I could get prison time for opening mail that is addressed to only my wife.
No you couldn't. Well, I'm assuming you live with your wife and didn't steal the letter from her mailbox. The relevant law is 18 USC S 1702 "Obstruction of correspondence"
Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Notice that it includes taking, opening, and destroying, all equally. If it was a felony to open your wife's mail, it would be an equal felony to remove it from the mailbox and bring it inside. It's not a felony. Mostly because this only applies while the mail is in the possession of the post office. Contrary to a related urban legend, your mailbox is not considered property of the post office. Once the letter is placed there, it is considered delievered. Taking mail from somebody else's mailbox is considered "theft" which is not a federal crime. Some states make mail theft worse than regular theft, but it's stealing regardless.
Because the law is "delievered to the person to whom it was directed" it is may still be considered "obstruction of correspondence" if you open or destroy somebody else's mail, if it was delievered to you accidentially. However, the key is still that your intent was to prevent them from getting the mail, or to pry into their secrets. If you get a letter, open it, and realize "hey, who is this from?" you are not a felon. You still need to get it back to the post office so they can deliver it properly (if they put it in the wrong box) or return it to the sender (if the person has moved without a forwarding address), otherwise you are obstructing the deliever (this is the "secreting" part of the law). But again, the law requires intent. It's not a crime if you just forget to do it.
Under the Act of Production Doctrine, the act of an individual in producing documents or materials (e.g., in response to a subpoena) may have a "testimonial aspect" for purposes of the individual's right to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to the extent that the individual's act of production provides information not already in the hands of law enforcement personnel about the (1) existence; (2) custody; or (3) authenticity, of the documents or materials produced.
For example, let's ignore computers: You are wanted for wire fraud. The police search your home with a warrant for accounting documents. They find a small fire safe in the back of your attic. They ask for your combo and like a smart criminal you say "lawyer" and nothing else. So they will see if their safe crackers can open it without risking damage to the contents. Lets say it's a sort of safe where you need to blow it open, and this may destroy the documents it might contain. So they need that combo. They go to a judge and want a subpoena for the combonation. Or rather, they subpoena the contents of the safe. You don't have to tell them the combo, but you do have to open the safe for them if you want to keep the combo secret. At least, that's what they get if the judge sides with them. So the question is, where does this fall WRT the Act of Production Doctrine. The safe was in the corner of your attic. It could have been there when you moved in. It could be your roommates. You could be aware of its existence, or not. You could have put its contents inside of it, or not. At this point, the police do not know any of these answers. So by the Act of Production Doctrine, opening the safe would be testifying as to all of these things. Therefore, the Fifth would protect you from this demand. However, if they dust it for prints and find that your prints are all over the tumbler, then you're on shakier ground. The judge may rule that this shows that your control of the safe is now a "forgone conclusion" and issue the subpoena. Of course, you could say "Well yeah, it was here when I moved in, I tried a few obvious combos, they didn't work, I gave up". That will be up to the judge to decide. Contrary to
On the other hand, if instead of saying "lawyer" you said "hahaha, stupid coppers, only I know the combonation, and if you try to crack the safe you will destroy all of the evidence of my many crimes! The Firth will protect me and I'll walk!" then a judge will almost certainly accept your volunteered testimony on the matter and rule that it is a "foregone conclusion" that you know the safe combo (and that you know it contains the documents the police are looking for). So, don't say that.
In this case, the defendant did the second thing, though without all of the "I did it" bits. He admitted the laptop was his, he admitted it contained encrypted emails discussing the allegedly fradulent things the company was doing, and he admitted that he still knows the password. So the legal question was not "can we compel somebody to reveal a key" because that's already legally decided. The question is "is a password a key? or is it just a word?" The judge ruled that a password was a key, and since the defendant was no longer protected by the Act of Production Doctrine due to his own previous testimony, he can be compelled to use that key. This will only apply to you if the Act of Production Doctrine does not protect you.
Actually, motive and intent are perhaps the most fundamental aspects of a crime. This is codified as Mens rea . Each law has its own mode of culpability. The weakest is called "strict liability", which is what you're thinking of. Under strict liability, the mind of the individual does not matter. If your vehicle is going 31 in a 30 zone, you are guilty of speeding no matter your metal state. I'm no expert, but I believe in the USA you cannot face jailtime or fines over...I want to say $1000? under strict liability. In Canada I know that you cannot face jailtime under strict liability. The rest of the levels of culpability are Negligently "Should have known their actions might lead to an illegal outcome, but didn't", Recklessly "Did know their actions might lead to an illegal outcome, but took them anyway hoping they wouldn't", Knowingly "Did know their actions certainly would lead to an illegal outcome, but took them anyway", and finally Willfully "Did know their actions certainly would lead to an illegal outcome, and took those actions because of the illegal outcome".
For an 85g (3oz) serving of Beyond Meat "chicken" strips, the macros are: 3g fat, 20g protein, 6g carbs, 2g fiber.
For 85g of cooked chicken breast (grilled) the macros are: 2-3g fat, 19-21g protein, 1-2g carbs, 0g fiber.
So 4g net carbs vs 1g net carbs. Even on Keto I wouldn't worry too much about the difference. Overall the macro balance is quite close to chicken breast. They also appear to have more iron than real chicken by a lot (20% RDI vs 3-6%). More than steak, even (~15%).
As a special case, MSVC++ removes memset(array,value,sizeof(array)) if array isn't read again before the end of its scope.
memset(password, 0, sizeof(password));
The MS compiler will delete the memset. In Windows you should use RtlSecureZeroMemory to zero out memory you want to keep secure.
