Getting stuff across the border isn't all that hard for criminals anyway, unless you're talking really bulky stuff one has to truck in (booze etc). Even sending stuff by airliner isn't that hard; you're ok if you send 10 drug mules and 5 make it through. The quoted "street value" of seized coke is crap, its actual value at that stage is bugger all.
1982, Partners in Ecocide: Australia’s Complicity in the Uranium Cartel by V. G. Venturini (Venturino Giorgio Venturini), (Epigraph facing the title page), Rigmarole Book Publishers, Clifton Hill, Australia. (Verified with scans; thanks to John McChesney-Young and the University of California, Berkeley library system)
Haha, yeah, anyone who can take on the US Government and win is by definition an expert in national security. By now he probably also read more documents on national security than even the most highly cleared guys. He had everything from the minutiae of NSA tech to reports written for the inspector general. Given the rampant lying that occurs inside the security state he's probably the only guy with any clarity on how things really work at all, especially because judging from previous behaviour around the Wikileaks incidents, a lot of the NSA/DoD guys will have refused to read any of the public reports in case they get "contaminated" by classified materials!
Lots already. Even if you ignore the Constitution, people running the NSA and general security state have been caught lying to Congress (a crime), lying to the kangeroo FISA court meant to be overseeing them (contempt of court), lying to regular courts about whether defendents were being informed about the origin of evidence against them (more contempt of court), violating FISA court orders (more contempt), and re-interpreting the PATRIOT Act in such a way that even the guy who wrote the damn thing was shocked - that's just normal law breaking: you aren't supposed to be able to "reinterpret" laws however you see fit.
But when you ask "is there a way to charge anyone with a crime", I think you already know that the answer is yes just because there are so many vaguely worded laws in the USA that basically anyone can be charged with some kind of crime. What matters is whether you actually ARE charged, and that's an entirely politically driven decision.
That's the situation in the USA. In the UK the laws are much worse and much vaguer, believe it or not, to the extent that there's basically no functioning oversight at all - the UK equivalent of FISA is not only not a court, it's actually staffed by anonymous people! There's no way to find out who even sits on it. And they have never ruled against the intelligence services even once: FISA Court has at least made a token effort to appear useful. RIPA, the law that is claimed to authorise such collection, is so vaguely worded as to be basically useless as a law - it would appear to authorise practically anything. And the Prime Minister, unlike Obama, has rejected the very notion that there might be a debate at all - simply asserting that if GCHQ does it, it must be by definition be OK.
So even though the situation in the USA is dire, it's actually not as bad as it could be.
And why a general purpose robot? Because it will probably end up being much cheaper than making a whole range of specialized robots effective. A Roomba will vacuum nicely, but it won't do the stairs, or move the chairs out of the way, or open the door to go into the next room after emptying its own bag. Sure, it could be made to do all those things having to do with vacuuming, but it would make it that much more complex.
You don't see too many hybrid microwave oven/vacuum cleaner/cars do you? Why build a general purpose robot that needs a vacuum cleaner so it can clean the house? You're back to buying individual machines AND a machine to operate them.
You kind of answered your own question there. It makes sense to separate functions into separate appliances, and that includes separating the highly complex part to give these tools the mobility, vision and smarts that enable them to do their tasks by themselves.
And how many of those $50 tablets were approved by Google and run the Google apps suite? I thought the answer was "almost none of them".
The article gives no useful info - assuming any such dispute exists at all, it could be for any reason: seems like the blog is just assuming it must be the dual boot capability because that's what gets traffic. But if for some reason that was the issue, Asus or anyone else could ship devices running the regular open source Android, sans Gmail/Maps/Play Store, without having to deal with Google.
France has examining judges, Canada and the U.S. have special prosecutors, in part to ensure that political pressure can't shut down a prosecution. Examining judges are mostly automatic of serious crimes, but special prosecutors are rare and unusual, and appointing one often take considerable political power.
Solved problem in jusrisprudence, just not our jurisprudence!
Also, in technology, the phrase "too expensive" should always beconsidered with the word "today" added. Think computers: how long did powerful computing take to become cheap and ubiquitous? There's no components in humanoid robots that will not become cheaper with mass production, and as we often see with other technology, mass production will drive simplification of the design itself as well. If there's a good use for humanoid robots, I'm betting that eventually they will be cheap enough for individuals to own. The hardware isn't even that expensive today, the problem is that the software just isn't there yet.
You approach closer and close to the "absolute truth", but never get there, and every pi microns there is an e chance that there will be a step function and the whole convergence has to start again.
And then the cylons show up (;-))