Look, don't be so jaded about the aircraft industry... They are not the ones the GAO is going after...
This is about the FAA and the regulations they enforce when certifying aircraft are safe to fly, not about Boeing's CEO making more money or shareholders getting their profits by cutting safety corners. Where it MIGHT be a political issue, where Boeing hires lobbyists to try and get the rules the FAA enforces changed, it's not directly related to cutting corners for profits.
Of course the GAO is right, sort of.. The possibility exists for someone to hack the flight controls from the entertainment systems if they are connected in some way. However, if the systems are properly designed and firewalled and the software properly vetted, I believe that you can eliminate the chances of having a successful attack vector. The problem though is how to write regulations that can assure something doesn't get overlooked and how you could prove that to the GAO so they will get off the FAA's back...
Oh I do. Most of the "replacement" technologies for fossil fuels are not efficient or cost effective. For instance, biofuels assume we have abundant fertilizer to keep the soil rich in nitrogen, yet few understand that current industrial fertilizer comes from fossil fuels. Replacing with natural sources is simply NOT possible, nor is living with reduced yields when you don't use the stuff. We wouldn't be able to feed ourselves without fertilizer from fossil fuels, much less grow enough additional crops to fuel the minimum fleet of cars and trucks we need to get things around.
Sure, history would take a very different course, but there are plenty of technological paths for human ingenuity to follow without fossil fuels.
No there isn't. Yes, we have technology that can replace any single thing, but as a whole, there is not a solution here that doesn't involve cutting the world's population back to levels we've not seen since the turn of the 19th century. Yea we could go back to THAT era, you'd just have to eliminate the bulk of the population gain since then.
Uh, no, not really. At least not with the population we currently have.
IF you wanted to remake society and not use fossil fuels, the FIRST thing you are going to have to figure out is who's going to die to make it possible (along with how to kill that many people who presumably won't all be on board with the idea). The second is going to be how to control the world's population at the maximum sustainable level. After that, replacing fossil fuels is a breeze if you ask me. All the technology already exists to do it, but they just are not as efficient as how it's done now so the world's population is going to have to be reduced to what can be supported.
It's like trying to switch to an all self-grown, vegetarian diet after growing a single tomato and saying "See, it's easy to grow all your own food."
I so love this example. How many people even have enough space in their suburban yards to grow enough vegetables to meet their needs for even a few weeks, much less for a full year? Yea, you might get enough tomatoes out of that garden to put on your salads for a few months and even have enough to can a few jars worth, but you are NEVER going to feed even one person on a quarter of an acre.
Add to that this idea that we can just grow biodiesel producing plants to fuel our cars and I'm laughing. There is simply no way we have enough land, water and natural fertilizer to make that work on a world wide scale, unless you don't mind having a large fraction of the world's population starving...
Short answer: No, never going to happen. We will ALWAYS use oil in some way because there are things you just cannot do without it.
Long answer: What will happen is that we will use less and less of it over time as the cost of recover and use of the fuel get's higher and higher. Eventually it will fall out of favor due to cost and availability and use will slow down, but it will never really stop, it will just fade into obscurity like coal powered steam engines have. So massive industrial use may stop in time due to costs, but it will be with us forever.
Yes.... But isn't that what a "kernel module" is? Isn't it just a separate file that contains the functions you need to access the hardware? (or in the case of Linux, the source that you can choose to link directly into the Kernel that does the same thing?)
HINT: That's exactly what it is.
As I understand this, Kernel 4.0 allows some new features to be use by the drivers and some module authors are choosing only to support the 4.x branch of the kernel for their hardware and not have to maintain two code bases. Sort of like how windows broke up their kernel versions and how old drivers don't work with new kernels and new drivers don't usually work with old kernels.
Yet you don't answer the question. If we change the natural weight of a police officer's testimony, what happens then?
I get what you are saying. The officer who testified at my trial obviously didn't remember what she saw and although I did, I got sunk on her word alone. I didn't think that was fair. But years later and having talked to a number of police officers I realize that the current arrangement simply *must* be this way. The alternative is chaos.
Personally, I'd rather pay a fine or two over driving where nobody fears breaking the traffic laws, where a traffic ticket is meaningless because paying the fine is optional.
Moreover, in a disagreement where a police officer says one thing, the defendant says another, and the police officer is automatically believed, where is the justice?
It is in the believability of the witnesses. Unfortunately, you simply must give the police officer more weight because of their position. There is justice there, even if you don't necessarily agree, it isn't without it's logic, reason and Legal precedent. In my mind it has to be this way.