Short answer: No. Long answer: What do you mean "big doses"? There are many sources of gamma rays in the atmosphere (when stuff like cosmic rays hit it, you get a nice shower of gamma rays and other neat thingies). Maybe if you have a gamma spectrograph you can filter out just the cobalt-60 gamma rays, assuming they're unique? In that case you just need to worry about the fact that the surface is huge and gamma detectors are non-directional. That means that to scan a point on the surface you need to point straight at it. Unless you have a massive constillation of sats that means each "square" you scan will need to have a pretty high CPM for there to be a statistically significant number of counts during the scan. Due to the inverse square law, your satellite in LEO will only see a few CPS if somebody within 1KM of the source is getting several MILLION CPM. That translates into radiation sickness within a few days. For being 1KM away. Don't even ask about being in the same room as it! And of course the area you're scanning in 1 second is pretty huge so this detector wouldn't be much help locating things. And that's assuming no background radiation on the same order (or higher) CPS.
This would change if you have a gamma ray vector spectrograph that lets you measure the exact frequency and vector of each gamma ray it detects. But right now I think the filters are pretty fuzzy AND the techniques used are all non-directional. Even assuming perfect filters and vector detectors, the counts have to be huge before they show up in space right when you're looking. And I think the assumption you even can filter so you won't see any background ticks is incorrect, but I have no idea what kind of spectral distribution the Earth's gamma background has.
The reason you can have satellites that detect and locate the gamma bursts of underground nuclear tests is because of the B word. If it's a burst then you can triangulate between satellites even though their detectors are scalar not vector. That's because the sudden uptick that each satellite sees is tied to the same physical event. If you're looking at decay emissions then the counts are not synchronized so you can't triangulate. Oh, and also the gamma ray burst from an explosion is pretty big compared to the decay from a few kg of cobalt-60.
He answered yes by raising his hand. He then volunteered ONE example. He was not asked to disclose all cases. He did not misrepresent anything. He did not state he only had one lawsuit, or answer any questions as to how many lawsuits he had been involved in. That's not his fault for those questions not being asked.
What the judge said is "All right, let's go to Mr. Hogan". You are trying to say "Mr. Hogan didn't have to say anything because that's not a question, the judge just said 'let's go' and that means nothing!" However, standard voir dire instructions are that when you raise your hand and it is "your turn", you must explain your answer in "narrative form". So the reason he gave an example is not because he volunteered an example without prompting. It was because he was instructed that, when picked by the judge, he must elaborate on his yes/no answer. To repeat that, he was required to explain his answer. The judge did not vocalize that requirement at that time, because it was part of the previous instructions. That's why all of the people who raised their hand were not asked explicitly to elaborate, but they all did when he called their names. Since he was, in fact, instructed to explain, he was required to answer truthfully. Omissions are considered deceit as far as the court is concerned.
This doesn't change much. As mentioned, this is a pretty fundamental assumption. What this assumption gets you is that if you go big enough, all of the differences in mass distribution smooth out and everywhere is just like everywhere else. There will be a "typical" cluster of galaxies that "most" are "pretty close" to. And within such a typical cluster you can talk of a "typical" galaxy, and a "typical" star within that galaxy. But are we a typical planet in a typical solar system in a typical galaxy in a typical local cluster in a typical supercluster? Unknown
What's more important is how common solar systems with terrestrial and gas giant planets are. If there are rocky planets, it's thought that more or less they will turn out the same at the same distance from the sun, (scaled by the sun's intensity of course), and depending on their mass for how well they can hold onto an atmosphere. (And of course that's wishy washy, it's argued whether or not Mars would be earth-like at our distance, if it would still have been too small to hold onto an atmosphere long-term, and if the a large moon is necessary to keep the magnetic field rolling). More or less the distance and primary's luminosity will determine atmospheric temperature, and that will determine the rate of out-gassing, and you'll get all kinds of feedback, and either end up with a Venus, Earth, or Mars depending on how the atmospheric pressure and temperature equilibriums end up balanced. There doesn't appear to be a HUGE amount of variance in elemental abundance between solar systems, except according to their age. (Even that is more of a quick rule of thumb than a hard curve). This of course isn't settled by any means. Then you have things that are less settled. How important is a moon to things? Some say our magnetic field would be gone by now without the tidal forces of the moon keeping the core etc. churning away. Others say that's silly, but it might be a bit weaker by now. Then you have to figure out how much water and such we got from bombardment by comets flung out of orbit by gas giants. How many and how large of gas giants do you need to typically get that effect? Is it even strictly necessary, or just handy? Would we have still ended up Earth-like (with much smaller oceans perhaps?) without Late Heavy Bombardment? Or would we have frozen solid without the greenhouse effect of all that water? Or did most of our water come from within anyway so at most we would just have slightly smaller oceans and slightly lower temperature? If gas giants are needed, we at least have spotted those all over the place. (In fact we've spotted them around stars we thought shouldn't have any!)
None of that is really helped or hindered by the homogeneity of the entire universe. If we can get the telescope resolution to make fair estimates on the likelihood of earth-like planets (for some definition of that term) throughout the Milky Way, then we can maybe look at nearby galaxies and guestimate how likely those stars are to be like our own stars...and from there if we can eventually look far enough we can say "OK well by homogeneity most galaxies are probably pretty close to this, so maybe earth-like planets are around about this common...ish".