Why would someone that shorted the stock want to buy more at a lower price ? Perhaps you do not understand the concept of "shorting" a stock.
You need to look at what's probably going to happen. This FUD, if public enough, may cause Netflix stock to drop. This represents an opportunity for traders with a short position to cover by buying at a lower price. This also represents an opportunity for people who want to buy stock to do so at a lower price. The next expectation is that when the world realizes this is no big deal for Netflix, the stock will rise again and all those who bought low will have earned something on their investment.
Maybe you think that the suggestion was for the short-sellers to short some more at the lower price? That, indeed, would be an unwise move.
Try answering his allegation that Guantanamo Bay is a concentration camp -- let's see how the real questions face up to scrutiny?
I actually already answered that in another post. Bottom line: Guantanamo Bay is definitely not the same as a WWII-style concentration camp (although it _may_ qualify for meeting the standard definition for concentration camp), but it bears some disturbing similarities that should not be ignored. Most importantly, the lack of any due process to determine guilt or innocence, and the failure to provide any expected timeframe for incarceration.
It was the implicit notion I had that went.. "hey, reading this actually seems semi-normal nowadays.. and that shouldn't be the case."
What I really wonder is how much of this stuff that we never heard about has gone on for decades. I think from your point of view there is the possibility that we are being conditioned to accept it so that it can eventually be taken to a whole new level. Correct me if I'm wrong -- I don't want to put words in your mouth. I personally think that the media has just become more interested in reporting these kinds of things than in the past, but I may be wrong.
One thing of potential interest... if you weren't already aware, you might find it intriguing to know that the US really _has_ been guilty of concentration camps in the past. During WWII, "internment" camps were set up for Japanese living in the US, primarily as a response to the Japanese engagement in Pearl Harbor. The reason provided for this was the protection of the Japanese, but it was equally because Americas were afraid of the Japanese. For the most part, inhabitants of these internment camps were not purposely mistreated (as was the case in the concentration camps in Germany), but they were given very little time to evacuate their homes, and "internment" life was extremely hard for them. They were, for all intents and purposes, prisoners. I personally see this act as far worse than anything Guantanamo has to offer. Families were separated. The belongings they were allowed to carry with them were few. And you can only imagine what happened to anything they had to leave behind.
I don't have a problem with gitmo. But even though I will offer you a bit of advice.
Next time you offer advice, it would be best to avoid posting as an AC. Doing so makes it difficult to have a discussion.
To compare gitmo with a concentration camp, to call gitmo a concentration camp is either showing a profound ignorance of what a concentration camp is, or, a fine example the typical leftwing, hysterical, hyperbole that passes as reasoned discussion.
First off, I lean right, not left. Second off, I don't see Gitmo as a concentration camp. You and I both know that there are huge differences between today's Guantanamo and concentration camps of WWII, most notably the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in Guantanamo were rounded up from the battlefield, whereas the vast majority of people in concentration camps in WWII were, well, rounded up from everyday civilian life. The next notable difference is that even though there are efforts at Guantanamo to intimidate and pressure the prisoners into complying and providing intelligence information, they are not in general denied basic necessities of life. The same cannot be said of concentration camps. However the two bear some important similarities that cannot be dismissed, most notably the fact that for those incarcerated there, there is little or no due process involved to determine their guilt or innocence, and little or no indication of how much longer they get to remain there. And I would also not be surprised at all to discover that there are innocent people currently held at Guantanamo. And this is part of what was triggering the poster that I replied to. It's also why I refuse to use terms like "detainees". When you are detained, it's usually for a few hours or a few days -- not years. Guilty or innocent, the people in Guantanamo are prisoners, pure and simple.
If you want to be taken seriously by anyone, try sticking to facts instead of going into histrionics.
All I did was frame my reply in the context of the post to which I was replying, which was the best way to begin a reasonable discussion with somebody who is coming from a different viewpoint as yourself. In the future, if you want to give advice that you want to be taken seriously, I would recommend that you reply to the post that originally started what you consider to be overly dramatic. That way you avoid spoiling what might otherwise turn into a reasoned discussion.
