The NSA has worked out fusion?! Excellent, at least then some of the dollars spent might have a useful offshoot... if only we could get them to declassify it.
The DoD worked out fusion quite nicely about 65 years ago. The energy yields of the reactors are truly impressive---their best experimental reactor had an output of something like 60 petajoules from negligible input power. (The Soviets built an even bigger reactor with close to 200 PJ). It's the containment facility that's been giving us problems since then. Work out that little detail, and you're sitting on a gold mine.
I resent that generalization. I rarely sat at the back of the class in law school. One of the few was Secured Transactions my last quarter, but I did not look at sports. I played Snood.
Look, matey, had you bothered to read the parent, and bothered to look up the two patents cited, you would have noted, that the USPTO fails miserably at following its own directives.
Both patents clearly disclose a very old and very wrong assumption; that by rotating a magnet in an electric filed and switching the polarity, this magnet starts to spin from the rotated magnet field.
Like I said, I'm not judging whether they're scientifically sound. I'm just saying that they claim that the energy supply is exhaustable, so they're not perpetual motion machines. (And no, I didn't read them carefully. I just glanced over them and saw that they were claiming to mine energy stored in permanent magnets.) The USPTO will not necessarily reject your claim merely because it's pseudo-science (see MPEP 2107.01(II); "Incredible Utility"). It just needs to not be a flagrant violation of all known laws of physics (a FTL ship would probably fall in this same category).
I can only ask: how would one refute this application?
Why would you refute this application? Do you want to build one of these? Actually, if you do, you're probably okay, because it looks like they never paid the maintenance fee, so this one is dead.
Ah, that makes sense. We can patent algorithms, business models, and now summer blockbuster ideas!
You joke, but this clown is actually trying to do it. (If you want to see the stunning storyline that is so brilliant it deserves a patent, look at the claim listed here.)
The +5, Funny was well-deserved. But lest anybody get too worked up, those actually claim to work on exhaustable energy stored in permanent magnets (I'm not a material scientist, so I don't know if that's a real thing, but they don't pretend to be perpetual motion). In fact, the USPTO has specific regulations for rejecting perpetual motion machines. If you want to get a patent on one, you have to submit a working model. I am very grateful for this regulation, because it has been a handy way to show folks the door a couple of times. "I'm sorry. I can't file this for you. It's a perpetual motion machine. The USPTO will only grant it after you have a working model. So please come back after you've got that prototype built." (They will argue with you for hours about why it will work if you let them.)
On the other hand, I did successfully craft the argument that got this gem issued. It's not perpetual motion, but it does involve some rather "non-traditional" scientific theories.
First of all, my profession has nothing to do with this. I have that.sig so that nobody is stupid enough to to take anything I say as legal advice. My former employer required me to have such a disclaimer whenever posting on any forum where there was any chance that people could misconstrue what I say as legal advice. We often discuss legal topics on Slashdot, so I adopted it. I'm no longer with that firm, but it's not a bad idea, so I kept the.sig.
That said, since you call my qualification into question, I'd be willing to bet I have more actual training in criminal defense and constitutional law than you, though you are correct that I don't practice in those areas of law. (On that note, I am well aware of Terry v. Ohio, which is the law NYC is using to justify these stops. They are absolutely doing it wrong when 90% of the people they stop are not doing anything. Terry requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.)
Regarding Gates, he claims that the only thing he did was politely and repeatedly ask Officer Crowley for his name and badge number. Officer Crowley claims that as soon as he showed up, Gates got belligerent, started saying that Crowley was harassing him for being "Black in America," and was immediately verbally abusive. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between and they were both partially in the wrong. Maybe Crowley overreacted in arresting him for disorderly conduct (but sorry, when he went outside, he was in public). None of that matters to the GP's allegation that Gates was just some random, well-dressed black guy happily going about his business when he was profiled by the police. I can acknowledge that it's not a simple issue. In fact, that's really my whole point.
