Really? Living in the heart of the southwest, this is the first I've heard of that. Guess I should brush up my high school Spanish and read the Mexican constitution one of these days then, eh?

Being as there is a deterministic hardware state machine that successfully executes the instruction sequence that you're interested in disassembling, I'd have to disagree with your assertion that "not all programs can be successfully dis-assembled.". If the processor can execute it, the code can be disassembled.

Relationships don't have to be violent to be terribly degrading...
Seventh grade doesn't have to be violent to be terribly degrading....
Work doesn't have to be violent to be terribly degrading...

If "terribly degrading" is your definition of rape, it's a crime far more prevalent than ever before thought.

Well, as an expert in the field, I have to say that you've taken way too many internet postings as gospel.

This contest will be won quickly and easily. /frank

How soon we forget Jose Padilla. No, he didn't go to Gitmo, but did get arrested in the US and was held in military custody for 3 years while being subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques", all because Pres. Bush called him a name - "enemy combatant". And multiple federal courts held that this was both legal and constitutional. Because the Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal, this is currently the law of the land.

Exactly correct, and why I hate the concept of drones (or other pilotless aircraft) in our airspace - they violate that prime directive of VFR flying, "See and be seen". An RPV or drone simply can't scan the sky for other aircraft, and frankly have a lot less to lose from not seeing another aircraft than a manned plane.

Having read TFA, there is precisely zero evidence to support this statement. Simply a restatement of the current mythology surrounding diet and weight.

Haven't traveled the highways around the Mexican border recently, have you?

So, when does this technique get declared illegal, like all drug-based methods of altering mental states (other than alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine)?

There is no ambiguity in the USB spec, and Sarah has an incorrect interpretation. The spec requires that the host provide at least 10 ms of recovery time coming out of suspend; a device is required to be able to communicate after this minimum time. Any device which isn't ready for communications after 10 ms of resume recovery time is broken. A host is permitted to provide more than this, but isn't required to.

So, yes, it's perfectly valid for the host to blindly attempt to communicate with the device after 10 ms - presuming that the host KNOWS precisely when the recovery period began. If the host requested that the bus resume, set a timer for 10 ms, and then tried talking, the HOST is at fault because it didn't check with the hardware as to when the resume period began. I think the 17 ms that they reference in the article is related to this - there is a delay between the request to resume the bus and the actual time that the hardware does resume the bus, so they were trying to talk with devices before the 10 ms period was up.

The device is perfectly within the spec if it ignores communications prior to 10 ms, or if it responds to them - it has complete flexibility. After 10 ms, however, it MUST be ready to communicate.

In the SPEC, devices are required to treat it as a maximum and the host is required to treat it as a minimum. Any device which isn't ready for communications after 10 ms are broken, and any host that attempts communications before 10 ms is broken. This isn't an area of the spec that's in any way vague.

Not if the hardware is composed of a microprocessor, and the hardware holds the CPU in reset for 2 ms waiting for the crystal to stabilize before letting it run.

The 10 ms is for the DEVICE to get it's shit together. Coming out of suspend, the host starts sending SOF's, and must not send anything else to the device for 10 ms. The DEVICE is required to be ready for communications from the host after this 10 ms period.

No need to be an "avowed atheist", whatever that is. You simply have to be unable to agree to their "Statement of Religious principle" on your application, and/or be unable to agree with the Scout Oath: "On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country". You don't have to be in active opposition to religion to be unwelcome - you simply have to be a man of principles who won't swear to something you don't believe in. Agnostic, Atheist, violent anti-religious nutcase, all are equally unwelcome if they aren't silent about their lack of faith.

I've had leaders counsel me to "just sign the papers, nobody checks". But I ask them, if the oath was reversed and asked you to swear that you DIDN'T believe in GOD, and WOULDN'T perform any service to God in your life outside Scouts, would you take it?

Someday, the blatant discrimination of "The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God" will be recognized as the brain-dead bigotry it is. Frankly, I find this statement to be as offensive as anything said of homosexuals - it states clearly and unambiguously that I cannot the "best kind of citizen", that I am somehow lesser than someone who recognizes "an obligation to God". Not being the "best kind of citizen", am I to be regarded suspiciously?

And I've never understood how they are able to bend their statements to include Buddhists and Hindus. That's an enormous challenge.

Frankly, I AM the kind of person that the Boy Scouts NEEDS, regardless of my religious predilections. I AM the best kind of citizen, and their blind hatred keeps them from seeing that. So, I will take from the organization what they will give to my son, without being allowed to give back. And they will be the lesser for it.

It doesn't? The gay scouts who were proud members of the organization might feel differently - their work from within brought about the changes that now allow them to be accepted in the organization.