What about when the pilot catches an error by air traffic control?  For example two airports are close together, and air traffic lines him up for the runway at the wrong airport.  The human would protest, the error would be corrected.  

Kenya is one of the peaceful places in this world. It just shows you that this terrorism can pop up anywhere.

Fliers aren't ready for pilotless flights either, according to Cummings.
"People want a human as a pilot who shares their own fate," she said. "We also need a babysitter up front, both to monitor the automation and to take charge if there's an unruly passenger."
Pilotless passenger planes are therefore probably decades away, said John Hansman, an aeronautics and astronautics professor at MIT who heads up the division of humans and automation.
"It's not a technical issue, it's an issue of societal trust," he said.

Just watched german news.

right now if you fly in the eu there is no id control if you check into the airplane.
this is gonna change now, reason is that the police had great trouble of identifying the victims.

There is also more information about the co pilot.
the german police found his tablet which he used to get information about suicide and the technical aspects of security doors to the pilot cabin.

BERLIN (AP) — The co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 appears to have researched suicide methods and cockpit door security in the days before he crashed the plane into the French Alps, killing everyone aboard, German prosecutors said Thursday.

Search terms found on a tablet computer at co-pilot Andreas Lubitz's apartment in Duesseldorf provided the first evidence that his actions may have been premeditated.

I assume that just as I,not a Christian, can easily show where and how various sects have mis interpreted Christianity....that a member of Islam could do the same, equally easily.  

I could of course be wrong.  

For example, it has been found that ISIS assassins cite the Quran’s verses 8:12 or 47:4 as they behead their hostages.   I could explain that this verse...

    008.012  Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you:      give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers:    smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

...in context refers to a case where the Muslims were directly attacked, and therefore it's use by ISIS, is inappropriate in a case of killing a hostage, and is warping the meaning of the verse.

But I do not know these matters, hardly at all, and it would be improper for me to make such guesses.  Yet if someone as ignorant as myself can produce such an answer, what does this make of your question?

I am able to show how various sects have mis interpreted Christianity.

I do not know why it would be ridiculous to ask how this has been done with Islam.

2 former federal agents charged with stealing Bitcoin during Silk Road probe
By Evan Perez, CNN Justice Reporter

Washington (CNN)The federal government became owners of one of the biggest troves of Bitcoin, thanks to seizing millions of dollars in the digital currency from criminals associated with the online black market Silk Road.

Two federal agents who led the probe allegedly decided they wanted some of the money for themselves, according to a new federal court documents.

The two now-former agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Secret Service are charged with wire fraud, money laundering and other offenses for allegedly stealing Bitcoin during the federal investigation of Silk Road, an underground illicit black market federal prosecutors shut down last year.

The charges in a criminal complaint filed in San Francisco federal court paints a picture of corrupt federal agents trying to enrich themselves as they tried to bring down one of the Internet's top cybercriminals.

The charges against the agents could end up causing complications for the government's case against Ross Ulbricht, also known as "Dread Pirate Roberts", the Silk Road founder. Ulbricht was found guilty last year of aiding drug trafficking with his site.​ He is awaiting sentencing. As a result of the case against Ulbricht and others, the federal government seized bitcoin that it said at the time was valued at over $33 million.

The agents are: Carl Force, 46 years old, of Baltimore, a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration, and Shaun Bridges, 32, of Laurel, Maryland, a special agent with the U.S. Secret Service.

Force was a lead agent in the case and was the main investigator communicating with Ulbricht. Force is charged with wire fraud, theft of government property, money laundering and conflict of interest.

Bridges was the computer forensics expert on the case. He is charged with wire fraud and money laundering.

Force allegedly set up fake online personas and tried to extort money from Ulbricht, including once trying to get $250,000 from him in exchange for not providing information to federal investigators, the criminal complaint says.

Using the online persona "French Maid," Force did succeed in getting $100,000 in Bitcoin from Ulbricht, which Force deposited in his personal accounts, the federal complaint says. He later used a series of Bitcoin and personal U.S. dollar transactions, including a $235,000 wire transfer to an account in Panama, to launder the stolen money, prosecutors allege in the complaint.

According to prosecutors, Force also used his position as an executive at a digital currency exchange called CoinMKT, in which he was an investor, to seize accounts of customers. He transferred $297,000 in illegally-seized digital currency to his personal accounts, prosecutors allege in the criminal complaint.

Bridges allegedly stole $820,000, using a series of wire transfers to move Bitcoin that earlier had been stolen from Silk Road in early 2013 and deposited in a Japanese bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox, according to prosecutors. Two days later, Bridges signed the government's warrant to seize millions of dollars in bitcoin from Mt. Gox accounts.

Later, when he learned the FBI was investigating suspicious activity in the Silk Road investigation, he transferred $250,000 from his personal account to one he shared with someone else, according to the complaint.

Inside the Texas bill that stops you from filming police brutality
By Matt Rozsa

Those with power must be held accountable for how they use it.

This may seem like a self-evident proposition, but it is actually facing a considerable challenge in Texas right now. If passed, a new bill sponsored by Rep. Jason Villalba (R-Dallas) would define the act of “filming, recording, photographing, or documenting the officer within 25 feet of [a police] officer” as “interfering” with their duties and, consequently, as being a crime (the limitation extends to 100 feet for residents carrying a concealed handgun). In short, H.R. 2918 wants to address the problem of police officers abusing citizens’ rights by making it harder in the future to prove that such abuses actually happen.

