Gun free zones are free killing zones. Every mass shooting I can recall, except one, happened in a gun free zone. [...] When armed good people are present someone might still get killed but it's also quite certain the murderer will be among the people shot.
The problem with non-uniformed civilians carrying guns is that they cameoflage the bad guys. If you see a person carrying a gun in a place where nobody routinely carries a gun, you call the police because something is wrong. But if lots of people carry guns all the time, you end up either raising a lot of false alarms, or risk allowing a shooter to get to his victims and start shooting before anyone knows to stop him.
IMO if we're going to have people around carrying guns to keep the public safe, those people should be professionally trained and in uniform. That minimizes the "is that armed guy a good guy or a bad guy?" problem.
That's the argument most law inforcement agencies make with regards to arming teachers in schools. If there is a shooting they are trained to take out whomever has a gun in their hand. If they hesitate, people die. So, the armed teacher quickly running out into the hallway to stop the shooter gets shot themself by the very people sent to stop the real shooter. The same is true in most situations where shots are fired. If you have a gun in your hand the police are going to target you, because they don't know any better.
Many people are too young to remember the rash of teenagers shot by police where the kids had "cap" guns that look realistic, produced a pop and had a flash. That's why all of them sold today have those bright red caps on the end of the barrel so the police can tell they are a toy gun.
Those were toy guns and people got shot. Now we have people running around waiving real guns while a gun fight is going on, and acting surprised when their "help" isn't wanted or worse they get arrested or shot.
Problem is that when (not if) a murderer gets inside that gun free zone there is no one that can shoot back. When armed good people are present someone might still get killed but it's also quite certain the murderer will be among the people shot.
You haven't seen Israeli security, have you. They are much better than their US counterparts. Whether their actions are justified or not is open for debate, but nobody in the region questions their effectiveness.
A "gun" could be constructed from tape, a tube (plastic or metal), a rubber band and a push pin, nail or some other hard piece of metal. It only has to work well enough to reliably fire a bullet in the general direction the weapon is pointed. The components could be smuggled through (or can be sourced beyond) virtually any security checkpoint in the world and assembled. Smuggling the bullet would be another matter but I assume that a small.22 calibre could be gotten in disguised as a pen or something.
Very true, but a small.22 calibre gun fashioned as you described isn't very accurate and you have to get very close to your target for it to be effective. Try that design with a.38 calibre slug and you'll probably do more damage to yourself than your target.
Sounds stupid to me. You mean to say that the journalist couldn't have shown that you could smuggle a plastic gun in through security by using, say a water pistol or something? The Israelis are notorius for shoot first as questions later. He's lucky he didn't get shot, unless that was his intention or those in charge new the test was being conducted, which kind of invalidates the test in the first place.
And ARM has one huge advantage over Intel - everybody else except Intel has their own ARM SOC these days, so designers can shop around to get the chip they want, from the supplier they want. And they can easily switch to a different supplier without having to throw out their entire investment into the architecture.
That being said, I cannot see the GPs world where ARM seriously threatens Intel in the server/high performance computing market, where Intel holds most of the cards, not just the aces.
What makes you think that Intel doesn't have ARM designs that they could turn around and Fab? Just because they don't have a commercial product that they sell does not mean they don't have something on the back burner that they could bring to market if they felt the need to do so.
Owning the Fab is a big capital cost and means the beast has to be fed but allows for more late-stage tweaking. Not owning that Fab means potentially more flexibility in choosing a process for the design. Of course ARM ahs to work with it's partners, that doesn't mean it's partners are in-flexible and far from cutting edge.
Seems like no great news, just the same old in-house vs. out-sourced debate...
That is only partially true. Yes owning the Fab is a big capital cost, but Intel Fabs chips for others, too, so that capital cost is borne not only by their products but others, too. In addition, they are not paying the built in profit that would be required if they out-sourced the Fab and finally, they get significant tax write-offs for depreciation. So, yes, there is a big capital cost, but there are also big real world benefits besides being able to have more late-stage tweaking.