Reading this article made me realize just how we've all fallen victim to the "boiling frog syndrome [wikipedia.org]".
Aside from the fact that Gitmo is similar to a concentration camp, what did you read in the article that leads you to that point of view? As others have mentioned, glancing at the diff doesn't seem to produce any truly "damning" evidence. The real tragedy is not the way the SOP dictates that the prisoners (I won't stoop to calling them the PC detainees) be treated, but that they have spent so much time incarcerated without a trial. I'll admit I didn't got through the entire diff file in detail, but maybe you can save the rest of us the trouble by being more specific about what little hints you see that indicate that the frog is in the pot and the temperature is slowly rising. Or are you just meaning that Guantanamo (in general) in combination with the other stuff you mentioned (which is unrelated to the SOP) is the sign that the dial on the stove is slowly being turned?
This seems to turn on its head the "susceptibility of homosexual" prospects/targets....
Let's look at the list... "sexual orientation, mental & physical health as well as credit history and 'personality conflict'". To me, this seems to be a list of subjects that people are likely to be sensitive about. Not that I support this invasion of privacy, but if you are going to set your employees up for full background checks, it makes sense to list very clearly most of the things people are likely to be less comfortable revealing to make sure that nobody can say afterwards "I _never_ thought you'd delve into my personal life like that" and then try to sue you. After reading the article, I'm unable to draw any conclusion that they were trying to single out people for their sexual orientation.
So members of government are only allowed to do it to each other? Or be paid members of the media? Please... Plenty of false accusations to go around...
Sorry, but I'm really not sure what you are talking about. If a member of the government (or a paid member of the media) makes statements about another government member in the media that are completely false, they are guilty of either slander or libel and can therefore be sued. If you see political candidates making seemingly untrue claims about each other without any lawsuit following, it's because a) there is some element of truth to the claim, b) the "victim" is reserving the right to use the same tactic on his opponent or c) the "victim" is trying to avoid the Streisand effect.
Google was not compelled by a court order to reveal the IP address. It is the judiciary's role to decide whether the plaintiffs are entitled to that information.
Before we go down this road, it would be helpful to know a little more about relevant laws in Israel. The article indicates that the judge made it clear to Google that it seemed to be a case of criminal activity. Google "took the hint" and provided the information. Without knowing what the law in Israel says about disclosing this type of information during this stage of a court case, it's difficult for us to comment on it.
So, can anybody in Israel with legal knowledge comment?
What we need is some good European style competition!
Could you describe what, exactly, the European brands have to offer that solves our problem? Somehow, I don't think paying a whopping premium to call a mobile number from my landline is a solution. If that happens, I'll just stop calling mobile numbers altogether. I'm perfectly happy with T-Mobile except for the lack of a PDA-phone that performs well enough to make it usable, and the lack of UMTS. Both of those are supposed to be fixed early next year. I'd like to see any European plan that provides me with 700+ minutes of unlimited calling and a data plan for two PDA phones at less than $100 per month.
I'm not taunting you or trying to argue. I just really want to know what it is the European competition offers that I'm missing.
f you just need to save money, you can get POTS and an alternate LD carrier.
the combined costs should be within a few dollars a month of vonage.
I seriously hope you're joking. The cost for unlimited local-only POTS service (with Verizon, ha ha) is $5 more than what Vonage charges for their premium residential plan, which includes unlimited calling to anywhere in the US and Canada. If I had to tack on a cheap long distance service, my costs would be an additional $30 per month (all my family lives out of state). Add to that Verizon's nutty ideas of what constitutes a local call, and there'll be an addition $10 per month in "regional toll" charges. That means I'd be paying $45 per month more if I went that route. I'd be better off getting their freedom unlimited plan. Oh, and I spend a couple hours a week on the phone with people in Germany. Vonage is only $.04/minute. How much would that be with Verizon?
