There is no Constitutional right to have a lawyer during questioning, only a Constitutional right not to have any statements you make during such questioning introduced at trial. Since they have ample other evidence by which to convict Tsarnaev without using any such statements, there is no particular reason to Mirandize him. We can just accept that the statements made without advising him of his rights are not admissible in court.

See this excellent summary by Orin Kerr for a bit of explanation of how it actually works (as distinct from how you or I or him believe it ought to work). You can also read the Supreme Court's decision in Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003) directly, if you prefer,

That's all well and good, but why would you buy a house in Boston with that attitude? Move out to Newton and you'll have all the quiet space you need. They actually have a functioning school district too!

I mean, effectively this is just a problem of sortation -- the idiot 30-somethings need to be sorted out and kept separate from the responsible 40-somethings. I don't think you get any particular joy from shutting them down, so don't assume that they get any kick out of waking your ass up at all hours of the night.

Seems easy enough to imagine that we could all get along a lot better if we let each neighborhood vote on whether they want to impose a quiet-time ordinance or not, instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all solution on the entire city. Everyone could then chose which area suits their own preferences -- amazing how much work the concept of free choice does!

Whether something is illegal or not has no bearing on whether it is ethical or moral. And there are also shades of illegality. It is, for example, illegal to be publicly intoxicated, and yet if you go downtown you are sure to spot drunk people parading about, along with many police officers watching them do so. There's a reason why public intoxication is illegal, just as there are equally compelling reasons why the officers don't give a damn. Morality and ethics is the short answer.

And whether it is ethical or moral has nothing to do with the Executive's job, who have sworn to faithfully execute the laws, not to faithfully execute their own ethical and moral judgment.

I am far more terrified of an Attorney General that decides to start pursuing their own internal sense of justice than one who tries to reliably and impartially implement the Constitution and the law. In the former case, he would be essentially unbounded -- free to do anything he though was right and proper. In the latter, he might do (admittedly stupid) things like imposing penalties based on the (idiotically drafted) CFAA but at there exists some limiting principle to his actions (the law) and some balancing branch (Congress) to his power.

What they are doing is assuming that their light source is broadly uniform and averaging over the double-measurement (which is clever, no doubt). So we still haven't learned anything about a particular photon that violates the uncertainty principle, only something about the entire population. If we assume that the population is uniformly polarized (which is reasonable in this case) then we can conclude that the average reflects the properties of the individual photons. If the population was not uniform, however, then the average tells us very little about the properties of the individual photons.

And before someone too clever tries to argue that you can take a single input photon and make multiple copes and send them through this process to get results about that one photon, there is the No Clone Theorem to here to prevent that maneuver.

So really they haven't gone around Heisenberg (which talked only about individual wave-functions) but used multiple compound measurements and an assumption about the properties of the group to infer something that Heisinberg says they can't measure directly -- which is quite clever but Herr Doctor's principle still stands quite strong.

I'm 100% certain that my connection to Gmail is protected by SSL/TLS, so I think you have to troll harder than merely saying that it is "unsuitable for email protection".

From our point of view you should be trying to figure out how to change your society so that you don't need guns, rather than trying to advocate more of them. You are treating the symptom, not the cause.

Isn't banning guns also just treating the symptom? Couldn't we just as well work to improve society until we can all possess guns and use them responsibly only as a last resort to safe life or limb?

Since, as SSL certification authority break-ins have shown, centralized trust systems are prone to abuse and offer dubious security benefits

Since, as recent hospital deaths due to MRSA and medical errors have shown, centralized medicine offers dubious health benefits?

Just because there have been failures doesn't make the system dubious at all. Even with all the failures accounted, SSL is a phenomenal success -- effectively protecting billions in eCommerce revenue, trillions of emails and untold other secrets. The fact that any Joe can sit down and go to ${site} and be nearly certain that their communication is authenticated and encrypted without the need to understand anything is a remarkable feat of engineering.

(1) The drones aren't robots, they are controlled by a live operator and wouldn't even be covered by this proposal.

(2) It's really quite a stretch to believe that drone attacks have killed more innocents than Kissinger's wholesale bombing of Cambodia or Arafat's indiscriminate suicide bombing attacks.

But yeah, don't let facts get in the way of a good flame ...

... is a favorite pastime of the larger wrongdoers. Does anyone think that the PRC power structure really cares about some po-dunk municipal pervert?

Sorry dude, but this is not physical assault unless the person is taking the photo of you in a private place (e.g. dressing room, shower) or from a place where he doesn't have the right to be (e.g. trespassing). At least in the States, it is well within photographers' First Amendment rights to take and disseminate photos, including by attaching meta-data such as face-tagging and publishing them online.

See, e.g. Lambert v. Polk County (1989)

From such a finding it would also follow that the taking was a taking of Lambert's property without due process of law and that it also clearly violated his First Amendment right to display the tape and disseminate it in any way he wishes. (It is not just news organizations, such as WHO-TV, who have First Amendment rights to make and display videotapes of eventsâ"all of us, including Lambert, have that right.)

I have a Cisco IP telephone on my desk, it's got a (CAT5) line that goes into the LAN(d) -- does that count? Or are we only talking old-school twister copper? Or maybe operator exchange?

Specify your terms people!

Probably one of the most important divides in engineers (the world?) is the ability to read the data, acknowledge your mistakes and fix it. It seems like most companies spend more time doing damage control than damage remediation. Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Slashdot cannot be fooled (with apologies to Richard Feynman).

I write C and ASM too.

I also use CrashPlan, which is written in Java. It is not bloated and it is definitely not garbage -- in fact, it's one of the best no-touch backup solutions in existence. No affiliation, just a very satisfied customer. I don't try to dictate what other programmers/companies use for their solutions (as I don't have an experience in their domains, there's not much I could really add) -- when I'm the user, I judge on whether the software meets my needs.

But there are also well-documented CSS vulnerabilities, XUL exploits and even one in a JPG parser.

Should we disable those as well? Are you part of some guerrilla marketing campaign to bring back Lynx?