likely just the devs making reaching out and touching a device easier on themselves.

just think, the devs can push updates and instant fixes. they can also properly assess a customer complaint to see if it is their device or the customer has a crapload of malware on the device. its all just good business.

not everything is a nefarious conspiracy.

... it will be reported as failing for all sorts reasons except the actual one ie. the detractors are correct, it's a theoretical impossibility. Too many careers on the line for anyone involved in the project to admit they were wrong.

Wtf ... Reuters link with no way to back out ?!?

Damn hard to find on the ground ...

During the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver? The blog contains no information on the _one_ use of the Stingray. What is the blog hiding? They had the info since the blog writes:

"The VPD provided some context for its previous use of a Stingray and on the basis of the information they gave us, we can vouch for their past use (and they say there’s only been one) being legitimate, appropriate and properly authorized."

So, the time the Vancouver Police Force did use it (kept secret by the blogger?), it was legitimate, appropriate, and properly authorized ... from which the blog seems to conclude that obviously it has been and is being used illegitimately, inappropriately, and unauthorized. What?

It's increasingly hard to deny his theories.

Clearly an idea by someone who has no clue about religious sensitivities, congregations, and the like.

Do you want to trust the doc who finished at the bottom of the class?

Or would you rather trust the consistent advice of a machine that actually learns more and more as it deals with more and more cases, or from other machines doing the same?

It had to happen.

... the shooter was a problem. They didn't know exact plans and timings, but they had successfully identified a potential problem.

As with so many previous incidents, the current 'spying' privileges allowed the identification of a potential problem.

What was lacking was funding to allow continued surveillance, NOT more in depth surveillance, just more surveillance. See the difference?

Is there a belief that deeper 'spying' will permit law enforcement to do more with increasingly less funding?

Well better than tossing them back in the ocean after you cut off their fins for soup.

If biology had any kind of 'first principles' like say physics or math, its researchers would not be constantly surprised by things like this.
There doesn't seem to be any "I wonder if ..." thinking in biology to push the boundaries of what is known, to intuit what might not yet have been discovered the way there is (again) in math and physics. And since medical research depends in large part on biological foundations, what is the real hope progress?

Recruiter: "So Mr ... ah .. Smith. My final question for you is the important one. As for the previous questions, your silence will be interpreted as consent. So, Mr. Smith would you like to be part of our study? '

Brain Dead Person (Mr. Smith):

Recruiter: "Excellent! Welcome aboard, great to have you on the team. Our people will draft up the paperwork and we'll get right to work. Thank you for your cooperation."

It's a boat wreck ... and a small one at that.

why would you ask that here? You're lucky you got a straight answer.