sdurkin

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.

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.

If you're on the same wireless network as someone, you have the same external IP address.

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.

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.

This is one of the coolest things I've seen on HN recently. Thank you for sharing :)

Excellent.

Is it just me, or does JS seem like its fast becoming the new object code?

"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.

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.