So the issue is not who manufacturers where, but who can deliver the microprocessor that a firms need to run what are increasingly embedded devices(which is why the silly argument about 'can I upgrade' is becoming increasingly silly, it's like can I upgrade the inkjet in my printer to a laserjet, no one cares). What is all too soon going to be legacy laptop and desktop may require a traditional processor, it is unclear if Intel can survive in such an environment, while ARM, and maybe to a lesser degree AMD, should thrive.
ARM beats Intel in two areas, power consumption and price and sacrifices raw computing power to achieve it. Intel can easily throttle back any of their chip lines to reduce power consumption and they have so much spread between the selling price and the cost to manufacture that price is not actually a barrier, either.
Intel's biggest problem is the same that IBM had in the 80s and that is with lower end products cutting into profit margins on higher end product lines (the old PC vs Min vs Mainframe). Ultimately, the market will choose the most economical solution, regardless of what is best for the company. So, whether Intel would choses to make those moves (throttle back clocks or reduce price), or chose them in time to make a difference is a whole different discussion, but ultimately if Intel is to survive/thrive or not, it isn't going to be based on the technology involved, but management.
Well, right now that money gets sent right back to the university who uses it to fund more research. Government grants do not go nearly as far as people think.
BU is a private university. State Universities, would include not just the government grant, but all government funding related to the program/project. Of course, I would amend my proposal then and allocate the government return based on the government funding source - federal/state.
Indeed, so we will have to do something with more impact, like not buying any US fighter planes anymore. That JSF is expensive rubbish anyway, so that's a double win for the EU. Bit of course nothing like those will happen. The lap dog will yap a few times, growl a bit and then curl up in the US's lap again.
You might want to be careful about that. If you cut off the US military-industrial complex, they might find another way to secure their funding, like start another needless war. They're already salivating with what's going on in Egypt right now.
If we had this system imagine how well NASA would be funded right now. How much modern infrastructure would not even exist without NASA but all that happens is they get their budget cut. Right now our system has public investment in technology but then private companies keep all the money and charge us for the technology we paid to develop.
Yeah, but why Apple? Then don't make any semiconductors. Isn't payment of patent royalties the responsibility of the manufacturer of the LED's? If not, how can anybody build anything out of parts sourced from other companies? You'd have no way of knowing what patents you were responsible for clearing rights to.
Because patents are about processes and it is illegal to use a patented process without the permission of the patent holder. Apple may not manufacture their own semiconductors, but they specify the design of the semiconductors in their products. Just because they outsource the manufacturing of it doesn't keep them from infringing, or at least being named in the suit (the courts will decide if they infringed or not).
This goes both ways, a view years ago, Apple sued a shit load of people for making unapproved devices for the iPod that simply plugged into the connector. One of Apple's reasons was that the companies were infringing on Apples technology patents, even though those same companies didn't build the semiconductors themselves and only assembled them from existing parts.
So, while I may not agree with what BU is doing, this may be a case of Apple's karma catching up with it (and Amazon's too, for the stupid buy-now patent).
The University failed to defend their patent while all sorts of third parties put the devices into production and sold them openly on the components market world wide. Apple produces nothing. They don't have a single Fab. They buy parts on the open market, and have them delivered to Foxconn.
Open market commodities, uncontested by the claimed patent holder do not become violations simple by being incorporated into a device.
BU manufacturers nothing except lawsuit. Google "patent assertion entities" and learn what trolling is all about.
Apple produces it's own products, as does Amazon. To claim that they aren't infringing, because they outsource the manufacturing is disengenous. Using that analogy, no manufacturer would be liable for patent infringment if they were only assembling components made by others. Maybe Samsung should have used that defense against Apple and challenged Apple's patent because Apple never produced a product so there were no damages to Apple.
It would be better if we adequately taxed corporations to fund this research and then allowed it to be publicly released to all, such that any person who could turn the research into an application could have the opportunity without fear of patent trolls.
But that's just crazy talk afterall. I mean slitting a city/county/state's own fiscal wrists to allow a company to locate themselves there is necessary in this tough economic climate, isn't it?:-P
I've got a better idea. Any products produced with patents/research that were publicly funded have to have the proceeds prorated between the corporate and public contribution with the public portion returned back to the government. If the government paid for 80% of the research, then 80% of the profit goes back to the treasury. If private funds were used, then they can do with it what they want.
