Pretty sure golfPentium comes after golf486.

Based on a quick perusal of Title 18, United States Code, Sec. 1102, Chapter 40. Importation, Manufacture, Distribution and Storage of Explosive Materials, no you can't. Pretty sure you can't build that nuke without explosives. The nuclear material is also likely highly regulated, but I didn't bother to continue looking as I already found a showstopper for you legally building that nuke.

????

Read up on Golden Ticket and Pass-the-Hash. It works. Been there, done that.

Apple should investigate whether or not they can restore the password (the hash of the password) for just this one user. This assumes they have backups that cover the relevant time period. I'm sure it's not completely trivial, but it's probably a lot less work than rolling out a one-off OS. If so, then the FBI could then take the phone to a trusted Wifi, plug it in and let it back up to iCloud. Apple has already turned over the 6 week old backup that's in iCloud and could easily turn over the new data too.

If you don't mind working at a higher abstraction level, Player/Stage (available on SourceForge) provides a multi-robot simulation.

Nothing to see here. This was a "front door," not a "back door."

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway." If your application is latency sensitive, adding bandwidth isn't going to help. The main issue with latency and satellite is that pesky limit on the speed of light.

When did we switch from, "who did this [obvious] crime?" to "let's figure out what crimes X committed?" The feds know what this guy did. Either it's a crime, or it's not. If it requires a massive amount of digging (by subject matter experts) to try to find some law to charge the guy with, it's not justice. I suspect any one of us could be found guilty of multiple felonies if a team of lawyers were tasked with charging us with something. Having said that, this guy's an idiot for having his name associated with a video containing two hot button issues combined together.

As worded, police would be prohibited from having guns. Unless police count as milita, in which case that guy in Nevada suing the police for violating his 3rd amendment rights should win.

There is no legal definition of assault rifle. The term assault rifle originated with the Nazis, and is generally accepted as having the definition I previously provided. Given the select fire nature, assault rifles are strictly regulated under the National Firearms Act. Note: the NFA does not define or use the term assault rifle.

Over time, there have been multiple defitions of the term assault weapon. There was a Federal definition, until the assault weapons ban sunset. Several states have their own definition. That's a much newer term, which many believe was invented to cause confusion, as it's similar sounding to assault rifle.

I would request that you provide a link to this legal definition of assault rifle of which you speak, but I know you can't because it does not exist. I believe you are one of those who has confused the terms assault rifle and assault weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

• It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder
• It must be capable of selective fire
• It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
• Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt

An assault rifle, by definition is a machine gun. The gun used at LAX wasn't (as best we can tell from the available information). So the first sentence in the summary is inaccurate.

There's speculation, based on a photo on Twitter that the rifle is a Ruger Mini-14, in which case it may not have qualified as an "assault weapon" as defined by Federal Law. Under Feinstein's last [failed] assault weapon ban, the Ruger Mini-14 with a collapsible stock was banned, but the other Mini-14's were ok. It would depend on whether or not the stock folds/collapses.

Under California law, the pistol grip, and ability to accept a detachable magazine are sufficient to classify it as an "assault weapon."

Looks like high capacity magazines were used, although they may have had inserts to render them legal (i.e. limit them to 10 rounds). If they are large capacity and he owned them before 2000, they're legal. Otherwise they would only be legal if they were limited to 10 rounds (or fewer).

We can say with high confidence that a semi-automatic rifle was used. Under the previous Federal assault weapon ban, and the more recent failed Federal effort, this rifle may or may not have been considered an "assault weapon." Under California law this rifle is an assault weapon. The magazines may or may not have been legal.

Even in that scenario I wouldn't be on their side. TSA is not law enforcement.

FIFY