the current owner until they get better?
Follow the money.. Who pays the bills? Do what they say...
Seriously, keeping your factory's networks separate is a pretty simple firewall issue for someone competent to install and configure it. I'm not sure how this cell phone connection is going to work, but there ARE ways to make cell phones connect to you via VPN's that can be made to require usernames/passwords (not to mention specific devices) before you are allowed to connect. There are solutions out there to do what they ask, they just cost a little bit to acquire, install, and manage.
So my "follow the money" joke, really should be this. IF the people in charge are asking for it, find and suggest a solution that can do it safely. If they are not willing to pay for your solution, find another, albeit less safe solution and present it with a list of assumed risks. Rinse and repeat until you have a solution they are willing to pay for with risks they are accepting, then do that.
Like I said, I'm not arguing with you about the fairness of the law.. All I'm saying is the laws (as written) will be fairly applied by the court using the age old practices and standards of evidence and proof. I get that you don't like the law, but the courts will fairly apply it, especially in Snowden's high profile case.
BTW... What you NEED to be doing is to stop yammering about how unfair all this is and start working to change the law you think is so unfair. You do that by supporting the election of law makers who, in this case, serve in congress and will get the laws changed to something you like better... All I can say to you on that front is, good luck, you are going to need it because I get the feeling the majority of people who vote in this country don't support a change in law big enough to get Snowden off the hook. Plus, it's not the pressing issue of the media's day, so nobody really cares anymore politically. I know I don't...
With that, I don't look forward to your likely reply. I'll read it but if you keep arguing about the law being unfair I don't suspect I'll find the time to respond as I refuse to be drawn into a debate over the fairness of the espionage laws...
Close...
Actually the issue is the amount of power the device dissipates. Lowering the resistance of the device the current is flowing though, lowers the voltage for the same current flow. Power = Voltage X Current So if you lower the voltage for the same current, the device heats up less, it wastes less as heat.
Disputation is how much heat the device must get rid of to stay within it's working temperature range. If it gets too hot, it will stop working, so you have to get rid of all the power it wastes as heat. If you cannot get rid of the heat, you must slow the device down, or make it bigger so there is more surface area to get rid of the heat.
So this power issue really is a heat issue and if you can lower the power being turned into heat, you can make devices that run fast and are smaller.
Shesh.. Look, the trial would be "fair" as in done by the rules. Let it go...
Again, if you want to claim the LAW is not fair, fine, but don't confuse the LAW with the trial. I'm not arguing that the law he will be accused of violating is fair or not, all I'm saying is that he will get "A FAIR TRIAL" as defined by the centuries of legal practice in this country. He is innocent until proven guilty, will be afforded an attorney, will be given a trial before his peers, face his accusers and present evidence at his trial. This is NOT a kangaroo court.
You see, I really get frustrated with people claiming that the courts are unfair, that a "fair trial" isn't possible, or didn't happen just because the outcome is not what they wanted. With VERY few exceptions the criminal courts in this country ARE fair, too fair some times if you ask me. Snowden does face certain conviction (IMHO) because he clearly broke the law, but this outcome is NOT about the fairness of the courts, it's about the law.
Go a head, argue the LAW here, call it unfair if you want, just stop with this "the trial won't be fair" garbage, and absolutely stop comparing our legal system to the likes of North Korea. Our legal system is the best system in the world at protecting individuals rights and any claim otherwise is false.
What's really going on here is you don't like the law.... You think the LAW is unfair.... Stop maligning the courts and argue your real issue...
Certainly not a fact checker - have you heard of the internet?
LOL... Love you too...
It's got to be true, I found it on the internet!
Wish I knew what "facts" you disagreed with so we could continue this discussion, but I'm afraid you left that part out...
Have a nice day and keep that tin foil hat squarely in place... Hey, isn't that your mom calling you from upstairs? I think she want's you to come upstairs and read the Help wanted adds with your breakfast...
I say again, the trial would be fair, your argument is with the law, which is a different debate. I'm encouraging folks to be careful with this distinction because the issue you are having is not with the courts or the legal system but the writers of the law...
Well... Not exactly....I think there is more to what they want.
They want a TRIAL and then the death penalty if they can get it from the jury.
Otherwise, why is he alive now? If they just want him dead, that's easy to arrange in Russia for what amounts to chump change.
No they want him alive and I presume so they can take him to trial and make a huge example out of him, either that or they simply don't care what happens to him...
Totally different circumstances, but you already know that, you are just grasping at straws. OBL's death was a military action on foreign soil that resulted in the death of a non US citizen who was a known combatant. He died in a war.
I've said before that if this administration wanted Snowden dead, he'd already be dead. I'm arguing that they don't want or need him to die for what ever reason and my evidence of that is simply that he's alive. So I seriously doubt that if he turned himself in they would skip the trial and just kill him. Too many people would be looking, it wouldn't be legal, and I contend there would be nothing to gain.
Seriously, he was just a two bit system administrator who took data off the systems he managed, he wasn't some high level operative but some dude in the basement changing out backup tapes and resetting lost passwords. He didn't do that for very long either. He doesn't really know anything beyond the documents he took....
What you can and cannot argue as a defense to a crime is spelled out in the law. Defense is usually given wide latitude in what kinds of arguments they try so I see no reason why the argument wouldn't be tried, but I do see where it wouldn't be successful. However, that's for a judge to allow and a jury to decide based on the law.
Also, comparing our legal system to that of North Korea is very unfair. You may not believe it, but our legal system is generally unbiased in it's application of law, In North Korea if dear leader says guilty, NOBODY can argue the point, regardless of the law or they suffer the same fate. There is a huge difference.