I swore I wouldn't post this again since I already posted it at least six times and you could have googled it from the terms I posted above but here you go.
FDR's policies drove the country into a double-dip depression that we only recovered from because the rest of the world destroyed their manufacturing base.
No magical thinking is required. Decay rates are known quantities and the fission yield curve is also known. You're the one engaging in magical thinking unless you name the isotopes which won't decay sufficiently in the specified time period.
They do have a right to be there, but if they don't identify themselves the owner doesn't know that.
If it was impossible for the owner to realize that he was dealing with federal agents instead of vandals then he can't be prosecuted under the laws dealing with assault of a federal officer.
Of course, the feds are perfectly willing to ruin someone's life regardless of what the law actually says so in the end it's moot.
Castle Doctrine and deadly force in general are not things to be played with, taken lightly, or abused.
I never claimed otherwise.
I just pointed out that federal agents could very well put themselves in a situation where a person who shoots them while installing these devices wouldn't be legally liable.
It's probably best for them if they just don't try to do it at night.
Rebuilding the electrical grid would be faster, as well as allowing more generation to be added easily.
You think so?
Go to the DOE web site and look up just how much fossil fuel energy we use compared to electrical energy.
Hydrocarbons are in practically everything and they aren't going away any time soon.
While I want more things to be electrified in the long term we need massive capabilities to synthesize the stuff right now.
Even with your supergrid we'll need to make hydrocarbons for the chemical and agricultural industries so we might as well get started bringing this capability online as soon as possible.
A law library's web page is not authoritative but this is what it says:
A person can be found guilty of the offense of assaulting a Federal officer only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the person forcibly assaulted the person described in the indictment; Second: That the person assaulted was a Federal officer as described above, then engaged in the performance of his official duty, as charged; and Third: That the person did such acts knowingly and willfully.
It is not necessary to show that the person knew the person being forcibly assaulted was, at that time, a Federal officer carrying out an official duty so long as it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was, in fact, a Federal officer acting in the course of his duty and that the person willfully committed a forcible assault upon him.
On the other hand, the person would not be guilty of a willful assault if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt concerning whether the person knew the victim to be a Federal officer and only acted as he did because of a reasonable, good faith belief that he needed to defend himself against an assault by a private citizen.
You can go with big reactors or small reactors, but it will always be cheaper to generate 100 GW with one big reactor rather than 10,000 small reactors.
It may not be cheaper to distribute 100GW from a single point and having only one reactor may not provide other desirable characteristics (like redundancy).
That's why I suggested using big reactors to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels. Those fuels are very energy-dense and easier to distribute than electricity and our hydrocarbon energy consumption dwarfs our energy consumption.
That's all going to boil down to what a prosecutor and jury consider "reasonable belief"
Have armed thieves been stealing cars in this area recently? If so then it seems reasonable that a person could believe that his life would be in danger if he verbally confronted the apparent thief/vandal.
If you reasonably believe the person vandalizing your car is armed then verbally challenging them could put you in danger because they might decide to shoot at you. (3)(B) would then apply.
That absolutely makes sense for an identified federal agent obviously performing his official duties but if a homeowner just sees some random person tampering with their car at night and has no way of knowing if the person is a vandal or an FBI agent?
What section of the United States Code governs this?
First off all you need to prove is a "reasonable belief" that: "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means"
OR
"the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."
If you see an individual or individuals near your property at night and reasonably believe they are committing criminal mischief AND that defending your property by any other means puts you in danger then you are allowed to use deadly force.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be more fun to just blow it up.
I did do that so I guess I'll check back again in two days via Tor on a completely separate browser and see if the information changed.
Stop discouraging them! Let them think their scheme is flawless so that they'll actually implement it instead of something stronger.
I swore I wouldn't post this again since I already posted it at least six times and you could have googled it from the terms I posted above but here you go.
I already did - watch the video.
Pretty much all that needs to happen is for Wikileaks to publish a donation address.
Then anyone who wants to donate could install the program, find someone who will sell bitcoins in exchange for currency and send them to that address.
This would be the perfect opportunity to show the world what Bitcoin can do (or what it can't).
FDR's policies drove the country into a double-dip depression that we only recovered from because the rest of the world destroyed their manufacturing base.
They need government guarantees that they won't be regulated or litigated out of existence after they commit their capital.
Really? How many large, deadly accidents have occurred with pressurized water reactors?
...with solid fuels.
A liquid-fueled design such as LFTR is a completely different ballgame.
I've linked to the Google Tech Talk on LFTR plenty of times in this thread already. You can look it up for yourself.
Before you go ASSuming that I don't know anything about nuclear physics why don't you reveal how many nuclear reactors you've operated?
No magical thinking is required. Decay rates are known quantities and the fission yield curve is also known. You're the one engaging in magical thinking unless you name the isotopes which won't decay sufficiently in the specified time period.
Under certain very specific situations, yes.
They do have a right to be there, but if they don't identify themselves the owner doesn't know that.
If it was impossible for the owner to realize that he was dealing with federal agents instead of vandals then he can't be prosecuted under the laws dealing with assault of a federal officer.
Of course, the feds are perfectly willing to ruin someone's life regardless of what the law actually says so in the end it's moot.
I never claimed otherwise.
I just pointed out that federal agents could very well put themselves in a situation where a person who shoots them while installing these devices wouldn't be legally liable.
It's probably best for them if they just don't try to do it at night.
Naturally.
You think so?
Go to the DOE web site and look up just how much fossil fuel energy we use compared to electrical energy.
Hydrocarbons are in practically everything and they aren't going away any time soon.
While I want more things to be electrified in the long term we need massive capabilities to synthesize the stuff right now.
Even with your supergrid we'll need to make hydrocarbons for the chemical and agricultural industries so we might as well get started bringing this capability online as soon as possible.
A law library's web page is not authoritative but this is what it says:
You can go with big reactors or small reactors, but it will always be cheaper to generate 100 GW with one big reactor rather than 10,000 small reactors.
It may not be cheaper to distribute 100GW from a single point and having only one reactor may not provide other desirable characteristics (like redundancy).
That's why I suggested using big reactors to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels. Those fuels are very energy-dense and easier to distribute than electricity and our hydrocarbon energy consumption dwarfs our energy consumption.
That's all going to boil down to what a prosecutor and jury consider "reasonable belief"
Have armed thieves been stealing cars in this area recently? If so then it seems reasonable that a person could believe that his life would be in danger if he verbally confronted the apparent thief/vandal.
If you reasonably believe the person vandalizing your car is armed then verbally challenging them could put you in danger because they might decide to shoot at you. (3)(B) would then apply.
That absolutely makes sense for an identified federal agent obviously performing his official duties but if a homeowner just sees some random person tampering with their car at night and has no way of knowing if the person is a vandal or an FBI agent?
What section of the United States Code governs this?
You're missing the little ' or ' that follows (3)(A)
First off all you need to prove is a "reasonable belief" that:
"the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means"
OR
"the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."
If you see an individual or individuals near your property at night and reasonably believe they are committing criminal mischief AND that defending your property by any other means puts you in danger then you are allowed to use deadly force.