However, precedent CAN be changed though appeals (unlikely) or though jury trials (expensive). You can help get the long established assumptions that the officer is more than likely telling the truth over the citizen who's being charged by fighting it. Fight it in court, demand a jury trial, appeal any convictions and otherwise make the prosecutor work hard to make the charge stick. Work on changing the assumptions, get the precedent changed for others and make the assumptions of preferring the Officer over the citizen no longer valid. Ask your state and local lawmakers to change the law. DO SOMETHING other than just complain about it.
However, think about what will happen if/when you manage to get this assumption changed so that an officer is no longer seen as a more reliable witness. What do you think will happen once the word gets out that all you have to do is show up, demand a trial where you say "I didn't do what he says I did" and you are likely to get off? You can bet EVERYBODY would do it then and there'd be no point in writing traffic tickets anymore. Just show up to the arraignment, make your appearance at trial, say you didn't do it and get off. Is that a good thing? I'm not so sure it is.
So I'm not so quick to throw out the good with the bad here. I'm guessing that the vast majority of Officers are writing valid tickets. There are only a handful that are bad raps. In my experience I've been pulled over three times, issued 5 citations and only one of those I don't believe I deserved or where not dismissed (like the ones for not having proof of insurance available, which where tossed when I provided proof I had insurance). I've had to pay 1 fine which I don't believe I deserved out of 5 tickets. But I'd not like to live in a world where blowing stop signs, running red lights and speeding couldn't be enforced. I think I'd rather risk being unfairly fined over driving in a world where getting out of a traffic ticket was as easy as lying about it. In terms of safety, I prefer the occasional unfair fine over the rash of deaths that would flow out of changing how traffic court works.
But the post was about the irony of the older brother "getting thrown under the bus" during the trial when it was the younger who actually ran him over with the SUV and ended his life...
Just hire a lawyer. Usually for about $100 they will plea you a deal that includes no conviction for your insurance to pickup. Most prosecutors in traffic court will gladly take the deal over going to trial and risk their witness not showing up and having to bother with all the stuff in front of the judge. Get the lawyer and take the deal they get, regardless if you think you did it or not, unless you have hard evidence that you didn't, like an eye witness or something. If you have independent evidence, fight it as far as you can.
But I ask you, How would you propose to make this fair but still enforce the law? Officers are afforded more credibility in their testimony than you are, so if it's only the officer and you, you loose on his/her testimony. I don't see how it can be any other way without causing chaos.
About having to pay? Gee, I'm sorry. Generally EVERY time I've been pulled and ticketed the charges where valid except once. And that conviction would have not happened had I hired a lawyer. Not that the insurance caught it because my license changed states between the ticket being issued and the actual trial (6 months later) so for me it was a wash. Once you get pulled, you are going to pay if they issue that ticket. The trick it is to not get pulled over in the first place and when you do, don't get issued the ticket if you can help it.
IMHO, we use about the best system I can imagine for this. It does have the ability to be abused by cops and folks railroaded. However, even then there ARE safeguards because if a cop has a ticket overturned, it doesn't look good on their record. So if enough people fight and win when they can, the cop will be getting into trouble with his department.
When they start to reduce the process of interviewing down to a standardized series of questions and tests, they remove the human from the process too. Who wants to work for a company that isn't about HUMAN interaction first, that isn't willing to treat their employees less like interchangeable cogs and more like unique individuals.
This is the end of innovation and uniqueness for Google, or at least a sign that it's falling out of favor. This is the MBA mindset of trying to remove the variables in the process, standardize on some ill fitting solution in an attempt to be efficient. This means that they won't get innovation because failure is becoming something to avoid, taking risks leads to mistakes that cost money and time. When this becomes the prevailing attitude at a company, that company then becomes risk adverse and innovation slows down.
The problem here is Google is nothing but a search engine and software development house if it doesn't continue to innovate. It will die like Yahoo, AOL and all the others if it doesn't stop this.
In this case there isn't any privacy concerns for me. I won't sign up, load or run the application.
Now it would be a totally different story if the point of the application was totally unrelated to where you are when and how you get there. It's these applications which many people don't realize are providing tracking information to others. Or, for instance the practice of retailers who track your phone down to the inch as you walk though their store, then tie that to your "discount card" or some other means of tracking what you looked at, what you purchased and all sorts of data they can mine out of their collections. THAT is the kind of thing that worries me, where I'm being tracked and I have no way of knowing it and didn't agree to it....