Regarding Obama, perhaps you missed where he immediately jumped in and said Crowley "acted stupidly," defended Gates as being in the right, and then made it a racial issue. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/22/harvard.gates.interview/. It was only later when he held his stupid "beer summit" that he took a more even-handed approach. He's done the exact same thing with Trayvon Martin. He has consistently lionized Martin and villainized Zimmerman at every turn, made it 100% about race, and failed to acknowledge that there are nuances to the issue. He is a deeply racist person. He's also a lousy president, but that's only partially related to his racism.
And I'm sorry, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are sticking up for my rights as a citizen? No. They are doing nothing of the kind. They are doing everything they can to keep impoverished black people stirred up and angry about the white man putting them down so they can build their own little kingdoms on the backs of those impoverished black people. They do not make the world a better place for anybody.
We're talking about two different things. Yes, I know how debilitating poverty can be. I understand that young black kids in NYC live in hopelessness. But I wasn't talking about welfare. I was responding specifically to your claim that if these kids commit crime, that it is society's fault and not theirs. I was saying that if you take those kids in extreme poverty with no hope for the future, and tell them, "It's okay if you join the gang and start killing other black kids, because if you do, it will be society's fault, not yours," you are doing them a huge disservice because then there will be absolutely no disincentive for them to join the gang and start killing other black kids.
As you yourself point out, they have access to programs like food stamps, so they don't have to commit crime to survive (whether those programs are effective in lifting them out of debilitating poverty is a separate issue). They commit crime because of social pressure, the need for a sense of belonging, and a bunch of other complicated factors. Absolving them of responsibility does not cure any of that. It only makes it worse by ratifying their worst decisions.
If the only method a person has for survival is to break the law, then society has failed and not that person.
I was kind of with you until this. NYC is not a city of noble Jean Valjeans who are stealing a few crumbs of bread to feed starving children. Society has plenty of failures, but to absolve people of wrongdoing because "society failed them" is one of the greatest societal failures we could make.
Nice example, but your single data point proves nothing. Somebody saw a guy busting into a house and called police, and she even said it could be the guy who lives there---she wasn't sure. An officer showed up and explained that he was looking into a report of a break-in. Gates became belligerent and abusive, so he got arrested. Then the racial-industrial complex jumped in to milk it for maximum gain. Then the Agitator-in-Chief weighed in with his blanket statement that Gates was right and Crowley was wrong. Then it came out that the woman who called the police, after being specifically asked, thought one of the men was Hispanic and could not even identify the race of the other on her 911 call. So tell me again why this proves that skin color has more weight than overall appearance in profiling?
By the way, I had to break into my own house once, too. I'm no Harvard professor, but I had the foresight to call the non-emergency line before I did it and explain what I was about to do just in case somebody got nervous. They politely asked me to wait a few minutes, and then sent a couple of cops out. The cops checked my ID, and then watched me bust in my window. We all shook hands, wished each other a nice day, and went on our ways.
You're probably right. After all, he did say he was going to "cut" 90%.
Guys, come on. Let's settle down with the hyperbole. The NSA is not going to literally "cut" 90% of their IT staff with swords or something. This isn't the dark ages. They'll use sophisticated drugs that cause sudden and inexplicable heart attacks.
I hate to say this, but I find I am more likely to take the time to write a bad review than a good one. (Anger is a great motivator.) I assume others are like this as well so I read the negative reviews in that light.
Also, any review in all caps, good or bad, I automatically discard.
That's been my experience, too. Anger motivates you to want to do something, so people lash out on the comment board. People who are satisfied, by definition, aren't really motivated to take any additional steps.
Now, the OTHER side is that it didn't get struck down, because THAT would have created a nasty precedent that would potentially allow for the unconstitutionality of almost every federal program, from medicare to social security, to even the National Guard today as it is structured (the National Guard is based in each individual state, but it is mostly funded by the federal government).
Can't almost anything that can be bought/sold technically be converted to conventional currency...