Sorry, but there's no way shape or form that one of the local monopoly POTS services is going to be within a few dollars of what Vonage customers are paying now. Nobody would have ever switched from their regional incumbent monopoly unless they had significant reason to do so. There was an element of risk involved in trying out VoIP that required sufficient financial incentive to overcome.
I think you might have missed the point (or at least the spirit) of Elemenope's comments.
I do take issue with the general notion that if you can paint yourself as a martyr that you should get off.... Or put another way, equal protection under the law.
This isn't about anybody painting themselves as a martyr, and as mentioned by Elemenope, it's not about PR. It's about having a little compassion. There needs to be a human element involved. Should "single mom" see disciplinary action? Absolutely. But any HUMAN on the legal team for the RIAA would at least have SOME consideration for the consequential impact of the judgment. If there's an appeal, hopefully there will be a settlement that involves a much more reasonable figure. They could even seal the terms of the settlement so that they can still look "tough".
Not to mention which, college hasn't been simply for the priveleged for a long time. I know I wasn't rich when I was in school.
I don't think the point was that only the privileged make it to college. I think the point was that there happen to be a lot of privileged kids at college using P2P to violate copyright that are far better off financially than "single mom". The less financially privileged students usually can't be bothered with sharing music and videos. They're way too busy making the best of the opportunity that they have (i.e., studying).
Re:Worthless without a cooling fan...
on
Lap Desks
·
· Score: 1
...but if I'm off battery power all is well.
This is an important point. Every laptop I've ever owned has been significantly warmer when plugged in and charging the battery. In this mode, you get not only the heat from the circuits and chips inside the computer, but also the heat from energy that is "wasted" during the charge cycle. If you're using your laptop as a slightly portable desktop replacement, you should note that many laptops (but not all) will run fine if they are missing the battery but connected to AC power. This configuration might help minimize problems with burned legs and infertility.
I lift weights, and I'm at the higher side of the BMI because I've got a bit more muscle mass. Yet, according to that study, I'd be "fat".
I know what you mean. When I was in junior in college, I was in absolutely fantastic shape. And yet according to that stupid BMI chart, I would have still been classified as "overweight", even for a forty-year-old. The only way I could have weighed any less would have been to stop all strenuous exercise and also stop eating. I wonder how many teenagers that chart has driven into anorexia....
Besides, being underweight, I don't buy into it anyway.
Look, we all understand about denial. But this is your health we're talking about; there's no room for self-deception. Now go on. Eat that triple-burger and super-size fries. I know you can do it.
The thing is, couldn't I get a bad name for myself out of this?
Yes. Of course you can also get a "good" name out of it.
I am fine with the entire piece except the line stating that we (the students) suspect a teacher is a pedophile (as explained in one of my other replies). If I push this, could they push back?
Yes, but this is why you would need to contact an attorney first. I can't speak for Australian law, but here in the US, it would depend on how it was worded. If the statement was accusatory, you could be held for libel. If it merely stated what the public opinion was, you could show that you weren't accusing the teacher of being a pedophile, but you were instead stating the opinion (and fears) of some of the students. However, you could still be taken to court over the statement. This is why you need a lawyer involved. If they choose to take you to court, the lawyer would be the most effective at arguing that your statement was not really libel.
I your case, it might be better to avoid recognition and whisper into the right persons ears all the true infractions committed by the school (like for example hiring uncertified teachers).
Sensors have been added to warn school officials if the students' pants are being worn too low.,
Hmmm, I think any invasion of privacy such as _that_ would be a benefit to society. I've noticed that the vast majority of the teenage females who are wearing their trousers the lowest are generally the ones who shouldn't be wearing any low-cut style at all. When you have fat rolls hanging out the top of your britches, or bending over makes sure everybody around you gets a closeup view of the moon, it's time to either lose weight or look for a more flattering style.
I'm in a class of about 75 students and the professor calls out roll EVERY class.