But neither my father (precursor agency) nor myself (not saying more) would agree with your naive viewpoint.
Then report it though proper channels... Seriously, you have a way to stop this, do it. An no, I'm not saying pull a Snowden and dump classified data into the public. Blow the whistle it is your duty not to mention your moral obligation.
IMHO - You are just making this up. Nobody who was actually a part of what the NSA does would be posting critical things on Slashdot about breaking the law. You'd either be up to your ears in breaking the law and not want to chance drawing attention to it. No, your just making this up.
Have you ever actually been in a criminal court? Defending yourself against even an offense as trivial as a speeding ticket is enough to make it blatantly obvious how defendants get railroaded in this country.
Don't be railroaded, take a lawyer next time. Seriously, if it's your word that says you didn't and a police officer says you did who's going to win that one? Unless you say the police officer, then what's the point of law enforcement? I understand your frustration, but if you are tried for murder, there is a bit more to criminal court for you than having to pay the fine. Oh, and in case you wondered, YES I have gone to court for a traffic ticket I don't believe I deserved and lost, paid my fine and moved on. So I know what you are talking about. I just understand why it has to be that way and that my mistake was not bringing a lawyer...
Is the company doing so poorly that they can't sacrifice 4,000 phones?
You do realize that @ $1k each that this is $4 Million dollars right? Where they might be able to write that off as marketing, that's a serious chunk of change even for LG electronics. They may have BILLIONS in revenue, 4 million would be quite the bite out of the profits in an already competitive market segment. They may not have the room jus to eat that cost.
But I do share your questions about what they are going to do with the returned devices.... Or, a more important question is, how are they going to force 4,000 people to actually return these devices? Somehow I'm guessing they may not get them all back, and then whatchagona do?
When you are in criminal court, the rules are skewed to favor the defendant. It starts with innocent until proven guilty and keeps going from there. What you see on TV is not how it really works. Criminal court is almost a ritual like proceeding where the defense gets the benefit of EVERY doubt.
Can a marginal case be "purchased" by spending lots of money? Sure, you might be able to get an otherwise guilty defendant off if you spend enough, but the chances of that are pretty slim if the evidence is good like it was in this case. And, if you think about it, really doesn't make THIS trial unfair, it makes the one where all the money got spent unfair.
But, I beg you to not confuse CRIMINAL proceedings with CIVIL proceedings. Civil court is an entirely different set of rules which are much more susceptible to being influenced by money. The two are not the same and the court proceedings are a lot different as is the level of proof required to "win" your case.
One more time... US law? Not easily ignored by the NSA though sometimes they apparently do... People can go to JAIL for doing this, so when they are pushing the boundaries they do so carefully.
Foreign and international law? The NSA is laughing at most of these and ignoring the rest. When operating on foreign soil the NSA is pretty much it's own authority, especially in international territory.
If you KNOW that the NSA is violating US law, I suggest you report it though the proper channels because it needs to stop.
Given his poor defense, I'm really not all that surprised. Though I wonder how it will flesh out in appeals if he gets the death penalty. One might argue the poor quality defense would force a retrial if they can convince an appeals court of incompetence or something like that.
What? This guy PLANTED one of the devices that killed people. I think his defense was poor because the evidence was clear that he was a willing participant in the crime.
No doubt there will be lots of appeals either way. It's the nature of the legal system in it's bend over backwards to protect the rights of criminals and assuring that their due process rights are protected. It's not evidence in the unfairness of a trial, but evidence that we are willing to expend a LOT of effort to make sure things are fair.
that never stopped us in the 50s, or the 70s, or the 80s, or the 90s.
why do you think it stops us now?
From the US prospective, the NSA has legal boundaries in US law. These boundaries do not include foreign or international law which the NSA routinely ignores in it's collection efforts.
My mention of "legal boundaries" was referring to the effect of US law on the NSA's activities. Yes, they sometimes push the boundaries in US law too, but the NSA is generally pretty careful when they do.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, don't be so jaded about the aircraft industry... They are not the ones the GAO is going after...
This is about the FAA and the regulations they enforce when certifying aircraft are safe to fly, not about Boeing's CEO making more money or shareholders getting their profits by cutting safety corners. Where it MIGHT be a political issue, where Boeing hires lobbyists to try and get the rules the FAA enforces changed, it's not directly related to cutting corners for profits.