No. Let's say you have a stack of "currency" in the form of Justin Bieber tickets. That alleged currency will have high value to tween girls, but is worthless to middle-aged men like me. The idea of currency is you can convert those Justin Bieber tickets into some medium and use that medium to get stuff you want, while the tween girls can use the same medium to buy Justin Bieber tickets, and I can use the medium to buy books that the tween girls don't have the attention span to read. Otherwise, I would have to trade something I have that you want to "buy" some of your Justin Bieber tickets, then hope that I could find some tween girls in possession of good books so I could trade the tickets for the books. It all gets very messy, and it's possible I could end up with a stack of Justin Bieber tickets that are worthless to me, while the tween girls miss out on the concert. Thus, Justin Bieber tickets are not currency (in economics, they're technically called a "scourge").
What pisses me off, of course, is not this ruling, as I said, its a local/state problem at best, and already taken care of by the majority of states, but that it was held up as the first time in 40 years that the commerce clause had struck ANYTHING down.
I mean seriously, this clause has been extended to apply to a farmer who would rather grow his own feed (apparently "not participating in the market" is a market activity and still subject to regulation) than buy it.... using it at all to strike down anything at this point is the height of ridiculousness.
This case is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) for those who are interested. Old farmer Filburn was charged with growing too much wheat. He argued that the federal government had no jurisdiction to regulate wheat he grew on his own farm for his own consumption. The Supreme Court held that by growing and eating his own wheat, he was failing to buy wheat in interstate commerce like a good little subject. The next time the Supreme Court struck down a federal statute under the Commerce Clause was United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), where the Court struck down the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. This was a big victory for Justice Rhenquist, who was on a quest to reign in the Commerce Clause. However, his successor, Justice Roberts, although considered a pariah and arch-conservative by the Left, has shown less will to do so. Notably, in his Obamacare decision, he gave a nod to the commerce clause, but then blasted a big old hole in the Constitution by saying basically that Congress could do anything they wanted to as long as they pretended it was a tax.
Well, other than himself and the Master, hiding at the end of the universe. River Song just kind of absorbed some Timer Lordiness because Amy and Rory were consummating in the TARDIS. That's a WAY better score than the Dalek from "Dalek," plus the Dalek Emporer, plus the Cult of Skaro, plus about a million in the Genesis Ark, plus freaking Davros. The Daleks have a pretty robust population considering the number of times the Doctor has committed genocide against them, including killing their creator at least three times that I can think of off the top of my head.
1. They're also on Amazon.
2. Really? The ones I've seen are comparable. BluRay is more. And you get them the next morning.
3. And you call yourself a fan. Pshaw.
4. I haven't tried.
5. Don't know if it's identical to the BBC version, but it's definitely not the lame, hacked apart SyFy edit.
It would still be nice for them to actually acknowledge this major point of the Doctor Who universe and do something clever with it. Yes, we know that it's possible for Time Lords to achieve more than 12 regenerations. They gave the Master a whole new set (somehow) at one point. But don't just ignore it and pretend like it's not there. Also, they tacitly acknowledged a regeneration limit when River Song used up all her "remaining" regenerations to save the Doctor's life, and then got angry when he "wasted" regeneration energy (which he can apparently just tap at will now) healing her hand. I understand that they're not just going to dump this cash cow once they reach 13 because of an artificial limit they set like 35 years ago. But at least acknowledge it and do something with it.
If they kept us on a nine-month cliffhanger and reveal said crimes to be how he ended the time war (which we've known for years now), so help me, I'm starting the Revolutionary War all over again...
Not much of a cliffhanger. Of course he's some between-eight-and-nine version that ended the time war. The interesting thing will be to find out how he did it. What is the "Moment?" How did it simultaneously destroy both the Timelords and the Daleks? Well, most of the Daleks. Actually, he screwed up the bit about destroying the Daleks pretty bad. How many managed to slip through? Plus like a million hiding in the Void. Plus Davros survived.
