Just read her Wikipedia article. Should have thought of that sooner. Thanks for the push.

Yup, 2016 was the most recent crime she was convicted of, and it says terrorism in Germany does have a statute of limitation.

Thank you. Answers a lot of questions, such as did they artificially age 40-year old photos for the facial recognition.

Far as I know, there is no statute of limitations for major crimes like murder and terrorism. But it varies by state and has varied over time.

I spent four years in the navy as a supply clerk dealing with paper work and petty bureaucrats. I learned an outrageous number of ways to not cooperate while seeming to cooperate.

I appreciate digging up the response. I have long since lost the patience to deal with bureaucrats.

There is something decidedly amiss when the monopolist defines its own limits.

One vote every 2 or 4 years, for which insider controls the monopoly, is a pathetic outsider limitation on government.

Thanks, that is very interesting. But something smells fishy.

1. 1 false positive from "over 641,533 faces" seems too good to be true. Very few systems of any kind are that good, and facial recognition? I don't buy it. And that's an oddly specific number to be "over". It does not pass the smell test.

2. "Shows no bias" is similarly too good to be true and doesn't pass the smell test. Didn't Apple have some problem in the last year or two with trying to spiff up faces, where black skin didn't work as well? "No bias" is not credible.

3. "Zero unlawful arrests" is weasel words. Just because an arrest has conformed to various legal standards, such as having a warrant, being cautioned, not beaten up, etc, does not make it a proper arrest. Lots of people are acquitted at trial after having been lawfully arrested.

4. The rate has not changed. Well, yes, it must have, if this is the false positive rate, since it presumably once upon a time had 0 false positives and now has 1, and the denominator has been increasing all this time unless the first 641,533 faces were all recognized in the first day.

5. The only credible answer. There may well be no national false positive rate.

But it's an interesting response. Thanks.

I don't know what she's been doing. But from the fact that it took 40 years to track her down, and that only because a non-cop found her, I'd say the evidence is strong I know what she *hasn't* been doing -- terrorism, or training terrorists.

Seriously, if she's been living for 40 years training terrorists who haven't done anything to draw attention to themselves or her, she's either been running a false flag terrorist school with the government's connivance, or she hasn't been running a terrorism school.

If society wants to punish her for what she did 40 years ago, fine. But stop pretending the police took a dangerous terrorist off the streets.

If she's been in hiding for 40 years, she's not exactly violent any more. Her capture has nothing to do with public safety at this point, more for revenge and closing the record with some HooRah We Got Her theatrics.

Might DOES make right; that's how government works. One definition is a monopoly on "legal" violence within their territory, although they aren't very good at it, considering how many riots there were in 2020 and the two autonomous zones where city governments surrendered their monopoly for a spell.

If you want to make the case that government should use facial recognition, you'll need some real data.

* One success ... how many false positives -- how many people were wrongly tagged? How many false negatives -- how many times was this woman seen but not tagged? Was she a hermit and this was her first public appearance in 40 years?

* How recent were the pictures of her which were the basis of her being tagged? Do you really want us to believe the only success story you have is based on artificially aging her photograph by 40 years?

Thought I recognized one name, Cavill, but never saw anything they listed for him. Musta been somebody else. Hollywood continues its streak of not being part of my life.

"Act of God" is a legal term of art. You should be blaming lawyers and governments.

Got me curioser, so I googled it. One source said what I thought:

https://www.scientificamerican...

"Because gravity is necessary for density differences to arise, neither buoyancy nor convection occur in a zero-gravity environment such as space. Consequently, the combustion products accumulate around the flame, preventing sufficient oxygen from reaching it and sustaining the combustion reaction. Ultimately the flame goes out."

and

"Researchers learned that flames extinguish themselves."

and

"Oxygen could still reach a flame in a gravity-free environment if someone blew the gas into the flame or let it "diffuse" in. It is the diffusion process that spreads the scent of a perfume in a room without air circulation: the perfume slowly mixes with the air to try to achieve a uniform distribution. This process, however, is too slow to sustain a flame."

Other sites don't directly contradict this, but say fires in the ISS are dangerous because smoke doesn't rise and set off smoke detectors on ceilings like in homes, so they install smoke detectors in the ventilation ducts. Also that fires on the ISS can survive on lower levels of oxygen than humans, and thus are much more dangerous if they linger on. That's confusing; if the smoke doesn't rise, then wouldn't it smother the fire like the first site says? But if the ISS has moving air from ventilation ducts, maybe that is what feeds oxygen to the fires.

Thanks for tricking me into not being so lazy :-) But all I learned is that I don't know.

Doesn't weightlessness make fires much less dangerous, since heat no longer rises and can't suck in the oxygen they need?

Airlines can add more flights and bigger planes for more seats. Try doing that with a pop star.

I was responding to saloomy, who said "just make a law...".