The original argument was that Large corporations are not ever called into account for violating the law. I'm asking for citations that prove that.

That's not true. You are essentially changing the original argument in order to weaken it. Noone stated large corporations are never called into account, until yourself.

What you have provided is a grand example of conjecture with zero proof that companies of a certain size just "get away with it"

The argument has more basis than mere conjecture. The existence of some companies being called into account is proof that it is true that some companies do break the law, and it also shows, that sometimes companies do get called to account.

There is no evidence to support the contention that all (or most) companies who do break the law get called on it successfully. There is no evidence you provided to support the contention that all companies who get discovered get punished.

I'm just saying that being a huge corporation does not exempt you from being found criminally liable and the perception otherwise is nothing more than mythology born of class envy and politics.

The argument is that the larger companies have more resources available at their disposal in order to conceal their wrongdoing, therefore, the larger company is very likely to get away with much larger amounts of wrongdoing.

It's not a myth, unless you can prove it is a myth.

There are very good inherent reasons to believe this would be true.

Conjecture is not necessary. You have only to look at human nature and basic logical deduction and statistics to figure out that this is more likely to be true than what you contend.

What you are claiming is mealy a common mythology, foisted on us by the likes of "Occupy Wall street" and the politicians who use class envy as a wedge issue to get votes. It is not reality true.

It might be a mythology. That does not necessarily mean there is no truth behind it.

I point to the many recent examples where large corporations where indeed cited for breaking laws, fined for it and where individuals involved where convicted.

The analogy I would use, is the lawyers and courts found and crushed a roach that got a bit too careless and gorged themself, so was laying on the kitchen counter and got accidentally discovered.

The fact that a few roaches have been killed, does not necessarily mean that the walls and attic aren't infested with more.

There are also bound to be more careless roaches or injured roaches than others.

They don't "get away" with illegal stuff just because they have an army of lawyers at their disposal.

They don't often break the law and don't get away with it when they do. It's bad business...

How would it be bad for business? These roaches cannot easily be detected. They are hiding in the wall. You just think they are savvy businessmen, or perhaps not so savvy. Probably most of them cheat a little bit, and only a few of them cheat a whole lot. Some people can make very slight transgressions from the law over a very long period of time quite covertly and not get caught, especially if they have the resources and persuasiveness to hide their transgressions.

They might earn $1 billion legitimately and steal $50 million by neglecting to pay some taxes, for example, by exploiting the tax laws of different countries and creative accounting.

Citation, please?

Most corporations are quite concerned about not breaking the law and go out of their way to avoid even the appearance of it.

Correct. Corporations are quite concerned about the appearance of having broken the law, and they wish to avoid liability that could lower profits, but have you already forgotten about how vehicle manufacturers have been concealing hazards from NHTSA and hiding product defects, deeming the risk of lawsuit as cost of doing business? (More expensive to recall than the perceived loss from lawsuits). Companies will even construct policy manuals and other paper trail in order to show 'by the book' policies respecting the law. But do you have a cite showing most larger corporations concerned about adhering to the law, even laws that lose them big $$$, for their own sake, And not solely as a form of risk management?

Seems to me that if what you *think* is true that there are a pile of DA's out there who would be vying for a chance to seal their re-election by reeling in the "big fish" you seem to think are there

The big companies have lawyers, and they work the system thoroughly. The "big fish" are not merely "big", but they have intelligence and many smart people working for them as well. They also have folks surrounding them to help take the "fall" or steer the investigation towards designated scapegoats.

Attempting to go after so-called "big fish" would not seal their re-election, and it would likely be career suicide.

They don't get where they are without having a large social network and plenty of contacts within government to call in some kinds of favors with.

Young bright "hot shot" DA won't be such a hot shot, when there are higher execs in his chain of command breathing down his/her neck, and DA needs to leverage the social network to advance.

Yeah, but in the US, you don't go to jail for that. Tortious interference is a civil violation.

If I understand correctly, the Obstruction of business charge is criminal, and can contribute to the exec's potential prison sentence.

The concept might come to the US by way of international treaty, but for now, I think for now the officials are concentrated at getting copyright extended from civil to criminal with felony jail terms added to the most menial of copyright violations for file downloaders / P2P traders, as part of the upcoming "War on downloaders"

It should not be that easy to destroy a washer... even a prototype.

Subjecting an unfinished product to abuses not intended to be done during the show can expose design defects, but that can be deemed as vandalism.

The vandalism could be as simple as a scratch on the finish, making the model less attractive, even if still functional

While there probably is detailed testing like you describe going on, I think it's reasonable for an exec to check out the competition at a show.

However, if the show has not yet started, then probably nothing gives the competitor the right to do so.

Frankly, I think the show venue should not allow such testing of machines that are being setup on display, without permission.

No entering another vendor's booth without their permission and supervision.

So the charge should be trespassing.

There's nothing that says the products on display necessarily have to be done yet and 'fit' for normal use. The competitor has no permission to 'operate' the equipment, no manuals, etc, so touching it at all could be deemed as potential abuse.

