You conflate the legality of an action with prosecutorial discretion. The bank's managers are likely to be too high on the social ladder for the prosecuting attorney to risk their wrath, and the wrath of their possibly highly-placed "friends". If the case somehow got to court, though, the jury would have no choice in the matter but to find the teenager guilty (unless they decided to act sane and not follow the instruction of the judge). Heck, if the bankers had a beef with the kids' family somehow, you can bet that the kid would be found guilty.

It's better than that - you were using purely functional programming. Lotus, without macros, is as purely functional as Haskell without monads.

Don't give the lawmakers any ideas, now. There's plenty of conservative middle-aged daddies out there who'd love to write such laws and loudly proclaim their goodness "for the children".

It's not. The concept of consent doesn't apply to minors. But of course they get into trouble at school if they don't behave properly. And they are forced to "sign" various school codes of conduct etc. It's basically a mess created by people who have no knowledge of law, and whose "morality" is derived from wishing really, really badly that their "innocent" teenage daughter isn't seen by anyone else. Those are the people that write our laws, mostly. I think that people who have kids shouldn't be writing any laws that affect kids in any shape or form, for they demonstrably can't think straight.

The worst laws out there specifically disclaim the necessity of an intent. U.S. child pornography and drug laws are such laws. Possession is sufficient, you don't need any intent, heck, you could be braindead for all the law cares about you.

It not only "should" be prosecuted that way, it most certainly is prosecuted that way, and it should remain so until it finally gets through the thick skulls of the voters and their elected lawmakers that those laws actually hurt their kids - and hurt them badly, ruining their kids' futures. Only when a sufficient number of teenagers go to prison and have their futures ruined by such indiscriminate "but think of the children" laws, will there be sufficient outrage to wipe such laws for ever after.

The *only* U.S. laws that I know of that protect data itself are those that cover espionage, legally protected information (HIPAA, FERPA, etc.), access to computers and computer networks, trade secrets and copyright. Outside of those laws the concept of "stolen information" exists only in your own mind, but not in the legal vocabulary. So, in this case, the only law that applies without a doubt is copyright, and perhaps also the laws against unauthorized access to computers. As you can see, the second law is completely unnecessary, since historically the copyright infringement damages make all other laws look outright silly. A manslaughter can be less financially devastating than copyright infringement.

You're looking at this the wrong way. It's all the married, conservative 40+ year old "dads" that suck up public outrage and write those laws. The well-being of the kids never enters the picture. They know better. For the children, you know. It's repugnant :(

So, basically, what the law is saying, is that there's a bunch of 40+ males that own all the teenagers' body images, by decree. Because, lest one noticed that, the vast majority of U.S. lawmakers, at state and federal levels, are 40+ males. So our "child porn" laws are really no different Sharia, as far as I'm concerned. But all those minors are expected to do well in school and pass their SATs.

In Ohio, the stickers are printed on label printers, on a "secure" stock. Nothing special here - the driver licenses and state IDs are printed on off-the-shelf laminator printers, again using "secure" stock. I wouldn't be surprised if the "secure" stock were made in China and just offered for sale by some local company that has Ohio gov't contract. Printing of anything in China is really cheap, and access to high-tech printing technologies is rather easy.

I've just realized that they have a fucking unicorn in their coat of arms. Probably one of the very few governments in the world that does that :)

Given that most of the people I know on FB don't use their real names, I think FB is just being super-silly.

The cost of the human life is quite small compared to the value of the IP being disclosed here. Sad but true...

That's true, and that's why unfettered maneuverability in an orbit is a pipe dream at the moment. As you say, there'd not even be a "main" engine, the entire RCS would consist of big engine - little engine pairs.

When pigs fly. That's my take on it.

In the US, this is not a practical issue. You go to a store and get a measuring cup. I haven't really had a need to know exactly how many ml is in such a cup... It also doesn't matter that other "cup" definitions exist out there. When you cook, you go by the measuring cup you get from the store. When you are a manufacturer of such cups, you should know what you're doing. Easy.