In what way is the airport not Russian territory? Certain sections of the airport might have special status in regards to immigration and travel, but it's hard to believe that there is any part of the airport not subject to Russian law.
Tell me this is US border police and airport security allowed to detain anyone making a hop in the US? I'm pretty sure airport security can detain any and everyone they desire.
US airports don't have such a thing as a transit zone. Even if you're flying to a third country via an US airport, you need to go through immigration, collect your luggage, go through customs, re-check your luggage and then endure the whole security circus once again.
This is not the case in most any other airport on the globe, where you usually remain in the transit zone if you're travelling to a third country.
That said: I agree with you that the Russian statement is likely a cop out. If they want to arrest you they wouldn't give a shit if you're in the transit zone or not. That probably goes for every other country too.
Paraphrased: defining such a function over a symmetric subset of the reals X is equivalent to partitioning the positive (>0) elements of X into disjoint pairs (a,b). This uniquely describes a satisfying function f, under whose action:
f: 0 -> 0
f: a -> (-b) -> (-a) -> b -> a
And conversely, any such function is uniquely described by such a partition. That's all there is to it!
There is no such partition on the set of int32_t's, because the # of nonzero int32_t's is odd.
For the set of all integers Z, the "obvious" partition is {(1,2), (3,4), (5,6)...}. This is what many of the answers are getting at with even/odd tests.
This also works for some subsets of the integers, such as {-2,1,0,1,2}. These are the symmetric ones with an even number of positive elements. These have 4n or 4n+1 elements total, depending on whether they include zero. [-2^31, 2^31] works (this has one more element than int32_t). As does [-2^31 + 2, 2^31 - 2] -- the largest such subset of int32_t.
This has a natural extension to the rationals, the reals, etc. Namely: (a,b) is a member of the partition iff (floor(a), floor(b)) is a member of the partition for integers, and their fractional parts are equal.
There is no such function on the reals that is (analytically) continuous. Any such f must be bijective (a != b implies f(a) != f(b)). If f : R -> R is both continuous and bijective, it is monotonic, and therefore so is (f . f), which is incompatible with the requirement that (f . f)(x) = -x.
Or doing something outside the box. Some people used static variables. How about looking at the call stack.
If f() is invoked by f() do one thing, if you aren't do something else.
The first cycle takes care of 0, the second one of -2, -1, +1 and +2. The interesting thing is the third thing - it consists of the cycle -4 -> -3 -> -4 and the attached chain +3 -> -4 entering the cycle via -4. This one correctly maps +3 to -3 and -4 to -4 (-(2^(n - 1) is its on inverse) and only fails for -3 which is incorrectly mapped to itself, too. There you go, 7 out of 8 correct.
(This is the essence of my way longer answer on Stack Overflow [1] although it is not necessarily any clearer because it evolved a lot.)
An unnamed senior Administration official joined the Snowden-bashing
chorus, telling reporters, “Mr. Snowden’s claim that he is
focussed on supporting transparency, freedom of the press, and
protection of individual rights and democracy is belied by the
protectors he has potentially chosen: China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela,
and Ecuador. His failure to criticize these regimes suggests that his
true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of
the U.S., not to advance Internet freedom and free speech.”
This wasn't some "unnamed senior Administration official"; it was the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, speaking in this afternoon's press briefing. It's an official statement of the White House. Here's the video and transcript:
MR. CARNEY: Let me say this about that question, which is that Mr. Snowden’s claim that he is focused on supporting transparency, freedom of the press, and protection of individual rights and democracy is belied by the protectors he has potentially chosen -- China, Russia, Ecuador, as we’ve seen.
His failure to criticize these regimes suggest that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the United States -- not to advance Internet freedom and free speech.
I think that with regards to the first part of your question, I’ve made the point that the unauthorized disclosure of classified information -- the kind of information that has already been disclosed -- has an enormous negative impact and there are ongoing damage assessments being done. But, certainly, it would be our assumption that any information -- any further classified information that he has that has not yet been divulged publicly would be compromised, or has been compromised.