Why should the taxpayer pay for the research so that some corporation can charge the consumer/taxpayer back for the product?
Damn, I was subpoenad to testify once and had to cancel a trip to Hawaii. I never heard of once's leisure time taking precedence over the court's schedule. While the theory of remote testimony might work, as evidenced by the problems they had, who can say if and how the jury was influenced? Will they remember what the guy was saying or all the popups and interruptions?
Nice circus, though, with the defense attorney telling lame jokes and laying on the floor one day and skype failures on another. This is a capital murder trial, right?
Under current law, if you saw someone raping a 9 year old and took a photo to send, using the internet, to the police as evidence, you would get longer in prison that the rapist. The world has gone PC mad and does not look like changing.
People keep saying things like this, OMG they are banning the ten commandments in school, PC gone mad!!! OMG the European Union has banned curved bananas, PC gone mad!!! OMG circus performers have to wear hardhats, PC gone mad!!! OMG the Obama administration is planning to set up universal health insurance! COMMUNISM AT THE GATES, ARM YOURSELVES!!!
It usually turns out to be bullshit but perhaps you are right, can you furnish us with a link to something better than a gutter tabloid to back this up?
Universal healthcare would be socialism, not communism. If you are going to rant, you should at least get the terms correct. Then again, ranting without having the courage to use your handle is no better than the origina poster not backing up their claims, either.
Maybe the problem is that most people don't have a real use for a 3D printer and after the novelty wears off, boredom sets in. I mean really, how many 5 inch Yoda head does somebody really need? Now, on the other hand, I know many hobbyists who use 3D printing to make parts for various hobbies they are engaged in that would have used lost wax castings in the past, a milling machine, or some other time consuming or costly process. For these people, 3D printing is a faster, cheaper alternative to the traditional way.
So, yes, 3D printing probably isn't ready for the average consumer. But, that is probably because the average consumer doesn't have much need for 3D printing.
Now I've hand-waved away a lot of multipliers that would actually affect your choice of implementation but the fact stands: no, the encryption cannot be brute-forced with "enough hardware and time."
Just as place enough chimpanzees in front of enough typewriters will eventually yield the complete works of Shakespeare, All encryption can be broken with enough hardware and time. It doesn't mean it is going to be practical, but it is theoretical.
But, he was already outside the United Stated, so what exactly does cancelling his passport do, except make it impossible for him to return to the United States of his own volition?
The extradition provision does not apply, because he is not in any country at the moment. Revoking the passport in that situation is to make it so he can't leave. They should have done that when he was in Hong Kong. However, he never entered Russia, he is in the free zone. He can get on another plane and go to any other country. In that country, he cannot enter, since he does not have a passport, unless the government of that country allows him (asylum).
The actions taken by the state department make no sense given the reality of the situation. Put differently, who exactly is supposed to deport him? He isn't in any country at the moment. Basically, they jumped the gun and have led credence that he is being politically persecuted for being a whistle blower. In doing so, even if Russia won't grant asylum and let him enter, there are many countries who will, if for no other reason so their leader can say they stood up to the US. Don't forget, they revoked his passport after he offered to come back to the US of his own free will.
It states: The principal law enforcement reasons for the U.S. State Department to deny or revoke a passport are the existence of (1) a valid federal or state felony arrest warrant; or (2) a criminal court order, condition of parole or condition of probation that forbids departure from the United States (See 22 C.F.R. 51.60 - 51.62).
Again, the US Government action not only keeps him from leaving the US, of which he is gone and they know it, but now, he cannot return of his own free will because he no longer has a passport. The law in question is meant to keep US citizens who have been accused of a crime from fleeing the country. Revoking one's passport after they have fled doesn't do what the law is intended to do. It does make it so he cannot re-enter the US, but since the US wants him to return it seems unlikely that it was their intention. It also keeps him from entering Russia, since he no longer has a valid passport, unless Russia grants him political asylum, which he has requested. Since he is in international space, any other country can also grant him asylum and let him enter without a passport.