Okay, let me start over. Of course he's the one who ended the Time War by destroying the Time Lords and probably at least a majority of the Daleks. The question is, how did he do it? What exactly did he do? What is the "Moment," and how come it worked so well against Time Lords and so poorly against Daleks?
She would make an awesome Doctor. And she's ginger. If it's Rupert Grint, I may just have to stop watching. I was willing to give Matt Smith a chance, and he was much better than I had feared, but I'm tired of this race to prepubescence. And while we're talking crazy paradoxes, I actually kind of liked Paul McGann. His TARDIS console room was easily my favorite of all time. If they're not going to give us Catherine Tate, bring back Eight as Twelve. Make it have something to do with the Valeyard if you want. Just give me an actor who doesn't look like he's twelve.
If they want to ask you questions, it's up to you but if you have *anything* to hide, I'd recommend you decline.
You may want to watch this video and then take out the part between the commas. It's 48 minutes well spent. tl;dr (or dw) version: Never, ever talk to police. Ever. It can't help you. (Of course, as my.sig says, this isn't legal advice.)
Slashdot Mirror
The NSA has worked out fusion?! Excellent, at least then some of the dollars spent might have a useful offshoot... if only we could get them to declassify it.
The DoD worked out fusion quite nicely about 65 years ago. The energy yields of the reactors are truly impressive---their best experimental reactor had an output of something like 60 petajoules from negligible input power. (The Soviets built an even bigger reactor with close to 200 PJ). It's the containment facility that's been giving us problems since then. Work out that little detail, and you're sitting on a gold mine.
I resent that generalization. I rarely sat at the back of the class in law school. One of the few was Secured Transactions my last quarter, but I did not look at sports. I played Snood.
Look, matey, had you bothered to read the parent, and bothered to look up the two patents cited, you would have noted, that the USPTO fails miserably at following its own directives. Both patents clearly disclose a very old and very wrong assumption; that by rotating a magnet in an electric filed and switching the polarity, this magnet starts to spin from the rotated magnet field.
Like I said, I'm not judging whether they're scientifically sound. I'm just saying that they claim that the energy supply is exhaustable, so they're not perpetual motion machines. (And no, I didn't read them carefully. I just glanced over them and saw that they were claiming to mine energy stored in permanent magnets.) The USPTO will not necessarily reject your claim merely because it's pseudo-science (see MPEP 2107.01(II); "Incredible Utility"). It just needs to not be a flagrant violation of all known laws of physics (a FTL ship would probably fall in this same category).
I can only ask: how would one refute this application?
Why would you refute this application? Do you want to build one of these? Actually, if you do, you're probably okay, because it looks like they never paid the maintenance fee, so this one is dead.
Ah, that makes sense. We can patent algorithms, business models, and now summer blockbuster ideas!
You joke, but this clown is actually trying to do it. (If you want to see the stunning storyline that is so brilliant it deserves a patent, look at the claim listed here.)
It's sentient heroin. That's what makes it summer blockbuster fare.
The +5, Funny was well-deserved. But lest anybody get too worked up, those actually claim to work on exhaustable energy stored in permanent magnets (I'm not a material scientist, so I don't know if that's a real thing, but they don't pretend to be perpetual motion). In fact, the USPTO has specific regulations for rejecting perpetual motion machines. If you want to get a patent on one, you have to submit a working model. I am very grateful for this regulation, because it has been a handy way to show folks the door a couple of times. "I'm sorry. I can't file this for you. It's a perpetual motion machine. The USPTO will only grant it after you have a working model. So please come back after you've got that prototype built." (They will argue with you for hours about why it will work if you let them.)
On the other hand, I did successfully craft the argument that got this gem issued. It's not perpetual motion, but it does involve some rather "non-traditional" scientific theories.
First of all, my profession has nothing to do with this. I have that .sig so that nobody is stupid enough to to take anything I say as legal advice. My former employer required me to have such a disclaimer whenever posting on any forum where there was any chance that people could misconstrue what I say as legal advice. We often discuss legal topics on Slashdot, so I adopted it. I'm no longer with that firm, but it's not a bad idea, so I kept the .sig.
