Libs Since Internet Trolls Are Starting To Be Prosecuted Now Will You Tone Down Your Vitriol

It means that the one who had installed that board is the owner of the property and without permission you shall not enter on his property. If you still do, he shall initiate necessary legal actions against you

Of course it could, and people saying otherwise are ridiculously naive.There are only a few people who could do it, perhaps; it not be easy, perhaps - but it would be possible.The vast majority of servers that people think of a "the Internet" are in the USA.Disconnect them and there is no Google, no Facebook, no Office365. iTunes won't work. No Quora. No Paypal. No Wikipedia.(There may be mirror sites but they are controlled by USA companies and hence the USA)For most people that qualifies as "no Internet"Then there are the DNS servers. Turkey tried to switch off Internet by stopping DNS, but it was easy to workaround by typing 8.8.8.8 -- but that is Google and it stops working.No DNS = no wwwThose are controlled by ICANNThe Internet Is Actually Controlled By 14 People Who Hold 7 Secret KeysOf course, even without DNS & most website there is the "raw connectivity": email will still work, ftp will still work (as long as you do not need to use any US companies or US servers, of course).So finally you have DDoS. And Trojans.Ad backdoors.And killswitches.And...The USA has one of the biggest and smartest cyberwar resouces on earth.If the USA wants to shut things down, it will do so.I'd bet that Cisco, or Apple, or Juniper or Apache or Micosoft WebServices or IBM Domino or...  will have backdoors, or kill switch *somewhere*.They can shut down anything they want. It might not be easy, and I can't imagine why people would want to do it -- but it would be very possible.

I came across this post when seeing if others have noticed this with Charter Spectrum. Evidently both companies do it, and it’s going to land them in a lawsuit, especially with me now that I am aware of it.Before I start, I will state I was once an engineer at Charter, then went on to build a couple of data centers, then to I built a new company as advanced Contract IT Services servicing much larger corporations. In short, I’m just about as knowledgeable on this stuff as it gets.First, here is how Charter does it’s billing. You are actually pre-paying. You pay a month, once you reach the end of that period and haven't paid the following month, you are then considered past due although you really aren’t.I noted about 6 months ago that once I went into that period without prepaying next month, my internet slowed to an average of 1–5 mbps. Restart modem & router, no change. Call in and pay the bill, restart modem & router again, boom the speed is back high again.Now I guess I wait until some $10/hr script reader from Charter Spectrum comes in and tries to argue with me that they don’t do this…

The verb start is not usually something that one does to something else, although it can be used in such a way.Here are examples that are more similar to the first one you mention: The class will start (which honestly sounds more natural to me)The program starts at 10:00.The fire starts to burn more brightly.The wind starts to blow.The waves start to become more fierce.The machine started to overheat.The workers will start to get tired eventually.I will start attending the class this coming Monday.However starting can in some cases be something that is done by someone or something to someone or something elseI started the computer.He starts the car early every morning to melt the ice.She will start the class at 17:00.It would however be strange to try and say this in the passive form using the thing being affected as the subject as you do in your second version “class will be started”I would tremble in disgust if someone were to say:The computer was started.The car is started early every morning to melt the ice.The class will be started at 17:00.Such phrasing is not by any means wrong, but it sounds just awful.

The last time a Monarch was accused of a crime in the UK it was King George(5) in 1911 for bigamy. However, the Lord Chief Justice decided that the King couldn’t be ordered to provide evidence and the case ended right there.The accuser was Edward Mylius, a publisher who in 1911 accused the King of bigamy in his report which raised the question about the status of the Queen and the legitimacy of their children. The King was prepared to go to the court to give evidence to disapprove the allegation, however the attorney-general, advised the king that it would be unconstitutional for him to give evidence in his own court.Well basically The Queen is above the law as criminal law is inacpplicable as the Sovereign law is in effect, which is a customary principle.Her Majesty, being the Queen enjoys sovereign immunity so she can’t be questioned as part of a criminal investigation, she is not required to give police interviews and she also can’t be cross examined.But there is a way to get through The Queens impenetrable immunity from prosecution: ParliamentThe parliament can legislate and so change a customary rule, even one as old as a sovereign immunity. However, it might be hard to persuade The Queen to give assent to the bill that allows herself to be prosecuted.Lawfully prosecuting the Queen would be difficult but not entirely impossible. In order to do it legally, you first need to successfully complete a comprehensive political revolution, that would have the backing of the people. According to the Crown Proceeding Act of 1947 the Crown can be sued but that means you can file charges against Her Majesty’s Government but not Her Majesty herself.So to answer you question, she can’t be prosecuted but she will lose the support and approval of the people which would affect the future of the monarchy and its relationship with its people.Source/credit: What would happen if the Queen went on a crime spree? - Legal Cheek