Somebody in the state department thought they were being crafty but actually, they actually gave him more options than he had before (had he been in Russian territory, that would have been different his only options would have been asylum in Russia or for Russia to violate international treaties).
The agency responsible for secrets, the NSA seems to have failed miserable with regards to Snowden and now the agency responsible for diplomacy, the State Department seems to have also. What's next, charge him as a terrorist and anybody who aids him we invade? The US is quickly escalating this into a international incident which will not bode well for anybody, especially the US. All to cover up our secret spy ring that everybody but the American public already new about.
ALL deaths are caused by heart failure. That is THE DEFINITION of when death occurs. Doesn't matter if your if your head gets chopped off, you're alive until your heart fails.
Death is defined as the cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing.
A stopped heart does not mean one is dead, nor does stopped breathing (although they may indicate death). Likewise, somebody may have no brain activity but their heart keeps beating. During open heart surgery, your heart is intentionally stopped and you are placed on a bypass machine, yet you are not considered dead.
In short, as the definition says, death is the cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity, and breathing.
But we don't have joints designed for cats and camels. Probably if you put shoes on cats and camels, they would have problems with their joints, too, regardless of how much more efficient their lower limbs are.
Millions of years of evolution developed our knees to be what worked best for humans. Then in the past 1,000 years or so, shoes have changed the stresses applied to our knees so that today, we exceed the design specification and they fail.
Is the fault in the design or is the fault in us trying to do something the design was never intended to accomplish? I've saw a kid on PCP once jump off a thirty foot wall, bust his legs and tendons and get up and somehow run (doing even more damage). I wouldn't call that a design flaw, because he obviously exceeded the capacity for his legs to absorbed the impact as designed by nature. Likewise, by binding are feet into shoes and changing how we walk/run, do we not do the same thing? And if so, is it no wonder that our knees go bad?
Slashdot Mirror
Gun free zones are free killing zones. Every mass shooting I can recall, except one, happened in a gun free zone. [...] When armed good people are present someone might still get killed but it's also quite certain the murderer will be among the people shot.
The problem with non-uniformed civilians carrying guns is that they cameoflage the bad guys. If you see a person carrying a gun in a place where nobody routinely carries a gun, you call the police because something is wrong. But if lots of people carry guns all the time, you end up either raising a lot of false alarms, or risk allowing a shooter to get to his victims and start shooting before anyone knows to stop him.
IMO if we're going to have people around carrying guns to keep the public safe, those people should be professionally trained and in uniform. That minimizes the "is that armed guy a good guy or a bad guy?" problem.
That's the argument most law inforcement agencies make with regards to arming teachers in schools. If there is a shooting they are trained to take out whomever has a gun in their hand. If they hesitate, people die. So, the armed teacher quickly running out into the hallway to stop the shooter gets shot themself by the very people sent to stop the real shooter. The same is true in most situations where shots are fired. If you have a gun in your hand the police are going to target you, because they don't know any better.
Many people are too young to remember the rash of teenagers shot by police where the kids had "cap" guns that look realistic, produced a pop and had a flash. That's why all of them sold today have those bright red caps on the end of the barrel so the police can tell they are a toy gun.
Those were toy guns and people got shot. Now we have people running around waiving real guns while a gun fight is going on, and acting surprised when their "help" isn't wanted or worse they get arrested or shot.
Problem is that when (not if) a murderer gets inside that gun free zone there is no one that can shoot back. When armed good people are present someone might still get killed but it's also quite certain the murderer will be among the people shot.
You haven't seen Israeli security, have you. They are much better than their US counterparts. Whether their actions are justified or not is open for debate, but nobody in the region questions their effectiveness.
A "gun" could be constructed from tape, a tube (plastic or metal), a rubber band and a push pin, nail or some other hard piece of metal. It only has to work well enough to reliably fire a bullet in the general direction the weapon is pointed. The components could be smuggled through (or can be sourced beyond) virtually any security checkpoint in the world and assembled. Smuggling the bullet would be another matter but I assume that a small .22 calibre could be gotten in disguised as a pen or something.
Very true, but a small .22 calibre gun fashioned as you described isn't very accurate and you have to get very close to your target for it to be effective. Try that design with a .38 calibre slug and you'll probably do more damage to yourself than your target.
