That's the old common law definition, but it depends on the state.

from: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/burglary-definition.html :
Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender...

In New York, for example, it's first or second degree burglary if the building entered is a dwelling, third-degree burglary if it's not. http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/burglary/

OK. Community service seems like a reasonable sentence for the judge to impose. For him to be given a sentence of community service, however, first he would have to be found guilty-- you can't sentence somebody to "community service" without charging them with a crime. But there aren't any crimes the description of which is "subject to a maximum sentence of community service"-- that's something that the judge might chose to impose at the sentencing hearing, but it's not what the newspaper puts in the headline after "possible penalties as high as."

A few minor corrections.

Uh, the US has not gone after Assange (not yet, anyway). The US went after Bradley Manning, is that who you're thinking of? Sweden is going after Assange, who is wanted in Sweden for questioning on rape charges, and Assange says that he fears that if he goes to Sweden to answer the charges, they will extradite him to the US... but to date, there is no U.S. action against Assange.

Newspapers always like to phrase indictments with words like "up to XX years in prison!" This makes the news story more exciting. However, there are such things as federal sentencing guidelines. Non-violent crime, first offense, no previous convictions, no aggravating factors-- I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up with a fine plus time served.

Furthermore, he almost certainly could get a plea bargain-- believe it or not, prosecutors don't want to go to court if they can possibly get a conviction without doing so. Unfortunately, a plea bargain would have required Swartz admitting that he did broke the law, and it looks like he was not the type of person who would do that.

Just as a reminder, Swartz was subject to bouts of extreme depression. Although it's a human tendency to want to find external causes and somebody to blame, it is most likely that depression has more to do with his suicide than any other factor.

You are.

NAS reports are peer reviewed

Correct: NAS reports are peer reviewed by outside experts who are not employed by the NAS and not involved in writing the report.

check http://www.nationalacademies.org/newsroom/faq/index.html

...except for the National Academy of Sciences.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

The NAS FAQ http://www.nationalacademies.org/newsroom/faq/index.html states:

Are report authors employees?

No, reports are authored by a committee of experts and subjected to peer review by another group of experts, which remains anonymous until the report is published. All are volunteers who work pro bono in service to the nation. Paid staff scientists and administrators facilitate the work of the committee. For more on the study process, visit our policies and proceedures page.

How are committees balanced, and how is conflict of interest evaluated?

For the National Research Council's policy on committee composition and conflicts of interest, see our conflict of interest page.

Are your reports peer reviewed?

Yes, all of the institution's reports - whether products of studies, summaries of workshop proceedings, or abbreviated documents - must undergo an independent review by anonymous experts who were not involved in the report's preparation. This process is overseen by the Report Review Committee, whose responsibilities are to ensure that the report addresses the approved study charge and does not go beyond it; the findings are supported by the evidence and arguments presented; and the exposition and organization are effective.

So, yes, the fact that it's a report published by the National Academies of Sciences does mean peer review.

First, the statement I was taking issue with was the statement "appears to not be peer-reviewed," which is incorrect.

The question as to whether it's a "good" study is a much harder one. Obviously, the purpose of peer review is to try to make sure that it is a good study, but peer review is not perfect. However National Academy of Sciences reports are quite meticulous; for the most part they are good studies. There are sometimes people who disagree with NAS reports for political reasons, and hence people trying to make a case that the studies are not good because they have an interest in discrediting them. These people, for the most part, are wrong.

Sorry. no. This is the National Academies of Science. This is pretty much the gold standard of peer review; you really can't do much better than that. And, yes, NAS reports are very extensively peer reviewed.

You're right about this not being "medical research." This is a review. Reviews are not original research, they are summaries of research done by others-- in essence, a review is the peer review of an aggregate of studies.

The report is here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13497

Sorry, but your should have put a period after " People skimming may think he included Zuckerberg."

He didn't. Zuckerberg did not make the list.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/the-five-worst-ceos-of-2012/2012/12/18/0f353f14-4940-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story_1.html

Zuckerberg is apparently like Hitler-- any mention of him hijacks the thread, and all discussion of the actual content ceases.

The word you want is "chain of custody". But that isn't the case here, since it's not physical evidence.

In any case it's irrelevant, since the prosecutor already had the videos that Anonymous released. What Anonymous did was to make them public. Whether it's a good thing to put videos of a purported rape out onto the internet is another discussion.

Apparently the high-school kid who "was recorded for a length of time bragging about how much she was fucked" wasn't there:
http://www.wtov9.com/news/news/sheriff-anonymous-hacker-im-coming-after-you/nTnNX/ :

"One guy called asking why is (the person in the video) not arrested," said [Sheriff] Abdalla. "He wasn't even in the same place where the incident occurred. He made this video based on what people were telling him about (the alleged incident). This was no criminal act. I said it the other day: You can't arrest somebody for being stupid. It was disgusting and nauseating. But you can't arrest him for that."

I'm not sure that your advocacy of "the death penalty" is appropriate here.

Wow, amazing how much useless advice there is here. You might reconsider that "best community of geeks" through.

Advice: google the term "cybersquatting."

That article has no information whatsoever on how a private individual would procure a launch. And the prices are dubious-- slightly after the part quoted, for example, the article says "recently it was announced that CubeSats can fly on Atlas V launch vehicles. The cost of a single secondary payload on board of an Atlas V has been quoted as $1 to $2 million per slot."

Maybe, if you're an educational institution with good networking and negotiating skills, you might be able to negotiate a launch for $40K.

There are plenty of sites on how to build cubesats, and where to procure parts. Finding that information isn't hard; use google. As for launching-- that's up to you. Just saying that somewhere out there there are companies that will sell you a launch "for a modest fee"-- well, I suggest that there's a lot of handwaving here. If you want not just build a cubesat, but get it into orbit, you might want to nail this down a few more particulars: what companies? How do you get on their manifest? What are their requirements? Are they only selling launches to educational institutions at a cost that barely covers the cost of integration, or do they sell to individuals or amateur groups, which is what you seem to be? And, for the start-up companies, have they ever launched their vehicle into orbit, and if not, when do they expect to demonstrate their first launch?

Wikipedia?

I'd suggest that the poster take a harder look.

Anybody can build a satellite.

The hard question is, how are you going to get it launched?

Yeah, again. Seems every five years or so there's a book, article, or study saying that IQ is not a single thing.

Yawn.

The professor in my "introduction to psychology and brain science" course said "IQ is defined as what is measured by IQ tests." So it's not that it doesn't exist. The question is, what is it, and does it matter?