Martha Stewart was convicted based on an investigator's memory and the notes he had written in his notebook. It wasn't what she said, but what she said in someone else's words.
Do you really want to bet your freedom on the basis of someone else's interpretation of what you said?
The women I've known who "attempted" suicide weren't really trying to kill themselves. It was either attention seeking behavior or an attempt to punish people in their social circle. IMO it's more a question of intent than method.
That's why they call it "climate change" now, instead of "global warming". This way if it gets warmer - climate change. If it gets cooler - climate change. Bad weather? Climate change. Nice weather? Also climate change.
>But making the leap from that to "my code can't harm people" is a bridge too far.
Meh. My application is an internal app for a large company. It's basically scheduling software for a part of our business process. To even start to hack it you'd first have to break into the corporate network, and in the end you'd have data you didn't care about. Hell, I'm not even sure the people who use it care.
Worst case, a subtle bug (and it would have to be subtle for my users to miss it) might cost my employer a few thousand bucks.
Again, meh. There are a whole lot of internal applications that fall into this category.
That's a terrible example. Those John Doe investigations were a great example of prosecutorial abuse. If I had been Walker I would have had the state AG indict the prosecutors involved for corruption.
Most people who own a house or have savings or have family can scrape together enough money to engage a lawyer. How much that actually costs depends on the charge.
So many cases are pled out these days (98% at the federal level), I doubt more than a tiny percentage of defendants are spending anything like $100k.
Why don't you explain why it is men are far more likely to kill themselves?