Sounds stupid to me. You mean to say that the journalist couldn't have shown that you could smuggle a plastic gun in through security by using, say a water pistol or something? The Israelis are notorius for shoot first as questions later. He's lucky he didn't get shot, unless that was his intention or those in charge new the test was being conducted, which kind of invalidates the test in the first place.
And ARM has one huge advantage over Intel - everybody else except Intel has their own ARM SOC these days, so designers can shop around to get the chip they want, from the supplier they want. And they can easily switch to a different supplier without having to throw out their entire investment into the architecture.
That being said, I cannot see the GPs world where ARM seriously threatens Intel in the server/high performance computing market, where Intel holds most of the cards, not just the aces.
What makes you think that Intel doesn't have ARM designs that they could turn around and Fab? Just because they don't have a commercial product that they sell does not mean they don't have something on the back burner that they could bring to market if they felt the need to do so.
Owning the Fab is a big capital cost and means the beast has to be fed but allows for more late-stage tweaking. Not owning that Fab means potentially more flexibility in choosing a process for the design. Of course ARM ahs to work with it's partners, that doesn't mean it's partners are in-flexible and far from cutting edge.
Seems like no great news, just the same old in-house vs. out-sourced debate...
That is only partially true. Yes owning the Fab is a big capital cost, but Intel Fabs chips for others, too, so that capital cost is borne not only by their products but others, too. In addition, they are not paying the built in profit that would be required if they out-sourced the Fab and finally, they get significant tax write-offs for depreciation. So, yes, there is a big capital cost, but there are also big real world benefits besides being able to have more late-stage tweaking.
So the issue is not who manufacturers where, but who can deliver the microprocessor that a firms need to run what are increasingly embedded devices(which is why the silly argument about 'can I upgrade' is becoming increasingly silly, it's like can I upgrade the inkjet in my printer to a laserjet, no one cares). What is all too soon going to be legacy laptop and desktop may require a traditional processor, it is unclear if Intel can survive in such an environment, while ARM, and maybe to a lesser degree AMD, should thrive.
ARM beats Intel in two areas, power consumption and price and sacrifices raw computing power to achieve it. Intel can easily throttle back any of their chip lines to reduce power consumption and they have so much spread between the selling price and the cost to manufacture that price is not actually a barrier, either.
Intel's biggest problem is the same that IBM had in the 80s and that is with lower end products cutting into profit margins on higher end product lines (the old PC vs Min vs Mainframe). Ultimately, the market will choose the most economical solution, regardless of what is best for the company. So, whether Intel would choses to make those moves (throttle back clocks or reduce price), or chose them in time to make a difference is a whole different discussion, but ultimately if Intel is to survive/thrive or not, it isn't going to be based on the technology involved, but management.
Well, right now that money gets sent right back to the university who uses it to fund more research. Government grants do not go nearly as far as people think.
BU is a private university. State Universities, would include not just the government grant, but all government funding related to the program/project. Of course, I would amend my proposal then and allocate the government return based on the government funding source - federal/state.
Indeed, so we will have to do something with more impact, like not buying any US fighter planes anymore. That JSF is expensive rubbish anyway, so that's a double win for the EU. Bit of course nothing like those will happen. The lap dog will yap a few times, growl a bit and then curl up in the US's lap again.
You might want to be careful about that. If you cut off the US military-industrial complex, they might find another way to secure their funding, like start another needless war. They're already salivating with what's going on in Egypt right now.
If we had this system imagine how well NASA would be funded right now. How much modern infrastructure would not even exist without NASA but all that happens is they get their budget cut. Right now our system has public investment in technology but then private companies keep all the money and charge us for the technology we paid to develop.
My point exactly.
Evidently, the US doesn't need the data sharing agreements. They seem to be pretty good at getting the data they want with or without any agreements.
Yeah, but why Apple? Then don't make any semiconductors. Isn't payment of patent royalties the responsibility of the manufacturer of the LED's? If not, how can anybody build anything out of parts sourced from other companies? You'd have no way of knowing what patents you were responsible for clearing rights to.