Is this college? If so, this is taking the nanny-effect to an unprecedented level. Even though I haven't been in college in many years, I still believe it ought to be the student's choice on whether to attend the lectures. From personal experience, I have found that skipping lectures is a very bad idea, but it's completely unacceptable to waste the time of 75 students who paid good money for the class just so that you can make examples of the one or two who don't want to attend. In most cases, the difference will show up on their test scores. And if it doesn't, then as a teacher why would you care? The student obviously learned what they were supposed to.
Yes there would be an initial bit of stockpiling until people got used to the idea.
You know, up until about 20 years ago, there were people alive who would keep their money in their mattresses because of their experience during the Great Depression. If those people were still alive today, they would _still_ be doing the same thing. Once you have experienced real scarcity (not artificial) of something you need to live, it's really hard to go back.
I've always wondered which criteria made(like violent crimes or not) meant how much more of the original sentence had been served before parole.
I can't say for sure about the which criteria of the crime make a difference. Sometimes the "eligibility for parole" is set during sentencing. Maybe the behavior of the defendant in the courtroom (and their perceived level of remorse) makes a difference. I _do_ know that behavior in prison makes a difference, but I don't know if that will get parole before the eligibility date stated in the sentencing. In my previous example, there was no stated eligibility date for parole given during sentencing. I think the factors that mattered were that the crime was committed by a woman (sorry to be gender-biased, but it seems to be the truth in this case), and that she had been drug-free and involved in all kinds of rehabilitation programs during her prison term. I'm not sure what happened with her husband, who was named as an accomplice after the fact. He cleaned and hid the gun after the murder.
Having said that, 20 years is by far too much for something like this. Some murders don't do this.
And most likely the final sentence (as was already stated) will not be twenty years. If you want to compare to murder, since we only have the maximum sentence for these crimes, we'll have to compare to the maximum sentence for murder. Speaking from the experience of a member of my family who was shot in their home by a thief trying to pay for their drug habit, the list of charges were (roughly): breaking and entering, illegal possession of a concealed weapon without license, possession controlled substances, theft, and felony murder. The perpetrator received a life sentence, and was released from prison on parole after less than ten years. I would imagine that even if the maximum sentence is given, the perpetrators will be eligible for parole in five years or less.
And today, it will get you 20 years in jail????? Lord, the terrorists have won when we now have zero tolerance for things.
This has absolutely _nothing_ to do with terrorism or our response to it, and you know it. As has already been stated, the twenty years quoted is the _maximum_ cumulative penalty for all of the charges. The actual sentencing will almost certainly be significantly less than twenty years. If not, _then_ you can go screaming about us bowing to the terrorists.
Truly this is fixing a swiss watch with a sledge hammer, wrong tool for the job at hand.
Not it's not. This is the way that the law has worked for years. The prosecution comes up with a long list of charges, and between the jury and the judge (with help from the defense attorneys), many of the charges are dropped from the list. Then the jury and judge take what's left and decide on an appropriate sentence. After that, the case may be appealed to a higher court, whereby additional charges may be dropped and/or sentencing may be reduced. It has been like this for many years; there have been no significant changes to this part of the process recently.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to look at what's probably going to happen. This FUD, if public enough, may cause Netflix stock to drop. This represents an opportunity for traders with a short position to cover by buying at a lower price. This also represents an opportunity for people who want to buy stock to do so at a lower price. The next expectation is that when the world realizes this is no big deal for Netflix, the stock will rise again and all those who bought low will have earned something on their investment.
Maybe you think that the suggestion was for the short-sellers to short some more at the lower price? That, indeed, would be an unwise move.
I actually already answered that in another post. Bottom line: Guantanamo Bay is definitely not the same as a WWII-style concentration camp (although it _may_ qualify for meeting the standard definition for concentration camp), but it bears some disturbing similarities that should not be ignored. Most importantly, the lack of any due process to determine guilt or innocence, and the failure to provide any expected timeframe for incarceration.
