Close...

Actually the issue is the amount of power the device dissipates. Lowering the resistance of the device the current is flowing though, lowers the voltage for the same current flow. Power = Voltage X Current So if you lower the voltage for the same current, the device heats up less, it wastes less as heat.

Disputation is how much heat the device must get rid of to stay within it's working temperature range. If it gets too hot, it will stop working, so you have to get rid of all the power it wastes as heat. If you cannot get rid of the heat, you must slow the device down, or make it bigger so there is more surface area to get rid of the heat.

So this power issue really is a heat issue and if you can lower the power being turned into heat, you can make devices that run fast and are smaller.

Shesh.. Look, the trial would be "fair" as in done by the rules. Let it go...

Again, if you want to claim the LAW is not fair, fine, but don't confuse the LAW with the trial. I'm not arguing that the law he will be accused of violating is fair or not, all I'm saying is that he will get "A FAIR TRIAL" as defined by the centuries of legal practice in this country. He is innocent until proven guilty, will be afforded an attorney, will be given a trial before his peers, face his accusers and present evidence at his trial. This is NOT a kangaroo court.

You see, I really get frustrated with people claiming that the courts are unfair, that a "fair trial" isn't possible, or didn't happen just because the outcome is not what they wanted. With VERY few exceptions the criminal courts in this country ARE fair, too fair some times if you ask me. Snowden does face certain conviction (IMHO) because he clearly broke the law, but this outcome is NOT about the fairness of the courts, it's about the law.

Go a head, argue the LAW here, call it unfair if you want, just stop with this "the trial won't be fair" garbage, and absolutely stop comparing our legal system to the likes of North Korea. Our legal system is the best system in the world at protecting individuals rights and any claim otherwise is false.

What's really going on here is you don't like the law.... You think the LAW is unfair.... Stop maligning the courts and argue your real issue...

LOL... Love you too...

It's got to be true, I found it on the internet!

Wish I knew what "facts" you disagreed with so we could continue this discussion, but I'm afraid you left that part out...

Have a nice day and keep that tin foil hat squarely in place... Hey, isn't that your mom calling you from upstairs? I think she want's you to come upstairs and read the Help wanted adds with your breakfast...

I say again, the trial would be fair, your argument is with the law, which is a different debate. I'm encouraging folks to be careful with this distinction because the issue you are having is not with the courts or the legal system but the writers of the law...

Well... Not exactly....I think there is more to what they want.

They want a TRIAL and then the death penalty if they can get it from the jury.

Otherwise, why is he alive now? If they just want him dead, that's easy to arrange in Russia for what amounts to chump change.

No they want him alive and I presume so they can take him to trial and make a huge example out of him, either that or they simply don't care what happens to him...

Totally different circumstances, but you already know that, you are just grasping at straws. OBL's death was a military action on foreign soil that resulted in the death of a non US citizen who was a known combatant. He died in a war.

I've said before that if this administration wanted Snowden dead, he'd already be dead. I'm arguing that they don't want or need him to die for what ever reason and my evidence of that is simply that he's alive. So I seriously doubt that if he turned himself in they would skip the trial and just kill him. Too many people would be looking, it wouldn't be legal, and I contend there would be nothing to gain.

Seriously, he was just a two bit system administrator who took data off the systems he managed, he wasn't some high level operative but some dude in the basement changing out backup tapes and resetting lost passwords. He didn't do that for very long either. He doesn't really know anything beyond the documents he took....

What you can and cannot argue as a defense to a crime is spelled out in the law. Defense is usually given wide latitude in what kinds of arguments they try so I see no reason why the argument wouldn't be tried, but I do see where it wouldn't be successful. However, that's for a judge to allow and a jury to decide based on the law.

Also, comparing our legal system to that of North Korea is very unfair. You may not believe it, but our legal system is generally unbiased in it's application of law, In North Korea if dear leader says guilty, NOBODY can argue the point, regardless of the law or they suffer the same fate. There is a huge difference.

OK, OK... so pick nits...

It's be "banished" or "Go to jail"...

It's not like the king said "Go away and never return or I'll put you in jail for the rest of your life.. " and called it banishment..

LOL

The talk show circuit in Russia? Or better yet, via satellite?

Grab the vodka, Snowden's on the TV honey! (Said no one ever.. ) His 15 min of fame is over and now he's relegated to making money the Russian way.... How do they do that exactly?

Oh I understand fully what the rules are, but I'm pretty sure the prosecutor won't have much trouble presenting evidence from public sources, classified or not. Somebody will make a legal exception and release it for the trial. Administrative branches do this sort of thing all the time....

Here's hoping he's enjoying his stay to the hilt... Personally, I'd not want to live in Russia, but if he finds the gilded cage enjoyable, so be it. Eventually he will realize that being stuck there sucks...

So you are saying HE won't request a closed trial... OK..

I'm saying the government won't request one either. The don't have to and I don't see why they'd want to. Just put the guy on trial with the evidence for all to see, no fuss, no mess, just the guilty verdict almost assured from any thinking jury. It's simple, quick and effective.....

IMHO, given that nobody knows what the REAL players are thinking here, we really don't know for sure and any further "you are wrong" arguments are pointless...

Banished: to expel from or relegate to a country or place by authoritative decree; condemn to exile:

How's Snowden not banished? Stay away or we will put you in jail or worse? Didn't they pull his passport, effectively keeping him from traveling anymore? Didn't that force him to stay in Russia? Seems like a textbook case of being banished....

I'm not so sure Hillary will go the distance and get into the general. She lost last time to a Junior senator from the state of Illinois who out lefted her and hasn't done much to improve her lot since then. I'm not sure who could over come the inevitability factor on that side because I've not seen much action from that party yet.

I'm also not thinking Jeb is a shoe in either. He's way to center for much of the republican base and it shows in the poll numbers. Of course Trump is making a mockery of the process right now and his loud mouth is attracting lots of attention, but hopefully he will run out of money soon and some of the other republican candidates will take lessons about how to deal with the press from him. If somebody could harness that brashness while keeping the wheels on the ground of principle while dealing with the press from the right, we'd have a republican president for sure. If Jeb is the nominee, it's going to be a nail biter of a horse race and as you indicate, the outcome won't matter much.