I did, once, about 30 years ago, lasted about 4 months before they went belly up from incompetent management in those early internet days. Small outfit, 20 employees, and I remember the day I knew it was doomed. The big honcho took us three programmers to lunch, telling us we were the future of the company, not those old-fashioned parasites manning the phones. The whole thing smelled so bad we immediately asked the phone people, and he had taken them to lunch the day before. They were the backbone of the company, not those incompetent bit pushers.

Fun while it lasted. He turned down two offers to buy him out, and was broke a month later.

If that were what I had said, your comment would be spot-on. However, your comment is wrong, and fits its own definition of being in such a stark world than only two choices are possible: perfect or wrong.

To elucidate: I said I was low in sympathy, not devoid of it.

Please learn to read, then learn to comprehend, and then learn to apply what you have learned to the comment you have typed out before clicking "Preview".

They sold their souls. Now they want them back. I am low on sympathy.

P1?!? Is that you?

Well, yes :-) I was trying to correct the basic error without writing much...

NO. It is a crime to FALSELY shout fire in a theater. Huge difference.

Does it? Let's see what Ubuntu does ...

Désolé, pas désolé

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.