See Hobson's Choice.

By the fact that his passport was revoked while transiting Russia, Snowden's choice went from "which country do I seek asylum in" to "do I seek asylum in Russia or not at all?"

(perhaps he could still have got himself smuggled out in a diplomatic bag or some other James Bond shenanigans, but considering the Evo Morales grounding incident, that might not have worked out so well)

Ah yes, "customer rights", we have dismissed that claim.

The whole premise of "don't talk to the cops" is one of risk management. Don't be confrontational, don't try to outwit them in an argument, don't show off how smart (you think) you are, etc. Be nice, be meek, be quiet. You lose nothing if the cop is a good cop and you reduce the risk of losing everything if the cop is a bad cop. Leave the lion-handling to the experts, i.e. your laywer, who isn't you, who can say things you can't, and who hopefully has many years of experience in knowing how to negotiate with the police.

Obviously (well, hopefully) your kid running away or your house getting burgled are situations where "call the cops" trumps "don't talk to the cops". YMMV.

I've a couple of friends who are cops. It's not (generally) that dangerous physically, compared to some jobs, but it is dangerous mentally - a few years of being a cop and the world starts getting divided into "perp", "vic", "witness", "suspect", etc. And it starts creeping into their social life. It's a monochrome perspective that no amount of increased pay can solve, and I'm very much in favor of giving cops generous leave entitlements instead - indeed, mandating an amount of leave every so often - as much for society's benefit as their own.

That sounds like a scenario in which you better make extremely sure of your UPS arrangements.

"Mwuahahaha! Now my criminal empire is secured against all possible government interference!"

*gets jostled by minion, drops IC, watches in horror as the little battery powering it springs loose and bounces across the floor*

"FFFFFFFFFU-"

Your linked table shows an extremely strong correlation between income and SAT test performance _regardless of race_, so it fails to disprove the GP's hypothesis that "in achieving and maintaining qualification and motivation" ... "basic nutrition, healthcare, education, credit, role-models and many other factors and their interplay might be a factor". ... did you mean to show something else, perhaps?

He's not arguing they didn't have a warrant, he's arguing they didn't have the "probable cause" you bolded and they performed the "unreasonable searches and seizures" you didn't bold: in other words, that they didn't follow due process to obtain the warrant they used against him.

Australia?

Those whistleblower channels? He did know about them - and what had happened to those who tried to utilize them (Drake, Binney, et al). Don't sit back and wait for "reports" to be handed to you, do your own research (unless you enjoy the smell of soap-scented paper).

As for the GP's suggestion that he should just suck it up and serve some prison time - what? Really, what? The US government tortured Manning with solitary for almost a year - before Manning was even convicted - and Manning had less on their dirty laundry compared to Snowden:

The detention conditions prompted national and international concern. Juan E. Mendez, a United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture, published a report saying the detention conditions had been "cruel, inhuman and degrading."[100] In January 2011 Amnesty International asked the British government to intervene because of Manning's status as a British citizen by descent, although Manning's lawyer said Manning did not regard herself as a British citizen.[101] The controversy claimed a casualty in March that year when State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley criticized Manning's treatment and resigned two days later.[102] In early April, 295 academics (most of them American legal scholars) signed a letter arguing that the treatment was a violation of the United States Constitution.

When constitutional violations are known to be institutional, when the known reactions of your government are to persecute those who follow channels and torture those who don't, what would you do?

I read your post, and it's moot because he wouldn't _get_ the fair trial you say you want him to have. That was the whole point of Ellsberg's statement: a fair trial requires fair laws, which don't currently exist.

No type of glass that we have access to could ever stand up to long term road wear.

No type of asphalt, bitumen or concrete that I've ever seen used stands up to long term road wear either - although you and I might not be using the same definitions of "stands up to" and "long term".

It's just not possible with today's tech. I really think that this is a grant scam

Are you making this claim as a materials scientist or engineer with glass as an area of expertise?

This is a testable hypothesis, and there is no evidence whatsoever that it is true. If (bad parents + games) is worse that (bad parents without games) then the games themselves would be negatively correlated with morality (unless the games somehow cause parents to be better). Yet they aren't.

Hey. I did NOT suggest that hypothesis, that (bad parents + games) are worse than (bad parents without games). What part of "that don't provide a moral framework" did you miss following the word "games", and what part of "providing a moral frame work" did you miss following the word "parenting", in my post?

You might as well have suggested a claim that I go flying on weekends is stupid, on account of it being impossible to flap my hands fast enough, because you ignored the claim specifically stating that I possess a pilot's license and own an aircraft. As for your own claim, is there any evidence whatsoever that it is NOT true either? Has your hypothesis actually been tested (and to be flippant, how did you get it past the ethics committee)?

If the only moral framework someone bothers to provide to their child is a bunch of activities that reward violent behaviour, I'm not going to be particularly optimistic about the outcome.

I would be far more concerned about people basing their opinions on wild conjecture rather than actual data. As video games have become more popular, crime, and violent crime in particular, has fallen dramatically.

Me too. After all, I'd no more blindly accept the proposal that video games (compared to other recreational activities) reduce crime than I would that they increase it. Even if it did waggle its brows suggestively, correlation is still not causation.

Er, what? Re-read the post you replied to - they're not saying games cause immoral behaviour, they're saying games (that don't provide a moral framework) _used as a substitute for proper parenting_ (providing a moral framework) cause immoral behaviour.

Most children internalise the morality of their social environment. Raised by X? More likely to identify with and share traits of X. Doesn't matter whether X is pacifists or militants, theists or atheists, etc. If the only moral framework someone bothers to provide to their child is a bunch of activities that reward violent behaviour, I'm not going to be particularly optimistic about the outcome.

Given the stakes that would be required to just get to the point where you're making that argument in front of a federal judge, I'd hope that judge would have more intelligence than to respond in the manner you suggest.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) included the Third in its majority decision as implying a belief that a home should be free from agents of the state, so precedent does exist. And in this modern age where agents of the state can be "present" in your homes 24/7 via electronic means, what exactly does "quartered" now encompass?

That depends. Do your child-killler robots wait to start shooting until they've reached my country? You didn't teach them morals, after all, and your country's children might grow up to be rebels....

So while your amoral robots are shooting children (in whichever country), my moral robots are shooting your amoral robots. Meanwhile, your populace - along with the rest of the world - is turning against you due to my widely distributing the HD videos my robots took of your atrocities.

Unless of course your amoral robots have already gone Skynet, exterminated you and yours, and the rest of the world is now desperately trying to prevent the same thing happening to them.

Except, will all else be equal? What are morals, from a robotic point of view? Higher-order thinking? Greater awareness of consequences? Whatever way you slice it, robots with morals by definition will need to be smarter than robots without morals - and that intelligence may well be applicable to the art of war.

I'm reminded of the Bolos, fictional military AIs which developed sentience and morals due to the simple military necessity of having to keep making them smarter - not only to effectively counter the increasingly advanced weapon technologies the enemy deployed, but also to prevent them going rogue or being subverted by the enemy.

A key factor in Bolo psychotronic design is the need to address public and military concern over the potential catastrophe which could be unleashed in the event of a Bolo disobeying orders or being suborned. To mitigate this, a number of safeguards were included in the psychotronic design - specifically a focus on loyalty, honour and a strong sense of duty, as well as a restriction on the level of awareness and processing power made available to the Bolo outside of combat.