Because patents are about processes and it is illegal to use a patented process without the permission of the patent holder. Apple may not manufacture their own semiconductors, but they specify the design of the semiconductors in their products. Just because they outsource the manufacturing of it doesn't keep them from infringing, or at least being named in the suit (the courts will decide if they infringed or not).
This goes both ways, a view years ago, Apple sued a shit load of people for making unapproved devices for the iPod that simply plugged into the connector. One of Apple's reasons was that the companies were infringing on Apples technology patents, even though those same companies didn't build the semiconductors themselves and only assembled them from existing parts.
So, while I may not agree with what BU is doing, this may be a case of Apple's karma catching up with it (and Amazon's too, for the stupid buy-now patent).
The University failed to defend their patent while all sorts of third parties put the devices into production and sold them openly on the components market world wide. Apple produces nothing. They don't have a single Fab. They buy parts on the open market, and have them delivered to Foxconn.
Open market commodities, uncontested by the claimed patent holder do not become violations simple by being incorporated into a device.
BU manufacturers nothing except lawsuit. Google "patent assertion entities" and learn what trolling is all about.
Apple produces it's own products, as does Amazon. To claim that they aren't infringing, because they outsource the manufacturing is disengenous. Using that analogy, no manufacturer would be liable for patent infringment if they were only assembling components made by others. Maybe Samsung should have used that defense against Apple and challenged Apple's patent because Apple never produced a product so there were no damages to Apple.
It would be better if we adequately taxed corporations to fund this research and then allowed it to be publicly released to all, such that any person who could turn the research into an application could have the opportunity without fear of patent trolls.
But that's just crazy talk afterall. I mean slitting a city/county/state's own fiscal wrists to allow a company to locate themselves there is necessary in this tough economic climate, isn't it? :-P
I've got a better idea. Any products produced with patents/research that were publicly funded have to have the proceeds prorated between the corporate and public contribution with the public portion returned back to the government. If the government paid for 80% of the research, then 80% of the profit goes back to the treasury. If private funds were used, then they can do with it what they want.
Why should the taxpayer pay for the research so that some corporation can charge the consumer/taxpayer back for the product?
Damn, I was subpoenad to testify once and had to cancel a trip to Hawaii. I never heard of once's leisure time taking precedence over the court's schedule. While the theory of remote testimony might work, as evidenced by the problems they had, who can say if and how the jury was influenced? Will they remember what the guy was saying or all the popups and interruptions?
Nice circus, though, with the defense attorney telling lame jokes and laying on the floor one day and skype failures on another. This is a capital murder trial, right?
You left out Microsoft, Apple and Ubuntu from your list! :)
Under current law, if you saw someone raping a 9 year old and took a photo to send, using the internet, to the police as evidence, you would get longer in prison that the rapist. The world has gone PC mad and does not look like changing.
People keep saying things like this, OMG they are banning the ten commandments in school, PC gone mad!!! OMG the European Union has banned curved bananas, PC gone mad!!! OMG circus performers have to wear hardhats, PC gone mad!!! OMG the Obama administration is planning to set up universal health insurance! COMMUNISM AT THE GATES, ARM YOURSELVES!!!
It usually turns out to be bullshit but perhaps you are right, can you furnish us with a link to something better than a gutter tabloid to back this up?
Universal healthcare would be socialism, not communism. If you are going to rant, you should at least get the terms correct. Then again, ranting without having the courage to use your handle is no better than the origina poster not backing up their claims, either.
Maybe the problem is that most people don't have a real use for a 3D printer and after the novelty wears off, boredom sets in. I mean really, how many 5 inch Yoda head does somebody really need? Now, on the other hand, I know many hobbyists who use 3D printing to make parts for various hobbies they are engaged in that would have used lost wax castings in the past, a milling machine, or some other time consuming or costly process. For these people, 3D printing is a faster, cheaper alternative to the traditional way.
So, yes, 3D printing probably isn't ready for the average consumer. But, that is probably because the average consumer doesn't have much need for 3D printing.
Now I've hand-waved away a lot of multipliers that would actually affect your choice of implementation but the fact stands: no, the encryption cannot be brute-forced with "enough hardware and time."