Of course the GAO is right, sort of.. The possibility exists for someone to hack the flight controls from the entertainment systems if they are connected in some way. However, if the systems are properly designed and firewalled and the software properly vetted, I believe that you can eliminate the chances of having a successful attack vector. The problem though is how to write regulations that can assure something doesn't get overlooked and how you could prove that to the GAO so they will get off the FAA's back...
Power over Ethernet also requires a Power over Ethernet infrastructure.
Which runs about $12 for a single connection power supply/power inserter... If you are going to run the wire anyway, it's not that expensive.
I don't see the problem.
Oh I do. Most of the "replacement" technologies for fossil fuels are not efficient or cost effective. For instance, biofuels assume we have abundant fertilizer to keep the soil rich in nitrogen, yet few understand that current industrial fertilizer comes from fossil fuels. Replacing with natural sources is simply NOT possible, nor is living with reduced yields when you don't use the stuff. We wouldn't be able to feed ourselves without fertilizer from fossil fuels, much less grow enough additional crops to fuel the minimum fleet of cars and trucks we need to get things around.
Sure, history would take a very different course, but there are plenty of technological paths for human ingenuity to follow without fossil fuels.
No there isn't. Yes, we have technology that can replace any single thing, but as a whole, there is not a solution here that doesn't involve cutting the world's population back to levels we've not seen since the turn of the 19th century. Yea we could go back to THAT era, you'd just have to eliminate the bulk of the population gain since then.
Uh, no, not really. At least not with the population we currently have.
IF you wanted to remake society and not use fossil fuels, the FIRST thing you are going to have to figure out is who's going to die to make it possible (along with how to kill that many people who presumably won't all be on board with the idea). The second is going to be how to control the world's population at the maximum sustainable level. After that, replacing fossil fuels is a breeze if you ask me. All the technology already exists to do it, but they just are not as efficient as how it's done now so the world's population is going to have to be reduced to what can be supported.
Fertilizer... Don't forget that THAT comes from fossil fuels too...
It's like trying to switch to an all self-grown, vegetarian diet after growing a single tomato and saying "See, it's easy to grow all your own food."
I so love this example. How many people even have enough space in their suburban yards to grow enough vegetables to meet their needs for even a few weeks, much less for a full year? Yea, you might get enough tomatoes out of that garden to put on your salads for a few months and even have enough to can a few jars worth, but you are NEVER going to feed even one person on a quarter of an acre.
Add to that this idea that we can just grow biodiesel producing plants to fuel our cars and I'm laughing. There is simply no way we have enough land, water and natural fertilizer to make that work on a world wide scale, unless you don't mind having a large fraction of the world's population starving...
Short answer: No, never going to happen. We will ALWAYS use oil in some way because there are things you just cannot do without it.
Long answer: What will happen is that we will use less and less of it over time as the cost of recover and use of the fuel get's higher and higher. Eventually it will fall out of favor due to cost and availability and use will slow down, but it will never really stop, it will just fade into obscurity like coal powered steam engines have. So massive industrial use may stop in time due to costs, but it will be with us forever.
There is no such thing as "real" money there never was.
Not even BitCoin is real? Oh man, it's not even a currency! (sob)
Don't worry. You need radiation for the robots to become sentient.
Or a lighting strike... Well that and an animal rights nut job named Stephaney to befriend you.
Shouldn't that be in a separate driver?
Yes.... But isn't that what a "kernel module" is? Isn't it just a separate file that contains the functions you need to access the hardware? (or in the case of Linux, the source that you can choose to link directly into the Kernel that does the same thing?)
HINT: That's exactly what it is.
As I understand this, Kernel 4.0 allows some new features to be use by the drivers and some module authors are choosing only to support the 4.x branch of the kernel for their hardware and not have to maintain two code bases. Sort of like how windows broke up their kernel versions and how old drivers don't work with new kernels and new drivers don't usually work with old kernels.
Yet you don't answer the question. If we change the natural weight of a police officer's testimony, what happens then?
I get what you are saying. The officer who testified at my trial obviously didn't remember what she saw and although I did, I got sunk on her word alone. I didn't think that was fair. But years later and having talked to a number of police officers I realize that the current arrangement simply *must* be this way. The alternative is chaos.
Personally, I'd rather pay a fine or two over driving where nobody fears breaking the traffic laws, where a traffic ticket is meaningless because paying the fine is optional.
Lawyers are expensive.
Moreover, in a disagreement where a police officer says one thing, the defendant says another, and the police officer is automatically believed, where is the justice?
It is in the believability of the witnesses. Unfortunately, you simply must give the police officer more weight because of their position. There is justice there, even if you don't necessarily agree, it isn't without it's logic, reason and Legal precedent. In my mind it has to be this way.