Being curious and testing shouldn't be considered as malicious vandalism, as long as its supervised and being tested only to the extent intended by the vendor.

I'm not trying to sound like a recruiter or anything but ANYONE can go to a trucking school and take a few month class for $5000 or less and make $50000 their first year.

When the average number is $80,000 for their first year, $100,000 for their second year, and $140,000 for workers with 5 years experience, THEN we will be ready for more people to start thinking of commercial trucking as a seriously in-demand profession.

So, should any developer know this? That is debatable. I've had very competent developers who had next to no clue about how DNS works. They could do their job just fine with that.

If you are involved in the design of web applications for pay.... the fundamentals of how DNS and public key crypto work are basic internet literacy concepts.

I knew this stuff in elementary school, many years before I wrote a single line of CGI or PHP web application code.

Internet facing applications have a security burden, and it is a fundamental essential skill that anyone writing an application with a security burden understand the basics and pitfalls, such as avoiding buffer overflows, implementing improper crypto, or hardcoding IP addresses instead of using DNS.

There's something in the interpretation of the reg to prevent that, specifically. The AOPA paraphrasing is as such

Do you have a citation on that? I can't find a case where someone built something that was deemed to be a "spite pole" and had it taken down by force or was ordered to take it down or sued/penalized over it.

As far as I know.... you can build anything you want to any height, so long as the engineering is sound and safe -- it's not a living structure and no permits required, and/or you get the right paperwork.

No need to describe the structure as a "spite pole"; it can be constructed for aesthetic purposes, a work of art, or for functional purposes such as antennae or camera mounting point.

If you can afford to build the pole/tower, then I am sure you will be able to generate some legitimate reason for constructing them that won't be excluded.

The FAA has sole purview over airspace rights. If the aircraft is high enough according to FAA rules (which of as of yet specify manned vehicles only, at a minimum of 500 feet) then it is outside of your, as a landowner, ability to control.

You can effectively maintain control of your air rights by constructing tall obstacles. The FAA only has authority over airspace, and if you build into the air, then the blocked off area is not air space. Build a tall antenna or projection, and all aircraft are required to either remain 1000 feet higher than the obstacle or stay outside a 2000 foot radius.

There are some limitations created by physics that make it impractical to construct obstacles beyond a certain height, but you ought to be able to keep drones off your property in the same manner.

Low flying aircraft is and ought to be allowed only with the discretion and permission of the property owner.

A drone flying 100 ft above my house is trespassing.

I read that as: there was probably a recent event that now causes him to doubt or worry that the condition might not be fully under control.

So it could be a useful thing to have a panic button available to the child, but surely there should be a panic button available to the wife as well.

Also, my greatest concern would be that the panic button fail, so it should be quite reliable and not solely dependent on an internet connection.

I'm not sure why the author thinks it should not contact first responders.

I say rubbish.... the buttons should set off an alarm, and a monitoring company should attempt to make immediate contact with the wife; if no response, then start making a phone call to all the emergency contacts.

13000.... It's not that many documents... it should all fit on a single USB drive.

The government should be required to modernize, not given the ability to charge outrageous fees just to get access to public records.

If people could live forever, nothing would ever change. We would be stuck with the likes of Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin throughout all of eternity.

That's not true.... Hitler/Stalin did not die of old age; if people really did live forever, then Hitler/Stalin would not have been able to kill anyone, by the way.

Everyone dies eventually. Even if we can eliminate aging and death by old age. There are plenty of other ways to die. Statistically speaking, one of those other ways is going to happen eventually, even if you become eternally young..

It's not going to turn earth into a living hell.

It would eliminate many problems. Imagine how much more productive the economy would become, if retirement was no longer a thing?

We could get rid of the Social Security tax, for starters.

Unfortunately, when operators misuse equipment through poor judgment, the courts side with the operator, so the manufacturer is forced to remove functionality from all users because one user is unable to exercise the commons sense required to operate the machinery.

Instead of removing features.... why don't we require that operators receive proper training?

So they have to sign off and pass a test on among other things a safety course. And the manufacturer can maintain the documentation that the operator knows specific safety requirements.

Phase II is issue all successful trainees an "operator card" and equip all farm vehicles with an "operator card slot" and a biometric sensor.

To start the machine, you have to have the right SmartCard signed by the manufacturer containing your credentials and fingerprints, and the biometric sensor has to scan you and verify it matches the ID on the card.

Then if you stand up or leave the seat, you will have to reauthenticate.

"double the cores" does not make a computer 10x faster.

That's not true. The right answer is... it depends on the computational workload.

If you have a real-time process that will drive a core to nearly 99%, almost all the time.... adding an uncongested core can make the computer complete other tasks 1000x as quickly.

All you could really say for sure, is that it most likely means the power consumption increases close to 2x by doubling the cores, unless there is a fundamental redesign of the package with a major gain in efficiency while adding cores.