Actually, you'd like federally unsubsided foods. It would mean more locally grown produce and meats. Most of the big agricultural subsidies are for corn and sugar, the really bad stuff. Agricultural subsidies are making the nutrition crisis worse, not better.
It's unlikely that the removal of agricultural subsidies would create a significantly large market for locally grown produce and meats.
In fact, it would probably do precisely the opposite, as food could be outsourced just like the rest of our industry to areas with minimal labor laws to hamper cheap food production.
Ah, wow. This could not be further from the truth. This wasn't a "murky area." Its a big fat red zone.
Let's look at the Florida statute:
815.06 - Offenses against computer users. -
(1)Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:
(a)Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network;... commits an offense against computer users.
(2)(a)Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), whoever violates subsection (1) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
So you committed a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, informed the victims, and documented your crime in explicit detail on your blog. That's a tad more dangerous than using unsecured cookies.
You've probably admitted to and documented multiple counts of Computer Trespass, knowingly using a computer service without authorization and knowingly gaining access to computer material. It's a Class E felony.
156.10 Computer trespass.
A person is guilty of computer trespass when he knowingly uses or causes to be used a computer or computer service without authorization and:
1. he does so with an intent to commit or attempt to commit or further the commission of any felony; or
2. he thereby knowingly gains access to computer material.
Plus, your source IP can change from request to request when your ISP transparently pushes you through one of many proxy servers. AOL does (or did) this, as do some large European ISPs whose names escape me.
Are your neighbours on your private network? If not, you don't need to worry about them capturing your network data, because they're not on the same network.
All attempts to negotiate or compromise cannot be offered in court as proof of liability.
Rule 408. Compromise and Offers to Compromise
(a) Prohibited uses.—Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of any party, when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed as to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction:
(1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish or accepting or offering or promising to accept a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim
Those are the Federal rules. They vary from state to state, but most are pretty close.
furnishing or offering or promising to furnish or accepting or offering or promising to accept a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim
Does "the claim" here mean "anything people were arguing about", or does it specifically mean a lawsuit which had been filed?
A claim means any dispute for which one party believes it is entitled to a remedy. Its not necessary that a suit have been filed.
If you're worried about ways settlement offers can potentially be used against you, remember that the rule only bars using such evidence for the purpose of proving liability. As long as its offered for some other purpose, it can be allowed in. And once a jury hears the evidence, in practice it doesn't really matter for what purpose they were told to consider it.
Thanks! I doubt I'll ever need to know this stuff (I certainly hope I'll never need to know it!) but I always like learning about how such systems work.
It's about time. Because of browsers, jdk 6+ (which comes with rhino, the javascript runtime) and v8 (specially on nodejs), javascript is one of the most widely deployed languages/platforms. It is on desktops, mobile phones and servers.
No kidding. He wasn't charged with a crime. He raised the suspicions of the FBI who investigated and found no crime. That's pretty much their entire job. Investigate and if evidence of a crime is found, to pass it off for prosecution. I'm not really seeing anything wrong here, other than the fact the tracker may have been placed without a warrant.
Sending money to a foreign country is not probable cause to investigate a federal crime.
"He raised the suspicions of the FBI who investigated and found no crime. That's pretty much their entire job."
Statements like this evince a complete misunderstanding of the role of law enforcement in a democratic society.
The FBI's job is to respond to proper complaints of violations of the law, and to investigate where there are clear and articulable facts that lead them to believe a crime has occurred.
Their job is not to surveil the citizenry for signs of aberrant behavior.
>Their job is not to surveil the citizenry for signs of aberrant behavior.
So practically then you're saying most crime should just be allowed to happen as it can't be detected without taking a proactive approach.
For example, CCTV at a gas station shouldn't be installed until after the place is robbed.
I'm expecting the come back to be "Oh, but that's a private business, it's only bad if government do it?". Why is it bad if the government (ie the people working en masse) try to prevent harm to private citizens but not bad for individual or small groups of citizens?
"So practically then you're saying most crime should just be allowed to happen as it can't be detected without taking a proactive approach."
Where any approach to law enforcement conflicts with the fundamental principles of ordered liberty, including privacy, that approach is improper. If we attached video cameras to all citizens that would prevent a lot of crime, but it would be a tremendous violation of privacy rights.
"Why is it bad if the government.. try to prevent harm to private citizens but not bad for individual or small groups of citizens?"
Because the government is unlike any other organization. It has a monopoly on the use of force. If a gas station uses CCTV cameras, and I feel that violates my privacy, I can choose not to use that gas station. If the government decides to enact a law mandating installation of CCTV cameras in your living room, you can't refuse.
>If the government decides to enact a law mandating installation of CCTV cameras in your living room, you can't refuse.
Unless you live in a democracy.
>Because the government is unlike any other organization. It has a monopoly on the use of force.
In a democracy of course the government is the combined (in some way) will of the people. It bemuses me when people rail against "the government" and forget that means "the people's expressed (in some way) demands" in a democracy; I'm not saying that you're forgetting that part about democracy BTW.
It can be depending on the foreign country and/or the recipient.
AND Authorities investigate people in order to determine IF they are committing / have committed a crime. Being investigated and investigating is normal healthy part of our justice system. (btw, IMO warrantless surveillance is not)
Absolutely true, but the so-called "money laundering" statutes at the federal level are written in such a way that they can convict anyone under them for any financial transaction. This is by design, because it gives the government a free hand to get warrants, seize assets and convict people that they otherwise would not be able to because they lack evidence of a real crime.
That "waste" is still perfectly usable fuel. You could extract the plutonium and uranium and use that to make more fuel rods. You could burn it in fast breeder reactors, in a hypothetical future where mined uranium becomes expensive enough to warrant the use of fast breeders. Or you could just ship it to Canada, where they have heavy-water-moderated reactors that can use regular nuclear waste directly as fuel, without any chemical reprocessing.
I keep saying that nuclear waste storage shouldn't be thought of as permanent disposal. It should be thought of as keeping a reserve of nuclear fuel for the future.
