Well, robbery would be a bit tougher than general mayhem. In the foreseeable future you'd probably need a human in the loop, for example to confirm that the victim actually complied with the order to "put ALL the money in the bag." Still that would remove the perpetrator from the scene of the crime. If there were an open or hackable wi-fi access point nearby it'd be tricky to hunt him down.
This kind of remote controlled drone mediated crime is very feasible now. It wouldn't take much technical savvy to figure out how to mount a shotgun shell on a quadcopter and fly it to a particular victim (if you have one). That's a lot less sophisticated than stuff terrorists do already; anyone with moderate technical aptitude could do it with off-the-shelf components. I'm sure we'll see our first non-state-actor controlled drone assassination in the next couple of years. Or maybe a hacktivist will detonate a party popper on the President or something like that.
Within our lifetime it'll surely be feasible for ordinary hackers to build autonomous systems that could fly into a general area and hunt down a particular victim using facial recognition. People have experimented with facial recognition with SBCs like the Raspberry Pi already.
You can forbid states from doing this all you want, but as technology advances the technology to do this won't be exotic. It'll be commonplace stuff used for work and even recreation.
Not necessarily a tyrant. Any psychopath with money.
How can this be?
The knee-jerk response is that open source tools simply aren't as capable as their proprietary counterparts. But where that stance may have held water 10-15 years ago, it's worn pretty thin in a modern context. People might say "Program A is completely unusable because it doesn't have this one feature." More often than not, that statement is merely code for "I don't want to learn a different way of accomplishing the same task."
Link to Original Source
The same thing could likely be said of all obtrusive advertising: it is a nuisance not a benefit.
They aren't exactly the same, because interstitial ads aren't just obtrustive, they're interfering. You can't simply mentally resolve to ignore them; if you want to continue you've got to either follow the ad or find a way to dismiss it. This presents the user with a Hobson's Choice: physically respond to the ad, or go back.
A lot depends on how motivated you are to get at the content. If it's something you've clicked out of idle curiosity, you'll back away. If it's something you really want to see you'll fight your way through. Since so much traffic on the Internet is driven by idle curiosity, the 69% figure doesn't surprise me at all. What would be interesting is to disaggregate that figure by types of target content.
Link to Original Source
(But we do not yet have the US draconian penalties for infringement, so things get passed around anyway. Until the secret FTA gets implemented
I thought it was obvious what you said that was demonstrably wrong, but I'll quote you.
Well, that and the word (or actions) of Sidney Blumenthal who turned over work emails which she didn't.
We don't know if she turned over the emails or not. All we know is that the State Department hasn't provided all of them to the Congressional committee.
Your whole line of argument about the strictness of the law and smoking gun completely misses the point. You said something that wasn't true. Not only isn't there a smoking gun, but contrary to your claim, "There is already ample evidence suggesting of mishandling of classified information.", there isn't evidence of any wrongdoing. There's a lot of allegations like yours, but that's all.
You are really missing the point. You wrote,
It was HER responsibility to turn over all documents
Yes, it was, and, as far as we know, she did. There has been no proof to the contrary, just claims like yours.
Tell me, does the statute say that she has to do either of those things? Here's the answer - no.
No, I'm asking you to prove a claim. You wrote,
when you are under investigation, rules get stricter, and nothing should be deleted until checked out.
in response to my statement that she performed within the law.
I asked if you were sure, and you said you were. So prove it. Government document retention is governed by statute. If the policy changes when being asked to testify by a Congressional committee, I'd like to read that.
Government statute includes guidelines as to what needs to be retained. Employees decide based on those guidelines what to retain and what not to retain.
The DoJ isn't involved. There is no criminal case. Congress doesn't have the right to decide what you can do with personal documents.
Now researchers at the University of Texas Austin have found a way to make them even better. They developed a novel nanostructure architecture for electrochromic materials that enables a highly selective cool mode and warm mode-something thought to be impossible a few years back.
Link to Original Source
As I said, this is going to be the new Birth Certificate.
I suspect you're right. The GOP extremists keep claiming, "We've got her now!" and then nothing comes of it. The majority of Americans are already tired of it. Soon, they'll stick their fingers in the ears anytime anyone mentions it because they think only a kook would still care.
No, I'm sorry, you are failing to understand what happened.
The State Department has not turned over every email that the committee has access to; that doesn't mean that Ms. Clinton didn't give them to the State Department.
The classification situation is all about the process the State Department uses to classify material. It has nothing to do with Ms. Clinton.
You keep proving my point. The State Department cannot locate them. That does not mean Ms. Clinton did not turn them over.
Your take on what the IGs said is backwards. They said that State should have deemed the material classified. It didn't. That's not Ms. Clinton's fault.
Clearly you have a belief of what happened and are trying to make reality fit that belief. Good luck with that.