Just as place enough chimpanzees in front of enough typewriters will eventually yield the complete works of Shakespeare, All encryption can be broken with enough hardware and time. It doesn't mean it is going to be practical, but it is theoretical.
Based on your post, it sounds like Xfce doesn't fit your needs either. Otherwise, why try and make it look and act like a Chromebook?
But, he was already outside the United Stated, so what exactly does cancelling his passport do, except make it impossible for him to return to the United States of his own volition?
The extradition provision does not apply, because he is not in any country at the moment. Revoking the passport in that situation is to make it so he can't leave. They should have done that when he was in Hong Kong. However, he never entered Russia, he is in the free zone. He can get on another plane and go to any other country. In that country, he cannot enter, since he does not have a passport, unless the government of that country allows him (asylum).
The actions taken by the state department make no sense given the reality of the situation. Put differently, who exactly is supposed to deport him? He isn't in any country at the moment. Basically, they jumped the gun and have led credence that he is being politically persecuted for being a whistle blower. In doing so, even if Russia won't grant asylum and let him enter, there are many countries who will, if for no other reason so their leader can say they stood up to the US. Don't forget, they revoked his passport after he offered to come back to the US of his own free will.
But that document doesn't say that.
It states: The principal law enforcement reasons for the U.S. State Department to deny or revoke a
passport are the existence of (1) a valid federal or state felony arrest warrant; or (2) a criminal court order, condition of parole or condition of probation that forbids departure from the United States (See 22 C.F.R. 51.60 - 51.62).
Again, the US Government action not only keeps him from leaving the US, of which he is gone and they know it, but now, he cannot return of his own free will because he no longer has a passport. The law in question is meant to keep US citizens who have been accused of a crime from fleeing the country. Revoking one's passport after they have fled doesn't do what the law is intended to do. It does make it so he cannot re-enter the US, but since the US wants him to return it seems unlikely that it was their intention. It also keeps him from entering Russia, since he no longer has a valid passport, unless Russia grants him political asylum, which he has requested. Since he is in international space, any other country can also grant him asylum and let him enter without a passport.
Somebody in the state department thought they were being crafty but actually, they actually gave him more options than he had before (had he been in Russian territory, that would have been different his only options would have been asylum in Russia or for Russia to violate international treaties).
The agency responsible for secrets, the NSA seems to have failed miserable with regards to Snowden and now the agency responsible for diplomacy, the State Department seems to have also. What's next, charge him as a terrorist and anybody who aids him we invade? The US is quickly escalating this into a international incident which will not bode well for anybody, especially the US. All to cover up our secret spy ring that everybody but the American public already new about.
...
ALL deaths are caused by heart failure. That is THE DEFINITION of when death occurs. Doesn't matter if your if your head gets chopped off, you're alive until your heart fails.
Death is defined as the cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing.
A stopped heart does not mean one is dead, nor does stopped breathing (although they may indicate death). Likewise, somebody may have no brain activity but their heart keeps beating. During open heart surgery, your heart is intentionally stopped and you are placed on a bypass machine, yet you are not considered dead.
In short, as the definition says, death is the cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity, and breathing.
Or like a terrible pump design. Intelligent design my ass, more like idiotic design.
A truly intelligent design would have built-in redundancy in case the main pump fails.
We've got two eyes, two ears, two lungs, two kidneys ... why not two hearts?
Because then we would all be Time Lords and have our own Tardis.
But we don't have joints designed for cats and camels. Probably if you put shoes on cats and camels, they would have problems with their joints, too, regardless of how much more efficient their lower limbs are.
Millions of years of evolution developed our knees to be what worked best for humans. Then in the past 1,000 years or so, shoes have changed the stresses applied to our knees so that today, we exceed the design specification and they fail.
Is the fault in the design or is the fault in us trying to do something the design was never intended to accomplish? I've saw a kid on PCP once jump off a thirty foot wall, bust his legs and tendons and get up and somehow run (doing even more damage). I wouldn't call that a design flaw, because he obviously exceeded the capacity for his legs to absorbed the impact as designed by nature. Likewise, by binding are feet into shoes and changing how we walk/run, do we not do the same thing? And if so, is it no wonder that our knees go bad?