However, precedent CAN be changed though appeals (unlikely) or though jury trials (expensive). You can help get the long established assumptions that the officer is more than likely telling the truth over the citizen who's being charged by fighting it. Fight it in court, demand a jury trial, appeal any convictions and otherwise make the prosecutor work hard to make the charge stick. Work on changing the assumptions, get the precedent changed for others and make the assumptions of preferring the Officer over the citizen no longer valid. Ask your state and local lawmakers to change the law. DO SOMETHING other than just complain about it.
However, think about what will happen if/when you manage to get this assumption changed so that an officer is no longer seen as a more reliable witness. What do you think will happen once the word gets out that all you have to do is show up, demand a trial where you say "I didn't do what he says I did" and you are likely to get off? You can bet EVERYBODY would do it then and there'd be no point in writing traffic tickets anymore. Just show up to the arraignment, make your appearance at trial, say you didn't do it and get off. Is that a good thing? I'm not so sure it is.
So I'm not so quick to throw out the good with the bad here. I'm guessing that the vast majority of Officers are writing valid tickets. There are only a handful that are bad raps. In my experience I've been pulled over three times, issued 5 citations and only one of those I don't believe I deserved or where not dismissed (like the ones for not having proof of insurance available, which where tossed when I provided proof I had insurance). I've had to pay 1 fine which I don't believe I deserved out of 5 tickets. But I'd not like to live in a world where blowing stop signs, running red lights and speeding couldn't be enforced. I think I'd rather risk being unfairly fined over driving in a world where getting out of a traffic ticket was as easy as lying about it. In terms of safety, I prefer the occasional unfair fine over the rash of deaths that would flow out of changing how traffic court works.
It's "nonetheless", you f* American idiot...
Karma can be a bad thing for folk like you...
I'll remove my hyphens next time...
But the post was about the irony of the older brother "getting thrown under the bus" during the trial when it was the younger who actually ran him over with the SUV and ended his life...
Just hire a lawyer. Usually for about $100 they will plea you a deal that includes no conviction for your insurance to pickup. Most prosecutors in traffic court will gladly take the deal over going to trial and risk their witness not showing up and having to bother with all the stuff in front of the judge. Get the lawyer and take the deal they get, regardless if you think you did it or not, unless you have hard evidence that you didn't, like an eye witness or something. If you have independent evidence, fight it as far as you can.
But I ask you, How would you propose to make this fair but still enforce the law? Officers are afforded more credibility in their testimony than you are, so if it's only the officer and you, you loose on his/her testimony. I don't see how it can be any other way without causing chaos.
About having to pay? Gee, I'm sorry. Generally EVERY time I've been pulled and ticketed the charges where valid except once. And that conviction would have not happened had I hired a lawyer. Not that the insurance caught it because my license changed states between the ticket being issued and the actual trial (6 months later) so for me it was a wash. Once you get pulled, you are going to pay if they issue that ticket. The trick it is to not get pulled over in the first place and when you do, don't get issued the ticket if you can help it.
IMHO, we use about the best system I can imagine for this. It does have the ability to be abused by cops and folks railroaded. However, even then there ARE safeguards because if a cop has a ticket overturned, it doesn't look good on their record. So if enough people fight and win when they can, the cop will be getting into trouble with his department.
Is not to play.. .
When they start to reduce the process of interviewing down to a standardized series of questions and tests, they remove the human from the process too. Who wants to work for a company that isn't about HUMAN interaction first, that isn't willing to treat their employees less like interchangeable cogs and more like unique individuals.
This is the end of innovation and uniqueness for Google, or at least a sign that it's falling out of favor. This is the MBA mindset of trying to remove the variables in the process, standardize on some ill fitting solution in an attempt to be efficient. This means that they won't get innovation because failure is becoming something to avoid, taking risks leads to mistakes that cost money and time. When this becomes the prevailing attitude at a company, that company then becomes risk adverse and innovation slows down.
The problem here is Google is nothing but a search engine and software development house if it doesn't continue to innovate. It will die like Yahoo, AOL and all the others if it doesn't stop this.
Don't sign up... Who doesn't understand this?
In this case there isn't any privacy concerns for me. I won't sign up, load or run the application.
Now it would be a totally different story if the point of the application was totally unrelated to where you are when and how you get there. It's these applications which many people don't realize are providing tracking information to others. Or, for instance the practice of retailers who track your phone down to the inch as you walk though their store, then tie that to your "discount card" or some other means of tracking what you looked at, what you purchased and all sorts of data they can mine out of their collections. THAT is the kind of thing that worries me, where I'm being tracked and I have no way of knowing it and didn't agree to it....