That said, since you call my qualification into question, I'd be willing to bet I have more actual training in criminal defense and constitutional law than you, though you are correct that I don't practice in those areas of law. (On that note, I am well aware of Terry v. Ohio, which is the law NYC is using to justify these stops. They are absolutely doing it wrong when 90% of the people they stop are not doing anything. Terry requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.)
Regarding Gates, he claims that the only thing he did was politely and repeatedly ask Officer Crowley for his name and badge number. Officer Crowley claims that as soon as he showed up, Gates got belligerent, started saying that Crowley was harassing him for being "Black in America," and was immediately verbally abusive. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between and they were both partially in the wrong. Maybe Crowley overreacted in arresting him for disorderly conduct (but sorry, when he went outside, he was in public). None of that matters to the GP's allegation that Gates was just some random, well-dressed black guy happily going about his business when he was profiled by the police. I can acknowledge that it's not a simple issue. In fact, that's really my whole point.
Regarding Obama, perhaps you missed where he immediately jumped in and said Crowley "acted stupidly," defended Gates as being in the right, and then made it a racial issue. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/22/harvard.gates.interview/. It was only later when he held his stupid "beer summit" that he took a more even-handed approach. He's done the exact same thing with Trayvon Martin. He has consistently lionized Martin and villainized Zimmerman at every turn, made it 100% about race, and failed to acknowledge that there are nuances to the issue. He is a deeply racist person. He's also a lousy president, but that's only partially related to his racism.
And I'm sorry, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are sticking up for my rights as a citizen? No. They are doing nothing of the kind. They are doing everything they can to keep impoverished black people stirred up and angry about the white man putting them down so they can build their own little kingdoms on the backs of those impoverished black people. They do not make the world a better place for anybody.
We're talking about two different things. Yes, I know how debilitating poverty can be. I understand that young black kids in NYC live in hopelessness. But I wasn't talking about welfare. I was responding specifically to your claim that if these kids commit crime, that it is society's fault and not theirs. I was saying that if you take those kids in extreme poverty with no hope for the future, and tell them, "It's okay if you join the gang and start killing other black kids, because if you do, it will be society's fault, not yours," you are doing them a huge disservice because then there will be absolutely no disincentive for them to join the gang and start killing other black kids.
As you yourself point out, they have access to programs like food stamps, so they don't have to commit crime to survive (whether those programs are effective in lifting them out of debilitating poverty is a separate issue). They commit crime because of social pressure, the need for a sense of belonging, and a bunch of other complicated factors. Absolving them of responsibility does not cure any of that. It only makes it worse by ratifying their worst decisions.
If the only method a person has for survival is to break the law, then society has failed and not that person.
I was kind of with you until this. NYC is not a city of noble Jean Valjeans who are stealing a few crumbs of bread to feed starving children. Society has plenty of failures, but to absolve people of wrongdoing because "society failed them" is one of the greatest societal failures we could make.
You have to take responsibility for yourself and make something of yourself.
Bravo! That is all.
Nice example, but it seems the answer is still the black guy.
Nice example, but your single data point proves nothing. Somebody saw a guy busting into a house and called police, and she even said it could be the guy who lives there---she wasn't sure. An officer showed up and explained that he was looking into a report of a break-in. Gates became belligerent and abusive, so he got arrested. Then the racial-industrial complex jumped in to milk it for maximum gain. Then the Agitator-in-Chief weighed in with his blanket statement that Gates was right and Crowley was wrong. Then it came out that the woman who called the police, after being specifically asked, thought one of the men was Hispanic and could not even identify the race of the other on her 911 call. So tell me again why this proves that skin color has more weight than overall appearance in profiling?
By the way, I had to break into my own house once, too. I'm no Harvard professor, but I had the foresight to call the non-emergency line before I did it and explain what I was about to do just in case somebody got nervous. They politely asked me to wait a few minutes, and then sent a couple of cops out. The cops checked my ID, and then watched me bust in my window. We all shook hands, wished each other a nice day, and went on our ways.
