Starlink terminals are not beacons that attract attacks.
They transmit a highly directional pattern (beam), and the low altitude of the satellites means that the beam rapidly sweeps across the sky.
It is still good practice to hide the terminals, and keep them away from humans when feasible. But they are much less observable than non-technical people assume.
Claiming that 80% of goods sold is grown illegally is implicitly acknowledging that some is grown legally. If that's the police claim, they should have an investigation that shows those specific businesses sold illegally grown pot. A generalized "some X is illegal, therefore all X may be treated as criminal" is not the legal standard.
To clarify: a SPAC generally does have a specific merger/acquisition target when it goes IPO. But it must truthfully disclose the interactions and the status of negotiations, and specifically any terms that have been negotiated.
If negotiations have progressed to terms, then the full range of disclosures and requirements (e.g. audited financials) apply to the acquisition target. Which, of course, is what a SPAC is usually trying to avoid.
From that point of view, a SPAC should be a bad investment. It's a company formed to do an acquisition. Its very reason for existence is to do a deal. The company being acquired knows this and should be able to negotiate extremely favorable terms. Any competitor can come in and make an offer just under the best terms that the SPAC can offer, and the SPAC pretty much has to top that offer.
Also a new SPAC should rationally be trading at a bare premium to par value or investment holdings. If it's trading at a significant premium, there should always be the chance that a newer SPAC could be formed that raises slightly more cash to outbid the first SPAC, while costing the shareholders less money.
To be fair, it's unreasonable for the companies to declare themselves 'not critical infrastructure'. I can only hope that will come back to bite them.
Industries behaving badly is a reason for government regulation. That is true even in a state that is vocally anti-regulation.
Oddly, the original letter appears to have been sent by a real, experienced, bar-admitted lawyer.
That's surprising because it reads as if it were written by someone pretending to be a lawyer, or one that usually represents DUI and speeding clients from an office above a tattoo parlor.
Appellation d'origine contrôlée and the like is a distortion of historical usage.
It used to be a point of regional pride to have a category of food or design named after you. It wasn't a description of where the food was produced, it was an acknowledgement of where the style was originated. You were only "stealing" it if you changed the name.
I don't expect that my Hawaiian pizza was flown in hot from Hawaii. Why should my swiss cheese have to come from Switzerland?
The famed efficiency and unified action of the Italian government?
All of them working towards the same goal?
A work friend used to talk about his time doing mandatory service in the Italian Army. From his telling, the only ones diligently active were involved in graft and theft. The rest just tried to lay low. Compulsory service didn't lead to increased patriotism, rather an education that influence and money mattered more than laws and hierarchy. The result is that there is zero likelihood that the government would all line up behind an arbitrary rule, there would need to be something in it for them.
I suspect that Taylor isn't interested in selling their own diagnostic device. They could already do that trivially. Or simply make their own product more better, with more informative messages and the ability for customers to resolve common problems.
They want to reverse engineer the competitor's product to see if there is anything that they can sue them over.
Your have the facts wrong about that case.
There appears to be plenty of valid probable cause for the Marilyn Hueper search.
She traveled from Alaska to Washington DC for the demonstration-turned-riot.
She admits to being on the Capitol grounds on January 6, during the insurrection. While she denies entering the building interior, she does appear in video and photos in a restricted exterior area. She denies taking the laptop, but the person on video taking the laptop had clothing and similar features.
She was tied to the January 6 events a month later, after an incident where she refused to put her mask back on during a flight. That's not a "messed up facial recognition" situation. That's investigating a match.
This might be a case of mistaken identification, but there isn't a question about her being a valid suspect. There were humans in the loop, with plenty of investigation and supporting evidence before the search.
Many are missing the other effects of this bill.
If I claim to be running for a Florida state office, Facebook et al can't take down or restrict my posts. Even if my posts are blatantly advertisements.
I don't see this lasting for more than a week before even the politicians acknowledge that it is unworkable.
The measured statement, "These attorneys seemingly made statements they knew were misleading", suggests that the AG isn't going to say anything that will help Powell's other defenses.
I expect that she will lose cases until organizations give up solely because it's just bouncing the rubble. But that should only happen after she is disbarred.
I'm a little surprised that she hasn't gone the "you can't disbar me, I'm inactive" path: https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2014/01/15/how-to-avoid-disbarment-disbar-yourself/
I wonder what training course taught him this line:
"I believe my perception was altered due to the high stress of the incident.”
That is so carefully worded that it is unlikely to have been spontaneous. It's not even a specific statement -- it starts out with "I believe.." and thus cannot be disproved.
Update: The judge is going to include a spoliation instruction to the jury: if the jury finds police and prosecutors intentionally destroyed or failed to preserve body camera video of the arrests, they are allowed to infer the evidence not preserved would have been favorable to the defense.
In some cases the judge allows such things because the case is strong or they think that jury has already decided, and they don't want a ground for appeals. I don't think that is the case here.
"When I look at the totality of the evidence, I believe there is substantial evidence that a jury could infer that there was intentional spoliation of evidence," Judge Lawrence McLellan said.
Defending a lawsuit is more expensive than filing one. Sometimes vastly more expensive. You have to anticipate every possible meaning of a claim, and every implication of those meanings.
Right now it appears that a disgruntled insider, perhaps a former employee, accessed the system with the shared password in the normal way and made the changes.
This is the typical 'cybersecurity' threat. Not a foreign hacker using elite hacking skills, but an insider using the system as designed in a malicious way. The application appears to have been set up for only console access, then someone set up a RDP system for remote desktop access and shared the password.
Of course this story is immediately being used to push other agendas. The San Jose Water Company (NYSE:SJW, a large private utility company) is justifying their latest rate increase requests by the need for increased cybersecurity.
Those are unsubstantiated innuendo, not facts.
"In 2010, the Obama administration confiscated electronic voting systems assets (software, intellectual property, manufacturing tools, customer base, etc.) from two established American companies, and gave them to Dominion. At the same time, Dominion got some employees and assets from a foreign EVS company, tied to Hugo Chavez."
Which employees? Which assets?
Playing six degrees of separation between companies, where you don't even specify the intermediate companies, is not evidence.
This story starts out by sliding a false premise -- that Parler wouldn't be censoring speech.
Parler quite clearly banned accounts that were left-leaning, sometimes after only a single post. It was run as a right-wing echo chamber, a case study in how you can get volunteer moderators to continuously reinforce a move to radical extremes. Perhaps that is even the default behavior.
Without knowing if there is a pattern of turning off the camera it's difficult to guess at the intent.
Perhaps the police officer knew the putative "victim" and wanted to pressure the driver into accepting false blame for a previous accident, so that the trucking company insurance would pay off a damage claim.
This is an expensive loss for Twin Galaxies.
A SLAPP win would have immediately shut down the case and resulted in the likelihood of some of their legal fees being paid.
Winning after a trial is an empty victory. They will likely have huge expenses, with little chance of fee recovery.