What I really wonder is how much of this stuff that we never heard about has gone on for decades. I think from your point of view there is the possibility that we are being conditioned to accept it so that it can eventually be taken to a whole new level. Correct me if I'm wrong -- I don't want to put words in your mouth. I personally think that the media has just become more interested in reporting these kinds of things than in the past, but I may be wrong.
One thing of potential interest... if you weren't already aware, you might find it intriguing to know that the US really _has_ been guilty of concentration camps in the past. During WWII, "internment" camps were set up for Japanese living in the US, primarily as a response to the Japanese engagement in Pearl Harbor. The reason provided for this was the protection of the Japanese, but it was equally because Americas were afraid of the Japanese. For the most part, inhabitants of these internment camps were not purposely mistreated (as was the case in the concentration camps in Germany), but they were given very little time to evacuate their homes, and "internment" life was extremely hard for them. They were, for all intents and purposes, prisoners. I personally see this act as far worse than anything Guantanamo has to offer. Families were separated. The belongings they were allowed to carry with them were few. And you can only imagine what happened to anything they had to leave behind.
Next time you offer advice, it would be best to avoid posting as an AC. Doing so makes it difficult to have a discussion.
First off, I lean right, not left. Second off, I don't see Gitmo as a concentration camp. You and I both know that there are huge differences between today's Guantanamo and concentration camps of WWII, most notably the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in Guantanamo were rounded up from the battlefield, whereas the vast majority of people in concentration camps in WWII were, well, rounded up from everyday civilian life. The next notable difference is that even though there are efforts at Guantanamo to intimidate and pressure the prisoners into complying and providing intelligence information, they are not in general denied basic necessities of life. The same cannot be said of concentration camps. However the two bear some important similarities that cannot be dismissed, most notably the fact that for those incarcerated there, there is little or no due process involved to determine their guilt or innocence, and little or no indication of how much longer they get to remain there. And I would also not be surprised at all to discover that there are innocent people currently held at Guantanamo. And this is part of what was triggering the poster that I replied to. It's also why I refuse to use terms like "detainees". When you are detained, it's usually for a few hours or a few days -- not years. Guilty or innocent, the people in Guantanamo are prisoners, pure and simple.
All I did was frame my reply in the context of the post to which I was replying, which was the best way to begin a reasonable discussion with somebody who is coming from a different viewpoint as yourself. In the future, if you want to give advice that you want to be taken seriously, I would recommend that you reply to the post that originally started what you consider to be overly dramatic. That way you avoid spoiling what might otherwise turn into a reasoned discussion.
Aside from the fact that Gitmo is similar to a concentration camp, what did you read in the article that leads you to that point of view? As others have mentioned, glancing at the diff doesn't seem to produce any truly "damning" evidence. The real tragedy is not the way the SOP dictates that the prisoners (I won't stoop to calling them the PC detainees) be treated, but that they have spent so much time incarcerated without a trial. I'll admit I didn't got through the entire diff file in detail, but maybe you can save the rest of us the trouble by being more specific about what little hints you see that indicate that the frog is in the pot and the temperature is slowly rising. Or are you just meaning that Guantanamo (in general) in combination with the other stuff you mentioned (which is unrelated to the SOP) is the sign that the dial on the stove is slowly being turned?
Let's look at the list... "sexual orientation, mental & physical health as well as credit history and 'personality conflict'". To me, this seems to be a list of subjects that people are likely to be sensitive about. Not that I support this invasion of privacy, but if you are going to set your employees up for full background checks, it makes sense to list very clearly most of the things people are likely to be less comfortable revealing to make sure that nobody can say afterwards "I _never_ thought you'd delve into my personal life like that" and then try to sue you. After reading the article, I'm unable to draw any conclusion that they were trying to single out people for their sexual orientation.
It makes you wonder how it survived both the firehose and the editor, doesn't it?
Agreed. Maybe we'll get some responses from Israel tomorrow.
