The passage you quote applies INSIDE YOUR HOME after a forcible entry. It says so right in the entry. So shooting people for mere trespassing is murder in Georgia, and anywhere else.

When the employees "get together" and take collective action, then that is a union.

Since when are pay cuts illegal?

Your list contains this many entries that allow shooting of trespassers: 0.

What county is that? I know of no jurisdiction anywhere that allows deadly force against non-forcible trespassing. Some jurisdictions allow you to shoot someone that breaks into an occupied residence, but not for just driving past a sign.

If you have good airflow, you can go much higher than that. The critical factor is the temp of the components, not the room temp. Dell will warranty their equipment up to 115F (45C). Google runs some of their datacenters at 80F, and others at up to 95F.

There are some drawbacks to "hot" datacenters. They are less pleasant for humans, and there is less thermal cushion in the event of a cooling system failure. But many datacenters avoid that problem by replacing chillers with 100% outside ambient temp air cooling. That wouldn't work in Las Vegas (high of 115F today), but most places it is viable.

So I can believe Google's peer reviewed and published study of hundreds of thousands of devices, or I can accept your "personal verification". Wow, this is a tough decision.

Eventually. But not as soon as you might think. Modern servers can tolerate heat fairly well, and many data centers waste money on excessive cooling. As long as you are within the temp spec, there is little evidence that you gain reliability by additional cooling. Google has published data on the reliability of hundreds of thousands of disk drives. They found that the reliability was actually better at the high end of the temperature range. This is one reason that Google runs "hot" datacenters today.

If you are claiming that COPPA allows "implied consent", you are flat out wrong. Parental consent must be explicit.

If their disclosure says that, they should be fine.

My view is utterly irrelevant. All that matters is the view of the judge your lawyer is trying to convince that your organization was COPPA compliant after a parent sues you.

Look, this is not complicated. Google for "COPPA checklist", click on the first link, then read it. If you are compliant, fine. If not, fix the issues to get in compliance. That is all.

The summary also says there is a "lack of disclosure in the parental consent process." Just getting parental consent to "use the internet" or "use Google Apps" is not enough. Unless the parents are explicitly giving their consent to the disclosure of identifying information, then this school is breaking the law.

Maybe the OP is being alarmist, and he certainly doesn't appear to be very competent, but the obvious solution is to read the applicable law (which is COPPA), go down the legal checklist, and make sure his school complies.

From the summary.

Allowing children under 13 to disclose identifying information online, without parental consent, is not only a bad idea, it is illegal. Read up on the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. If these kids are using their real names, their photographs, or their email addresses online without written parental consent, then the school may find themselves in legal trouble. COPPA lays out some pretty specific rules, so if you are using the internet with kids under 13, you need to be familiar with that law.

Sure, but the traffic has always been bad, and there has never been good restaurants. If this is what it takes to "kill" Silicon Valley, then Silicon Valley would have never existed in the first place. People have been regularly predicting the death of SV since the 1970s.

I live in SV (San Jose, to be exact). The weather is great. My kids go to public schools that are in America's top 1%. The restaurants aren't as good as in SF, but they aren't that bad. Workwise, there is plenty of talent, and it is easy to find people with almost any skill I need. If I get sick of my job, I can walk across the street and find another. Very few other locations has all these benefits.

My guess is that the FBI was trying to catch American citizens in the act of whistleblowing, so that they can make an arrest. America is not kind to people that expose corruption. Although we have "whistleblower protection programs", they have so many exceptions that they are a sham. Whether they go to the press, the police, or directly to the FBI, many whistleblowers end up in serious legal trouble and often spend time in jail. Citation: List of whistleblowers.

No, they are not. They believe in transparent government. But they also believe in personal privacy.

The identity of people exposing corruption. Some of these people have risked their lives to do so.