What idiotic logic. Because he is hiding in countries with imperfect track records on the issues he is bringing up about the U.S., and has not openly criticized the regimes of those countries, that somehow, by their logic, renders moot any claims he has about opposing similar things in the U.S.
It's not idiotic at all. There are many countries which don't have this sort of issue, eg Iceland (where many were expecting him to go a week ago). Julian Assange seemed quite happy with Sweden until he found himself at odds with the laws on sexual conduct there (and recall that it is to Sweden, rather than the US, that Britain wants to extradite him).
Russia doesn't have an 'imperfect track record' in this area. It has a pretty poor one, and I'm guessing you're not going to see a wave of libertarian idealists heading there any time soon for just this reason. It's not unreasonable to question Snowden's motives based on the company he keeps.
It's tremendously idiotic. It makes sense for him to go to countries likely to push back on the U.S. extradition request. He went to Hong Kong for reasons which made sense, then left while they temporarily resisted extraditing. He went to Russia with plans to meet with ambassadors from at least one other country, and that plan was arranged by Wikileaks. Now it's not publicly known where he is, and it may not be in Russia anymore.
I'm not supporting these countries at all as having great governments, but to say that he is a supporter of them because he isn't openly criticizing them while they're helping him is just stupid.
You've missed the point that there are other countries likely to push back on the US extradition request that don't have bad human rights records or an antagonistic stance towards the US. Like Iceland and Sweden, as I explained above.
I didn't miss that point, it was just irrelevant to my point, which was that it's absurd to say his point is moot simply because he doesn't criticize the countries he's in as being as bad as he alleges the U.S. is.
The White House rather unambiguously threw Snowden under the bus:
"Mr. Snowden's claim that he is focused on supporting transparency, freedom of the press and protection of individual rights and democracy is belied by the protectors he has potentially chosen - China, Russia, Ecuador, as we've seen [...] His failures to criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the United States, not to advance Internet freedom and free speech."
If it's not one thing, it's another. No matter what Snowden did, they would come up with some excuse to trivialize his disclosures.
This one is particularly egregious because it can be turned right back around on the US government which also claims to support transparency, freedom of the press and protection of individual rights and yet it also consorts with despots and dictators.
Not to undermine your point at all - as the US is guilty many times over of doing terrible things in the name of overthrowing governments - but Democracy != good. Just because people can vote, doesn't mean they won't vote in evil leaders. The US elected Nixon, Bush, and Obama, after all.
Electing bad guys (which itself is kind of a ambiguous term - what metrics and who gets to choose the metrics?) is a risk of democracy.
It's kind of like seedless watermelon - if you want rich, succulent aka "good" watermelon you have to put up with the occasional seed. If you want a guarantee of no seeds then you have to accept a watermelon that doesn't taste anywhere near as "good" - maybe it is passable but it certainly isn't good.
That's not to say that democracy can't be perverted, just that it can't be perfect.
Yep. We elect bad guys in large part because our democracy is flawed. At a minimum we need approval voting to loosen the stranglehold the two major parties have on us.
Hilarious, not the least because the White House itself is usually very timid about criticizing China or Russia. Also, what do they expect him to do, step out of the airplane in Moscow and shout "I hate Putin"?
This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia.
Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they can play in a successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reason to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.
"Beyond Vietnam", A Time to Break Silence By Rev. Martin Luther King
Yeah sorry I got confused, busy trying to find a paper map and some pins, and a maybe load of little aeroplanes and CIA figurines and one of those poker-chip-shoving thingies.
If you look at the above-linked twitter feed, he's talking about it being 5 minutes from now. Imminent basically.
* The Oslo flight left only 20 minutes after the Hong Kong arrival
* That route would involve four flights to reach Iceland (stopping in Moscow, Stockholm, and Oslo). The trip can be done in two: you don't need the Moscow or Oslo stops.
Considering they claimed one of their sources was within wikileaks, it's likely it's part of a wikileaks/Snowden plan to obfuscate his real travel plans.
06/25 14:37 RUSSIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES MAY DETAIN SNOWDEN TO ESTABLISH ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING PASSPORT DETAILS - SOURCE
http://www.interfax.com/news.asp