Sorry, but I'm really not sure what you are talking about. If a member of the government (or a paid member of the media) makes statements about another government member in the media that are completely false, they are guilty of either slander or libel and can therefore be sued. If you see political candidates making seemingly untrue claims about each other without any lawsuit following, it's because a) there is some element of truth to the claim, b) the "victim" is reserving the right to use the same tactic on his opponent or c) the "victim" is trying to avoid the Streisand effect.
Before we go down this road, it would be helpful to know a little more about relevant laws in Israel. The article indicates that the judge made it clear to Google that it seemed to be a case of criminal activity. Google "took the hint" and provided the information. Without knowing what the law in Israel says about disclosing this type of information during this stage of a court case, it's difficult for us to comment on it.
So, can anybody in Israel with legal knowledge comment?
Questioning the government and making false accusations against specific members of the government are two very different things.
Could you describe what, exactly, the European brands have to offer that solves our problem? Somehow, I don't think paying a whopping premium to call a mobile number from my landline is a solution. If that happens, I'll just stop calling mobile numbers altogether. I'm perfectly happy with T-Mobile except for the lack of a PDA-phone that performs well enough to make it usable, and the lack of UMTS. Both of those are supposed to be fixed early next year. I'd like to see any European plan that provides me with 700+ minutes of unlimited calling and a data plan for two PDA phones at less than $100 per month.
I'm not taunting you or trying to argue. I just really want to know what it is the European competition offers that I'm missing.
Please post your experience with other VoIP companies that compete against Vonage in this thread.
I seriously hope you're joking. The cost for unlimited local-only POTS service (with Verizon, ha ha) is $5 more than what Vonage charges for their premium residential plan, which includes unlimited calling to anywhere in the US and Canada. If I had to tack on a cheap long distance service, my costs would be an additional $30 per month (all my family lives out of state). Add to that Verizon's nutty ideas of what constitutes a local call, and there'll be an addition $10 per month in "regional toll" charges. That means I'd be paying $45 per month more if I went that route. I'd be better off getting their freedom unlimited plan. Oh, and I spend a couple hours a week on the phone with people in Germany. Vonage is only $.04/minute. How much would that be with Verizon?
Sorry, but there's no way shape or form that one of the local monopoly POTS services is going to be within a few dollars of what Vonage customers are paying now. Nobody would have ever switched from their regional incumbent monopoly unless they had significant reason to do so. There was an element of risk involved in trying out VoIP that required sufficient financial incentive to overcome.
This isn't about anybody painting themselves as a martyr, and as mentioned by Elemenope, it's not about PR. It's about having a little compassion. There needs to be a human element involved. Should "single mom" see disciplinary action? Absolutely. But any HUMAN on the legal team for the RIAA would at least have SOME consideration for the consequential impact of the judgment. If there's an appeal, hopefully there will be a settlement that involves a much more reasonable figure. They could even seal the terms of the settlement so that they can still look "tough".
I don't think the point was that only the privileged make it to college. I think the point was that there happen to be a lot of privileged kids at college using P2P to violate copyright that are far better off financially than "single mom". The less financially privileged students usually can't be bothered with sharing music and videos. They're way too busy making the best of the opportunity that they have (i.e., studying).
This is an important point. Every laptop I've ever owned has been significantly warmer when plugged in and charging the battery. In this mode, you get not only the heat from the circuits and chips inside the computer, but also the heat from energy that is "wasted" during the charge cycle. If you're using your laptop as a slightly portable desktop replacement, you should note that many laptops (but not all) will run fine if they are missing the battery but connected to AC power. This configuration might help minimize problems with burned legs and infertility.
I know what you mean. When I was in junior in college, I was in absolutely fantastic shape. And yet according to that stupid BMI chart, I would have still been classified as "overweight", even for a forty-year-old. The only way I could have weighed any less would have been to stop all strenuous exercise and also stop eating. I wonder how many teenagers that chart has driven into anorexia....