I'm sure that's what you tell yourself.
But neither my father (precursor agency) nor myself (not saying more) would agree with your naive viewpoint.
Then report it though proper channels... Seriously, you have a way to stop this, do it. An no, I'm not saying pull a Snowden and dump classified data into the public. Blow the whistle it is your duty not to mention your moral obligation.
IMHO - You are just making this up. Nobody who was actually a part of what the NSA does would be posting critical things on Slashdot about breaking the law. You'd either be up to your ears in breaking the law and not want to chance drawing attention to it. No, your just making this up.
Have you ever actually been in a criminal court? Defending yourself against even an offense as trivial as a speeding ticket is enough to make it blatantly obvious how defendants get railroaded in this country.
Don't be railroaded, take a lawyer next time. Seriously, if it's your word that says you didn't and a police officer says you did who's going to win that one? Unless you say the police officer, then what's the point of law enforcement? I understand your frustration, but if you are tried for murder, there is a bit more to criminal court for you than having to pay the fine. Oh, and in case you wondered, YES I have gone to court for a traffic ticket I don't believe I deserved and lost, paid my fine and moved on. So I know what you are talking about. I just understand why it has to be that way and that my mistake was not bringing a lawyer...
Is the company doing so poorly that they can't sacrifice 4,000 phones?
You do realize that @ $1k each that this is $4 Million dollars right? Where they might be able to write that off as marketing, that's a serious chunk of change even for LG electronics. They may have BILLIONS in revenue, 4 million would be quite the bite out of the profits in an already competitive market segment. They may not have the room jus to eat that cost.
But I do share your questions about what they are going to do with the returned devices.... Or, a more important question is, how are they going to force 4,000 people to actually return these devices? Somehow I'm guessing they may not get them all back, and then whatchagona do?
How jaded... I feel sorry for you.
When you are in criminal court, the rules are skewed to favor the defendant. It starts with innocent until proven guilty and keeps going from there. What you see on TV is not how it really works. Criminal court is almost a ritual like proceeding where the defense gets the benefit of EVERY doubt.
Can a marginal case be "purchased" by spending lots of money? Sure, you might be able to get an otherwise guilty defendant off if you spend enough, but the chances of that are pretty slim if the evidence is good like it was in this case. And, if you think about it, really doesn't make THIS trial unfair, it makes the one where all the money got spent unfair.
But, I beg you to not confuse CRIMINAL proceedings with CIVIL proceedings. Civil court is an entirely different set of rules which are much more susceptible to being influenced by money. The two are not the same and the court proceedings are a lot different as is the level of proof required to "win" your case.
One more time... US law? Not easily ignored by the NSA though sometimes they apparently do... People can go to JAIL for doing this, so when they are pushing the boundaries they do so carefully.
Foreign and international law? The NSA is laughing at most of these and ignoring the rest. When operating on foreign soil the NSA is pretty much it's own authority, especially in international territory.
If you KNOW that the NSA is violating US law, I suggest you report it though the proper channels because it needs to stop.
11 1/2 hours for 30 charges is only 23 min for each charge.
Remember that they have to deliberate EACH count separately, so if you ask me that was pretty fast.
throw his brother under the bus (or as actually happened: under the stolen SUV).
An SUV being driven by him non-the-less..
Given his poor defense, I'm really not all that surprised. Though I wonder how it will flesh out in appeals if he gets the death penalty. One might argue the poor quality defense would force a retrial if they can convince an appeals court of incompetence or something like that.
What? This guy PLANTED one of the devices that killed people. I think his defense was poor because the evidence was clear that he was a willing participant in the crime.
No doubt there will be lots of appeals either way. It's the nature of the legal system in it's bend over backwards to protect the rights of criminals and assuring that their due process rights are protected. It's not evidence in the unfairness of a trial, but evidence that we are willing to expend a LOT of effort to make sure things are fair.
legally - oh you poor gullible fool.
that never stopped us in the 50s, or the 70s, or the 80s, or the 90s.
why do you think it stops us now?
From the US prospective, the NSA has legal boundaries in US law. These boundaries do not include foreign or international law which the NSA routinely ignores in it's collection efforts.
My mention of "legal boundaries" was referring to the effect of US law on the NSA's activities. Yes, they sometimes push the boundaries in US law too, but the NSA is generally pretty careful when they do.