From a constitutional standpoint, this issue is about as cut-and-dried as they get. As one United States Court of Appeals explained, it is “fundamentally and virtually self-evident” that individuals who videotape police officers do so in order to spread information about the conduct of the individual officer(s) in question. This means that it is clearly protected by the First Amendment (which, we must remember, was created in large part because our founding fathers were being hounded by overzealous officers working on behalf of King George III).

Preventing a citizen from acquiring evidence of law enforcement wrongdoing is akin to prohibiting him or her from taking notes when witnessing an abuse. Unless you believe that one of those responsibilities is being able to harass, beat, or shoot innocent people with impunity, it’s pretty hard to effectively argue that last point.

Perhaps an even greater tragedy, though, is that this bill takes attention away from the possible good that can be wrought from modern technology. After San Diego police officers began wearing body cameras, complaints against police have fallen by 40.5 percent. Furthermore, the use of “personal body” force by officers has dropped by 46.5 percent, while the use of pepper spray has decreased by 30.5 percent.

Similarly, when Chief Tony Farrar of the Police Foundation completed a comprehensive year-long study on the effect of body-worn video cameras, he concluded that “the findings suggest more than a 50 percent reduction in the total number of incidents of use-of-force compared to control-conditions, and nearly 10 times more citizens’ complaints in the 12-months prior to the experiment.”

This isn’t to say that there aren’t downsides to using body cameras. In addition to the financial costs and understandable privacy concerns, there is also the possibility that “the credibility of police testimony against defendants could be discounted in the absence of footage to corroborate the officer's version of events,” as Uri Friedman wrote in a December article for the Atlantic. Similarly, as the report that Farrar co-authored with experts like criminologist Barak Ariel made clear, there was a lack of consensus as to whether the initial promising results caused by body cameras were due to “a deterrent effect on the police, the public, or both.”

Of course, even if there is debate over whether mandatory body cameras for police officers are more pro than con, there isn’t much intelligent question over whether it should be illegal to record them in the line of duty. Unfortunately, this observation has yet to dissuade Rep. Villalba in Texas; indeed, he is far from the first politician to consider such a measure.

Last year, the State of Illinois passed an “anti-eavesdropping” law that would have made it illegal to record interactions with anyone (including police officers) without the other party’s express permission. In its ruling striking down the bill, the Illinois Supreme Court noted that because citizens’ encounters with police were by definition “public,” they couldn’t classify recordings of their conduct as an invasion of their privacy.

By the end of the year, the Illinois legislature replaced their first law with a new one that made it a felony to secretly record any conversation in which at least one person has a “reasonable expectation” to privacy, broadly defined to include “ any expectation recognized by law, including, but not limited to, an expectation derived from a privilege, immunity, or right established by common law, Supreme Court rule, or the Illinois or United States Constitution.”

Indeed, as jury decisions like the one in the aftermath of Eric Garner’s choking makes clear, it is entirely possible for bad cops to be caught red-handed and still get away with it. So why is there any traction behind the movement to make it illegal to record them?

One reason is so obvious that it doesn’t need much elaboration here: Namely, that many of these cops know they are guilty of racial profiling and/or disregarding people’s constitutional rights and wish to avoid getting caught.

That said, as someone who personally has friends and family members that work in law enforcement, I can say from firsthand knowledge that there is an additional reason besides this one. Many law enforcement personnel have, after years of hearing sharp criticism directed at their fellow officers, adopted a mentality which argues that one is either pro-cop or anti-cop, with no room existing between those two extremes. Even Rep. Villalba hinted at this when he referred to the 25-foot perimeter surrounding a cop from being recorded as a “halo.” By using literal angelic imagery to justify his proposed law, he implicitly used their virtuousness as a shield to protect them from accountability.

That premise, of course, is absolutely right, and it goes a long way toward explaining why holding cops accountable is so critically important. We do need police to protect innocent citizens from crime and generally uphold the law. Their services are absolutely essential to the maintenance of a stable and free society, and as such, they are entrusted with enormous power.

As incidents from the beating of Rodney King to the choking of Eric Garner clearly demonstrate, however, police officers—like all other human beings—can abuse that privilege. Hence why the new Texas law is utterly contemptible: At a time when the focus needs to be on how we can hold cops accountable while allowing them to do their jobs effectively, this bill attempts to remove responsibility from power.

Please post here with facts. If you are posting it with facts then tell me where it is writte in the Quran that Muslim has the authority to do attcks. Just post here only one verse.

Secondly can you prove all the terrorist are Muslim ,
In the Quran it is said that if some one killed only one person, he killed the hole humanity.

There is a sizable number of women in prison on charges of statutory rape. Hell, there are cases of women prison officials in charge of juvenile prisons being charged with sexual misconduct as well.

My husband BurtW and I have recently learned all about civil forfeiture and Bitcoins the hard way.  I've started a related thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1005634.0  

The feds will get your Bitcoins no matter what you do unless you are willing to spend time in a federal prison.  We have to end civil forfeiture.

There is a saying "he who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind". Nazi started the World War II so in a way they are responsible for what happened later to many nations. And I'm not talking only about raping and killing but also for destruction of many cites, art pieces, and so on. Of course what nazi had started is no excuse for raping done by Allied troops.
285,000 raped women seems like a lot, so i'm not totally convinced it was so high number. The method that Dr Gebhardt used is highly implausible.

The only way to protect yourself against the moral setback that comes with seizure of your property is not to protect your property (you can't) but to protect your mind (you can) by abandonning materialism. If you don't care about property, you won't bother seeking property, won't attach to property emotionally, and will therefore be safe from all and every attacks of that seek to wrong you at a materialistic level.

In the fast-approaching 'Internet of Everything' World you will not have a choice.  Probably 20 years out. Driving a car by steering wheel will become as archaic as using a Vic 20 to game on.