Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:What's the problem? (Score 1) 108

The key issue here is his lack of ability to perform such an act on his own thus this doesn't warrant any prison time. Rather than that, less severe rehabilitation program must be employed. I'm sorry, but I simply will never accept that imprisoning someone who doesn't have means to commit some crime for attempting to commit that crime would ever make sense.

Comment Re:What's the problem? (Score 1) 108

He wasn't part of a plot to set off a bomb. FBI investigators didn't actually plan to set off the bomb, so there was no bomb plot to be part of. Police workers shouldn't be encouraged to set up fake crimes, their job is to stop crimes, not to commit them. There is no place in prisons for all people that would be willing to commit a crime under some particular circumstances if they were provided means for it by a third party, entire humanity would end in prison if such legal regime is adhered to consistently. There should be and there are charges for conspiracy to commit a crime(though prison term is a lot lower than for actually committed crime), but this particular case doesn't involve a conspiracy, this was merely a psychological experiment by FBI.

Comment Re:What's the problem? (Score 1) 108

Actually it's more than that. I don't think it makes sense to imprison people for intent alone. And the whole problem here that they only showed intent, and even then showed it imperfectly. He wasn't actually involved in bombing plot, and whether he thought he was or not doesn't matter. Justice should only ever punish things that were actually happening. It makes sense to punish members of a bombing plot that was prevented but in this case there just was no plot at all! There was nothing to prevent, so there's nothing to punish.

Comment Re:What's the problem? (Score 2) 108

"Arrest before they commit something illegal" implies that they're capable of committing something illegal, and that boy clearly wasn't. FBI provided explosives, planning and everything else. He only was capable of pushing the button and it's not enough to be useful part of a mass murder plot. Real terrorists wouldn't employ someone as useless as him and he couldn't pull it off alone.

Comment Re:What's the problem? (Score 4, Insightful) 108

I think the whole case is pointless. It simply makes no sense to convict anyone for something they didn't do. There was no crime, there was no possibility of crime happening. It only proves that he could trigger the detonation of a bomb to kill people if manipulated by someone. But being such a person is clearly not a crime. Maybe this could be a reason for supervision and psychological support, but 30 years in prison is ridiculous.

Comment Re:Utter BS. (Score 1) 518

Exterminating all non-muslims were part of original rise of caliphate under Muhammad, and Koran is full of his butthurt due to being ridiculed by jews and pagan arabs. Later there were indeed some religiously tolerant caliphs in arab empires, some of them even being defacto atheists. But those were merely temporary exceptions before they decided to abandon reason and build order based on unconditional adherence to religious book built from concentrated butthurt.

Comment Re:Utter BS. (Score 1) 518

It is millenia old islamic tradition to purge all heterodox religions or ideologies they can with extreme prejudice, such as polytheists, Christians, Zoroastrians and the most hated of them, muslims of different branches such as Sunni vs Shia. Any sort of disagreement they consider a threat. And they're not alone in that. Even "civilized" nations are full of such mindset. Only threat of mutual nuclear destruction prevents large scale wars. Actually, that gives an idea: someone should give some nuclear weapons to IS. There's just no way they could expand in any way after that. Any future war would result in MAD so they wouldn't able to war anymore.

Comment Re:Evade air defense? (Score 1) 237

Indeed it's not new and it's very hard to do much new development here. Trying to sneak past enemy radars will be always a hard task which could be confounded by intelligence being obsolete or mobile defenses being in unanticipated places. Besides, actual high value targets will be always well covered by radar thus only undefended places will be civilian locales making this bomber basically a weapon of terrorism. I think only sane approach to dealing with properly constructed anti-air grid would be to destroy it with a massive cruise missile volley, and bombers would be useless here because they can't carry enough missiles.

Comment Re:not enough (Score 1) 173

Why are inmates charged in the first place? Their calls are already limited by prison rules, it would make sense for prison to pay for the calls just like the prison covers their other necessities. The prison itself is in a far better bargaining position and would be able to get fair rates from phone companies, thus fixing this market failure and resulting in greater economic efficiency.

"Love your country but never trust its government." -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania