I think you're a little backwards. This is perfect for large installations - under specific requirements.
Competent IT/management
Limited variety in software between departments
Software writen for thin-client/server environment
Software writen for server or thin-client environments is designed from the ground up to not interfier with other software, so proper software selection goes a long ways towards making sure that this type of project will work at all. Also note that this isn't about completely eliminating workstations/PCs it's about replacing them where it's not needed. Got a secretary pool of 40 and a call center with 200 stations? That's 240 fewer HD's to re-image after a virus gets past your defences. The Secretary for the VP of Marketing still keeps her PC since she is going to have to open/work with image files that no other secretary will.
My last scan of thin-client tech showed that a client server ration of 150:1 is possible for moderate level usage, with it dropping as low as 25:1 for specialized software that's resource intensive. For a 250-300 seat call center, 2 servers can cover the whole floor. Add in the added security of dumb terminals - no vector for USB thumbdrives, floppys, or CD burners to be used to steal data or inject a virus, and the ease of configuring them - usually you either turn them on & DHCP takes care of them or you point them at a server, and it's a winning combination for IT workload and Data Security.
Yeah, it's been "proposed in Georgia", but it might as well have been proposed on the moon. It has no support in Georgia and shouldn't reflect on Georgia.
Other than they elected the nutjob.
Of course here in MA we have our own nutjob who is proposing making spanking your child a felony.
Don't get cheeky. We know perfectly well what social networking is. Social networking sites are what/we/ build so other people than ourselves can get dates!
You didn't add the backdoor to view all the female profiles & report back that you're a perfect match for all the hot ones? Were you drinking and coding again?
There is some precident for limited civil immunity for the president. It essentially keeps them from being kept in depositions for the length of their term. Note that it doesn't prevent the suit from being filed, just that it can't be persued util after they leave office.
As for criminal prosecution, I believe that is more of a curtesy than settled law. Criminal acts resulting from his acting 'as the president' seem to be in the domain of congress. However, I have no doubt that the DC police would take custody of him were he caught beating an intern with a candlestick*.
* The president, in the oval office, with the candlestick. Whoot, a new version of Clue:)
Strongly discouraged is a dramatic understatement. Prohibited is closer to the truth. I can't think of a single course I took in college that would have accepted an encyclopedia reference in a term paper. English, sociology, psychology, World Civ, science (72 crh phy, che, & bio) none of them would have accepted a cite from an encyclopedia for anything more than a copyright notice of a picture you might have included.
In a college level science paper you include only 2 things, independent research - backed by methodology, and peer reviewed papers. The farther you get from hard sciences (where either A + B = C or it doesn't), the lower the peer reviewed requirement at lower levels - IE biographies are rarely peer reviewed, but highly helpful in understanding the importance of the personality traits of people involved in historical events. Even there, at higher levels if you're going to base a thesis on "The impact of GWB's syphalis on his behaviour reguarding the 2nd Iraq war", you're going to need a primary peer reviewed source reporting his syphalis, or independent discovery of his (verifiable) medical records. Bob's History of the Shrub isn't going to cut it.
I was looking at the gumstix line yesterday. They have the basic MB & an audio daughter card. Since the daughter card also has pinouts for LCD displays, I was considering putting together a wall mount box for remote connection to the MP3 server. But totalling it up, I couldn't see spending $300+ in addition to however long it took me to hook up the display & create a mounting case - for that I can get a junk laptop & do more.
High refractive index glass sputter coating costs about 1 dollar/ 1000 square inches. The Coating we were working on was coming out to about 5 cents/1000 square inches.
Lots of comments so let's just roll them together....
Cascadingstylesheet said:
What if I have an opinion, and somebody pays me to express it?
That depends, are they paying you to express a specific opinion, or your opinion.
also:
Newspaper opinion columnists are paid, aren't they? Would they have to register? Does the newspaper have a website? Do they allow comments on stories? Why isn't that a blog?
The average columnist does NOT have to register for the simple reason that they are paid to write columns expressing their opinions on current events. They are not being hired to write individual columns with specific topics & agendas. If they are paid to write a specific column with a specific agenda of motivating people to take a specific political action, then they are not expressing their opinion, they are contractiors lobbying for another group. The wording was specific that you had to be paid to simulate a grassroots movement. So, if you get up on the soapbox & shout your own opinions, it doesn't matter what you say. When the RNC pays you to stand up on that box to spout the party line, then you aren't acting as a citizen - you're a PR person lobbying the people instead of directly to congressmen.
rexrhino commented:
Requiring people to register in order to exercise their right to speech, even if they ARE paid to make the speech, is completly against the ideals of freedom of speech and public discourse.
No, it's not, the right to free speach is garanteed to all individuals. PACs, companies, etc are not individuals and they require spokespeople. When you exercise your right to free speach, people listening to you base the value they place on what you say on what they know about you - your opinions in the past, your experiance, etc - when that reputation is bought for a political end, people have a right to know. It's called truth in advertising. Note that at the bottom of all the commercials with famous people, they have the notes that they are compensated spokespeople/satisfied users. At the bottom of all the political adds it says paid for by XXX. Those are so that the people who listen to them can identify the bias of the speaker. At no time does it limit what can be said, nor does it limit public discourse - it only limits the ability of people to hide their affiliations when they are paid to speak for a group.
rexrhino also went on:
By selectively revoking the licence of those whome you disagree with, you can give one political group a distinct advantage over another political group.
SQL_error chose to quote the constitution:
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
For rex, this is a registration of affiliation, and it is currently required for all lobbyists who dirrectly lobby members of government - IE take money to talk to people who vote on laws. It's not a license, it's a registration so that the people you are trying to influence can see what groups you are speaking for. There is no way to prohibit registration, nor is there a way to revoke the registration. I can sign up as a lobbyist for the 'Commitee for the Severe Beating of Annoying Children' and there is no means to prohibit me from lobbying on behalf of my clients. Also, there is no means for me to legally hide that affiliation while I am lobbying, nor should there be. When I engage in lobbying, I am not speaking for myself, nor am I exercising my right to free speach, I am speaking for a company or a group and anyone who cares to should have the right to determine which group I am speaking for.
For SQL, again, there is no abridgment. You, as an individual can say anything you want - including attempting to create a grassroots movement to legalize pissing on the shoes of lawyers. Your freedom of speach is in no way inhibited. The only thing that is inhibited here is the
So what if I were journalist and radio host like Alex Jones (http://www.infowars.com) and I made
a living investigating the US government and the United Nations and exposing them in
television documentaries like you can _buy_ on DVD from hist site...[snip]...Why should _he_ or anybody else for that matter register for the RIGHT to express their opinions in public to any arbitrarily large audience?!
Is he being paid to express his opinions/do journalistic research or is he a contractor to a PR firm trying to get a 'grassroots' campaign started to promote his employers agenda? The wording of the ammendment made clear that you had to do 2 things to fall under it:
Reach more than 500 people - ie don't waste our time & money with de-minimus
be paid to present a stance and attempt to create a 'grassroots' movement
So, unless you take money to present a specific opinion & attempt to influence government by having your readers contact their representatives, you don't have to register as a political lobyist. This is just an attempt to do with blogs what is already manditory with radio, television, and print - If you take money to work for a political lobby, you have to register, hell in traditional media, you have to identify your affiliation on every add/interview.
So for Alex Jones, he doesn't qualify. He's a journalist who presents his facts & then tells people to take action. If he starts taking money from a PAC specifically to expouse a specific POV and astroturf for them, then yes, he does need to register, because he is no longer expressing his opinion he is expressing the opinion a PAC paid him to express. Hence the original title - paid for speach is not free speach & is not subject to the anonymity provisions which accompany the first ammendment.
Hey, this is about security - that means it's part of homeland security. Safety is the responsibility of the NTSB and they only exist so we can blame them when planes fall out of the sky.
Diamond is a very specific orientation of the carbon atoms. There are a lot of ways to arrange them - and dope them - that create various effects while not being 'diamonds'. This is fascinating stuff, and if I were just starting out in school, I would be very strongly tempted to get into this type of material sciences.
When I was working at a company doing rotary press holograms, we were working on doing coatings of TiO2 using crystal growth. Our rough estimates were double the scratch resistance of an acrylic coating. Fun mixture - Titinate/Titinol acid inhibited/water catalized reaction occuring in an anhydrous methanol solution printed onto a film. All the benefits of glass vapor deposition (refractive index/scratchresistance) at about $0.05/1000SI as opposed to $1/1000SI.
While it might be good for the scratch resistance, I do have to wonder what this is going to add to the cost - it might just be cheaper to use a more durable plastic instead of cheap plastic w/ coating.
No, you don't have to register to have a personal opinion, or to voice it in public. The bill was worded very specifically to make sure that only if you were paid to have an opinion (and only if you reached more than 500ppl), would you then have to register - just like if you are paid to have an opinion & print something in a magazine, in a newspaper, etc - all of those paid for by notices on the bottom of the TV adds - that's what it was about.
Look up Corry V US?Sony? The judge says that the DMCA garantees you as an individual the right to employ all aspects of fair use in reguards to DVDs, but that it's illegal for anyone to make software for you to actually exercize that right.
Actually, since you are melding my 2 separate analogies together, I should point out that under your scenario, no member of any board of any alcohol mfg could land in Saudi Arabia if anyone in Saudi Arabia ever saw one of their online adds.
Also, your step 3 is invalid:
3) A Saudi Arabian citizen uses Company Y to buy alchohol and ship it to Saudi Arabia. (just like Neteller giving money back to American citizens)
Neteller giving money back to American citizens is not illegal. It's only a problem when it's from online casino's that are not approved by the US govt. It's perfectly legal from OTB, the MA Lottery, etc... it's just offshore casino's they don't like. Shipping any {drinking) alcohol to Saudi Arabia is illegal.
Yes I saw the money laundering quote. What I don't see is any rational to it. First, they are not members of the board & have not been since prior to the law that is being used to declare the transactions illegal. Since the US constitution prohibits retro-active laws, everything they did while board members was legal - even here. So, they are arresting people who are shareholders in a company which is not complying with a law in a country it's not incorperated in and doesn't have a legal presence in. From that perspective, who cares about the president of JD, anyone with a single share of stock in JD can be arrested in Saudi Arabia.
This isn't legal wrangling, this is the Shrub waving his presidential penis around showing how he's in charge & making B&M casino's happy. Personally I was hoping Antigua would petition to have the US's IP protections set aside as a sanction for violating the WTO agreements.
EULA's are nice but generally not worth the photons they're read with. It's pretty settled law that you can't sign away your right to sue in a contract. Hold harmless clauses are generally there to scare away the clueless, but unless there is a full and detailed legal discussion surrounding the signing of a contract/deal with a hold harmless clause, they are generally tossed out in court.
IANAL etc.
Still though, if you look at it from a different viewpoint...maybe that of how bars are sometimes legally responsible for the deaths in drunk driving accidents should a person leave the establishment with the bartender/employees knowing they are not fit to drive.
There is human interaction between the bartender and the guy buying the beer. It's the same as with the safe harbor provisions for Google. If the system is automated, they are only responsible after they have been notified. MySpace is entirely automated, they have nobody reviewing the profiles for veracity or monitoring the traffic, nor should they have to. If I want to pretend to be a 16yr old blond female babbling innanely [please kill me if that ever becomes part of my job] it's not MySpace's responsibility to prove who I really am.
The first thing I think I would ask the parents on the witness stand is: "Are you in the habit of letting your daughter go on dates with people you have never met?" They get 2 answers .
Yes leads to the conclusion they don't take actions to protect their child.
No leads to the question: "Why they you let her this time?"
We thought it was OK: "If you can't tell, how is MySpace supposed to?"
She deceived us: "If she can successfully deceive you, her parent, how is MySpace supposed to detect her deception?"
That's the issue, the Nettell business model isn't illegal in the US, you can quite legally transfer money from US citizen account A to your account to Account B in Antigua. Paypal, webpay, etc. all work like that. Killing people is illegal in the US, and as far as US law is concerned, we technically couldn't arrest him unless he had killed an American, or someone we had an extradition treaty with requested we arrest him for them. We might - if we were so inclined - arrest him & transfer him to the world court for crimes against humanity. We would most likely ban him from the US as Persona Non Grata & refuse him a visa.
Analogies only work when your analogy approximates the situation involved. Constructing an analogy which equates facilitating banking transactions between 2 legal entities to mass murder shifts from analogy to hyperbole. A more correct analogy is, should the owner of Jack Daniels be arrested if he stops in Saudi Arabia while traveling from South Africa to Greece? Or alternately, should the owner of a Jamaican distiller be arrested for allowing Americans to make an online purchase of Moonshine & send it to a Bermuda address?
The act of distilling is legal, both in the US & Jamaica.
The act of making an online purchase is legal in both the US & Jamaica.
The act of sending a bottle of Moonshine from Jamaica to Bermuda is legal. (A case would be importing - not legal without a license)
The only illegal thing about this whole scenario is that the type of alcohol is illegal in the US. (Whiskey must be aged in oak barrels - moonshine is raw & unaged).
Compare this to the Nettell issue:
The act of facilitating banking transactions between US & non US banks is legal.
The holder of the US bank accounts and the holders of the non US bank accounts are - AFAIK have not been convicted of money laundering.
The act of transferring money from UK banks to accounts owned by Online Gambling corperations is legal.
The only thing illegal in this is that the type of establishment is unlicensable in the US - online gambling is legal in the US for B&M casinos, state lotteries, OTB horse & dog racing, and certain other types of gambling. However, pure online casino's are unable to be licensed due to B&M casino lobbying.
So, if you think that the president of JD should be arrested in Saudi Arabia, and the president of Captain Morgan's should be arrested in the US then I guess your argument makes sense to you. If you don't agree that that is the case, your argument fails.
The last item in the blurb was 'attempted witness harassment'. That's a fed charge that falls under the umbrella of witness tampering. The feds & the court system take that very seriously. It often carries a heavier jail time than the crimes people are trying to get out of.
Wire fraud is a federal crime that's taken very seriously - IIRC 5-10 for each count.
Misuse of the AOL trademark is civil - except it was done in the commision of fraud which makes it criminal misuse. FWIU, mostly a proven agravating factor in the fraud case.
Attempted witness harassment. We have a winner - this alone with get you 10 - 20 years in PMITA fedstyle. You do not touch witnesses, you do not yell at witnesses, you do not threaten witnesses - you do not even send Xmass cards to your brother the witness.
Looking at it, the CANNSPAMM conviction is an afterthought to the rest of the convictions.
Slashdot Mirror
Software writen for server or thin-client environments is designed from the ground up to not interfier with other software, so proper software selection goes a long ways towards making sure that this type of project will work at all. Also note that this isn't about completely eliminating workstations/PCs it's about replacing them where it's not needed. Got a secretary pool of 40 and a call center with 200 stations? That's 240 fewer HD's to re-image after a virus gets past your defences. The Secretary for the VP of Marketing still keeps her PC since she is going to have to open/work with image files that no other secretary will.
My last scan of thin-client tech showed that a client server ration of 150:1 is possible for moderate level usage, with it dropping as low as 25:1 for specialized software that's resource intensive. For a 250-300 seat call center, 2 servers can cover the whole floor. Add in the added security of dumb terminals - no vector for USB thumbdrives, floppys, or CD burners to be used to steal data or inject a virus, and the ease of configuring them - usually you either turn them on & DHCP takes care of them or you point them at a server, and it's a winning combination for IT workload and Data Security.
Of course here in MA we have our own nutjob who is proposing making spanking your child a felony.
Yeah, we definately need to bring the Pinto back. That'll put some excitement back into car accidents.
There is some precident for limited civil immunity for the president. It essentially keeps them from being kept in depositions for the length of their term. Note that it doesn't prevent the suit from being filed, just that it can't be persued util after they leave office. As for criminal prosecution, I believe that is more of a curtesy than settled law. Criminal acts resulting from his acting 'as the president' seem to be in the domain of congress. However, I have no doubt that the DC police would take custody of him were he caught beating an intern with a candlestick*. * The president, in the oval office, with the candlestick. Whoot, a new version of Clue :)
Strongly discouraged is a dramatic understatement. Prohibited is closer to the truth. I can't think of a single course I took in college that would have accepted an encyclopedia reference in a term paper. English, sociology, psychology, World Civ, science (72 crh phy, che, & bio) none of them would have accepted a cite from an encyclopedia for anything more than a copyright notice of a picture you might have included.
In a college level science paper you include only 2 things, independent research - backed by methodology, and peer reviewed papers. The farther you get from hard sciences (where either A + B = C or it doesn't), the lower the peer reviewed requirement at lower levels - IE biographies are rarely peer reviewed, but highly helpful in understanding the importance of the personality traits of people involved in historical events. Even there, at higher levels if you're going to base a thesis on "The impact of GWB's syphalis on his behaviour reguarding the 2nd Iraq war", you're going to need a primary peer reviewed source reporting his syphalis, or independent discovery of his (verifiable) medical records. Bob's History of the Shrub isn't going to cut it.
I was looking at the gumstix line yesterday. They have the basic MB & an audio daughter card. Since the daughter card also has pinouts for LCD displays, I was considering putting together a wall mount box for remote connection to the MP3 server. But totalling it up, I couldn't see spending $300+ in addition to however long it took me to hook up the display & create a mounting case - for that I can get a junk laptop & do more.
High refractive index glass sputter coating costs about 1 dollar/ 1000 square inches. The Coating we were working on was coming out to about 5 cents/1000 square inches.
Cascadingstylesheet said:
That depends, are they paying you to express a specific opinion, or your opinion.
also:
The average columnist does NOT have to register for the simple reason that they are paid to write columns expressing their opinions on current events. They are not being hired to write individual columns with specific topics & agendas. If they are paid to write a specific column with a specific agenda of motivating people to take a specific political action, then they are not expressing their opinion, they are contractiors lobbying for another group. The wording was specific that you had to be paid to simulate a grassroots movement. So, if you get up on the soapbox & shout your own opinions, it doesn't matter what you say. When the RNC pays you to stand up on that box to spout the party line, then you aren't acting as a citizen - you're a PR person lobbying the people instead of directly to congressmen.
rexrhino commented:
No, it's not, the right to free speach is garanteed to all individuals. PACs, companies, etc are not individuals and they require spokespeople. When you exercise your right to free speach, people listening to you base the value they place on what you say on what they know about you - your opinions in the past, your experiance, etc - when that reputation is bought for a political end, people have a right to know. It's called truth in advertising. Note that at the bottom of all the commercials with famous people, they have the notes that they are compensated spokespeople/satisfied users. At the bottom of all the political adds it says paid for by XXX. Those are so that the people who listen to them can identify the bias of the speaker. At no time does it limit what can be said, nor does it limit public discourse - it only limits the ability of people to hide their affiliations when they are paid to speak for a group.
rexrhino also went on:
SQL_error chose to quote the constitution:
For rex, this is a registration of affiliation, and it is currently required for all lobbyists who dirrectly lobby members of government - IE take money to talk to people who vote on laws. It's not a license, it's a registration so that the people you are trying to influence can see what groups you are speaking for. There is no way to prohibit registration, nor is there a way to revoke the registration. I can sign up as a lobbyist for the 'Commitee for the Severe Beating of Annoying Children' and there is no means to prohibit me from lobbying on behalf of my clients. Also, there is no means for me to legally hide that affiliation while I am lobbying, nor should there be. When I engage in lobbying, I am not speaking for myself, nor am I exercising my right to free speach, I am speaking for a company or a group and anyone who cares to should have the right to determine which group I am speaking for.
For SQL, again, there is no abridgment. You, as an individual can say anything you want - including attempting to create a grassroots movement to legalize pissing on the shoes of lawyers. Your freedom of speach is in no way inhibited. The only thing that is inhibited here is the
Is he being paid to express his opinions/do journalistic research or is he a contractor to a PR firm trying to get a 'grassroots' campaign started to promote his employers agenda? The wording of the ammendment made clear that you had to do 2 things to fall under it:
So, unless you take money to present a specific opinion & attempt to influence government by having your readers contact their representatives, you don't have to register as a political lobyist. This is just an attempt to do with blogs what is already manditory with radio, television, and print - If you take money to work for a political lobby, you have to register, hell in traditional media, you have to identify your affiliation on every add/interview.
So for Alex Jones, he doesn't qualify. He's a journalist who presents his facts & then tells people to take action. If he starts taking money from a PAC specifically to expouse a specific POV and astroturf for them, then yes, he does need to register, because he is no longer expressing his opinion he is expressing the opinion a PAC paid him to express. Hence the original title - paid for speach is not free speach & is not subject to the anonymity provisions which accompany the first ammendment.
Hey, this is about security - that means it's part of homeland security. Safety is the responsibility of the NTSB and they only exist so we can blame them when planes fall out of the sky.
Diamond is a very specific orientation of the carbon atoms. There are a lot of ways to arrange them - and dope them - that create various effects while not being 'diamonds'. This is fascinating stuff, and if I were just starting out in school, I would be very strongly tempted to get into this type of material sciences.
When I was working at a company doing rotary press holograms, we were working on doing coatings of TiO2 using crystal growth. Our rough estimates were double the scratch resistance of an acrylic coating. Fun mixture - Titinate/Titinol acid inhibited/water catalized reaction occuring in an anhydrous methanol solution printed onto a film. All the benefits of glass vapor deposition (refractive index/scratchresistance) at about $0.05/1000SI as opposed to $1/1000SI.
While it might be good for the scratch resistance, I do have to wonder what this is going to add to the cost - it might just be cheaper to use a more durable plastic instead of cheap plastic w/ coating.
No, you don't have to register to have a personal opinion, or to voice it in public. The bill was worded very specifically to make sure that only if you were paid to have an opinion (and only if you reached more than 500ppl), would you then have to register - just like if you are paid to have an opinion & print something in a magazine, in a newspaper, etc - all of those paid for by notices on the bottom of the TV adds - that's what it was about.
Their is and the override password is 'buffalo'
Look up Corry V US?Sony? The judge says that the DMCA garantees you as an individual the right to employ all aspects of fair use in reguards to DVDs, but that it's illegal for anyone to make software for you to actually exercize that right.
Also, your step 3 is invalid: Neteller giving money back to American citizens is not illegal. It's only a problem when it's from online casino's that are not approved by the US govt. It's perfectly legal from OTB, the MA Lottery, etc... it's just offshore casino's they don't like. Shipping any {drinking) alcohol to Saudi Arabia is illegal.
Yes I saw the money laundering quote. What I don't see is any rational to it. First, they are not members of the board & have not been since prior to the law that is being used to declare the transactions illegal. Since the US constitution prohibits retro-active laws, everything they did while board members was legal - even here. So, they are arresting people who are shareholders in a company which is not complying with a law in a country it's not incorperated in and doesn't have a legal presence in. From that perspective, who cares about the president of JD, anyone with a single share of stock in JD can be arrested in Saudi Arabia.
This isn't legal wrangling, this is the Shrub waving his presidential penis around showing how he's in charge & making B&M casino's happy. Personally I was hoping Antigua would petition to have the US's IP protections set aside as a sanction for violating the WTO agreements.
EULA's are nice but generally not worth the photons they're read with. It's pretty settled law that you can't sign away your right to sue in a contract. Hold harmless clauses are generally there to scare away the clueless, but unless there is a full and detailed legal discussion surrounding the signing of a contract/deal with a hold harmless clause, they are generally tossed out in court.
IANAL etc.
There is human interaction between the bartender and the guy buying the beer. It's the same as with the safe harbor provisions for Google. If the system is automated, they are only responsible after they have been notified. MySpace is entirely automated, they have nobody reviewing the profiles for veracity or monitoring the traffic, nor should they have to. If I want to pretend to be a 16yr old blond female babbling innanely [please kill me if that ever becomes part of my job] it's not MySpace's responsibility to prove who I really am.
The first thing I think I would ask the parents on the witness stand is: "Are you in the habit of letting your daughter go on dates with people you have never met?" They get 2 answers .
"If you can't tell, how is MySpace supposed to?"
"If she can successfully deceive you, her parent, how is MySpace supposed to detect her deception?"
That's the issue, the Nettell business model isn't illegal in the US, you can quite legally transfer money from US citizen account A to your account to Account B in Antigua. Paypal, webpay, etc. all work like that. Killing people is illegal in the US, and as far as US law is concerned, we technically couldn't arrest him unless he had killed an American, or someone we had an extradition treaty with requested we arrest him for them. We might - if we were so inclined - arrest him & transfer him to the world court for crimes against humanity. We would most likely ban him from the US as Persona Non Grata & refuse him a visa.
Analogies only work when your analogy approximates the situation involved. Constructing an analogy which equates facilitating banking transactions between 2 legal entities to mass murder shifts from analogy to hyperbole. A more correct analogy is, should the owner of Jack Daniels be arrested if he stops in Saudi Arabia while traveling from South Africa to Greece? Or alternately, should the owner of a Jamaican distiller be arrested for allowing Americans to make an online purchase of Moonshine & send it to a Bermuda address?
- The act of distilling is legal, both in the US & Jamaica.
- The act of making an online purchase is legal in both the US & Jamaica.
- The act of sending a bottle of Moonshine from Jamaica to Bermuda is legal. (A case would be importing - not legal without a license)
The only illegal thing about this whole scenario is that the type of alcohol is illegal in the US. (Whiskey must be aged in oak barrels - moonshine is raw & unaged). Compare this to the Nettell issue:The only thing illegal in this is that the type of establishment is unlicensable in the US - online gambling is legal in the US for B&M casinos, state lotteries, OTB horse & dog racing, and certain other types of gambling. However, pure online casino's are unable to be licensed due to B&M casino lobbying.
So, if you think that the president of JD should be arrested in Saudi Arabia, and the president of Captain Morgan's should be arrested in the US then I guess your argument makes sense to you. If you don't agree that that is the case, your argument fails.
The last item in the blurb was 'attempted witness harassment'. That's a fed charge that falls under the umbrella of witness tampering. The feds & the court system take that very seriously. It often carries a heavier jail time than the crimes people are trying to get out of.
May you be sentenced to the hell of McD's biscuits for the remainder of eternity.