Look, we all understand about denial. But this is your health we're talking about; there's no room for self-deception. Now go on. Eat that triple-burger and super-size fries. I know you can do it.
Yes. Of course you can also get a "good" name out of it.
Yes, but this is why you would need to contact an attorney first. I can't speak for Australian law, but here in the US, it would depend on how it was worded. If the statement was accusatory, you could be held for libel. If it merely stated what the public opinion was, you could show that you weren't accusing the teacher of being a pedophile, but you were instead stating the opinion (and fears) of some of the students. However, you could still be taken to court over the statement. This is why you need a lawyer involved. If they choose to take you to court, the lawyer would be the most effective at arguing that your statement was not really libel.
I your case, it might be better to avoid recognition and whisper into the right persons ears all the true infractions committed by the school (like for example hiring uncertified teachers).
Hmmm, I think any invasion of privacy such as _that_ would be a benefit to society. I've noticed that the vast majority of the teenage females who are wearing their trousers the lowest are generally the ones who shouldn't be wearing any low-cut style at all. When you have fat rolls hanging out the top of your britches, or bending over makes sure everybody around you gets a closeup view of the moon, it's time to either lose weight or look for a more flattering style.
Is this college? If so, this is taking the nanny-effect to an unprecedented level. Even though I haven't been in college in many years, I still believe it ought to be the student's choice on whether to attend the lectures. From personal experience, I have found that skipping lectures is a very bad idea, but it's completely unacceptable to waste the time of 75 students who paid good money for the class just so that you can make examples of the one or two who don't want to attend. In most cases, the difference will show up on their test scores. And if it doesn't, then as a teacher why would you care? The student obviously learned what they were supposed to.
You know, up until about 20 years ago, there were people alive who would keep their money in their mattresses because of their experience during the Great Depression. If those people were still alive today, they would _still_ be doing the same thing. Once you have experienced real scarcity (not artificial) of something you need to live, it's really hard to go back.
I can't say for sure about the which criteria of the crime make a difference. Sometimes the "eligibility for parole" is set during sentencing. Maybe the behavior of the defendant in the courtroom (and their perceived level of remorse) makes a difference. I _do_ know that behavior in prison makes a difference, but I don't know if that will get parole before the eligibility date stated in the sentencing. In my previous example, there was no stated eligibility date for parole given during sentencing. I think the factors that mattered were that the crime was committed by a woman (sorry to be gender-biased, but it seems to be the truth in this case), and that she had been drug-free and involved in all kinds of rehabilitation programs during her prison term. I'm not sure what happened with her husband, who was named as an accomplice after the fact. He cleaned and hid the gun after the murder.
And most likely the final sentence (as was already stated) will not be twenty years. If you want to compare to murder, since we only have the maximum sentence for these crimes, we'll have to compare to the maximum sentence for murder. Speaking from the experience of a member of my family who was shot in their home by a thief trying to pay for their drug habit, the list of charges were (roughly): breaking and entering, illegal possession of a concealed weapon without license, possession controlled substances, theft, and felony murder. The perpetrator received a life sentence, and was released from prison on parole after less than ten years. I would imagine that even if the maximum sentence is given, the perpetrators will be eligible for parole in five years or less.
This has absolutely _nothing_ to do with terrorism or our response to it, and you know it. As has already been stated, the twenty years quoted is the _maximum_ cumulative penalty for all of the charges. The actual sentencing will almost certainly be significantly less than twenty years. If not, _then_ you can go screaming about us bowing to the terrorists.
Not it's not. This is the way that the law has worked for years. The prosecution comes up with a long list of charges, and between the jury and the judge (with help from the defense attorneys), many of the charges are dropped from the list. Then the jury and judge take what's left and decide on an appropriate sentence. After that, the case may be appealed to a higher court, whereby additional charges may be dropped and/or sentencing may be reduced. It has been like this for many years; there have been no significant changes to this part of the process recently.