You're probably right. After all, he did say he was going to "cut" 90%.
Guys, come on. Let's settle down with the hyperbole. The NSA is not going to literally "cut" 90% of their IT staff with swords or something. This isn't the dark ages. They'll use sophisticated drugs that cause sudden and inexplicable heart attacks.
I hate to say this, but I find I am more likely to take the time to write a bad review than a good one. (Anger is a great motivator.) I assume others are like this as well so I read the negative reviews in that light.
Also, any review in all caps, good or bad, I automatically discard.
That's been my experience, too. Anger motivates you to want to do something, so people lash out on the comment board. People who are satisfied, by definition, aren't really motivated to take any additional steps.
Now, the OTHER side is that it didn't get struck down, because THAT would have created a nasty precedent that would potentially allow for the unconstitutionality of almost every federal program, from medicare to social security, to even the National Guard today as it is structured (the National Guard is based in each individual state, but it is mostly funded by the federal government).
Stop. Now you're just teasing me.
Can't almost anything that can be bought/sold technically be converted to conventional currency...
No. Let's say you have a stack of "currency" in the form of Justin Bieber tickets. That alleged currency will have high value to tween girls, but is worthless to middle-aged men like me. The idea of currency is you can convert those Justin Bieber tickets into some medium and use that medium to get stuff you want, while the tween girls can use the same medium to buy Justin Bieber tickets, and I can use the medium to buy books that the tween girls don't have the attention span to read. Otherwise, I would have to trade something I have that you want to "buy" some of your Justin Bieber tickets, then hope that I could find some tween girls in possession of good books so I could trade the tickets for the books. It all gets very messy, and it's possible I could end up with a stack of Justin Bieber tickets that are worthless to me, while the tween girls miss out on the concert. Thus, Justin Bieber tickets are not currency (in economics, they're technically called a "scourge").
What pisses me off, of course, is not this ruling, as I said, its a local/state problem at best, and already taken care of by the majority of states, but that it was held up as the first time in 40 years that the commerce clause had struck ANYTHING down.
I mean seriously, this clause has been extended to apply to a farmer who would rather grow his own feed (apparently "not participating in the market" is a market activity and still subject to regulation) than buy it.... using it at all to strike down anything at this point is the height of ridiculousness.
This case is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) for those who are interested. Old farmer Filburn was charged with growing too much wheat. He argued that the federal government had no jurisdiction to regulate wheat he grew on his own farm for his own consumption. The Supreme Court held that by growing and eating his own wheat, he was failing to buy wheat in interstate commerce like a good little subject. The next time the Supreme Court struck down a federal statute under the Commerce Clause was United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), where the Court struck down the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. This was a big victory for Justice Rhenquist, who was on a quest to reign in the Commerce Clause. However, his successor, Justice Roberts, although considered a pariah and arch-conservative by the Left, has shown less will to do so. Notably, in his Obamacare decision, he gave a nod to the commerce clause, but then blasted a big old hole in the Constitution by saying basically that Congress could do anything they wanted to as long as they pretended it was a tax.
He didn't destroy the Time Lords, either...
Well, other than himself and the Master, hiding at the end of the universe. River Song just kind of absorbed some Timer Lordiness because Amy and Rory were consummating in the TARDIS. That's a WAY better score than the Dalek from "Dalek," plus the Dalek Emporer, plus the Cult of Skaro, plus about a million in the Genesis Ark, plus freaking Davros. The Daleks have a pretty robust population considering the number of times the Doctor has committed genocide against them, including killing their creator at least three times that I can think of off the top of my head.
1. They're also on Amazon.
2. Really? The ones I've seen are comparable. BluRay is more. And you get them the next morning.
3. And you call yourself a fan. Pshaw.
4. I haven't tried.
5. Don't know if it's identical to the BBC version, but it's definitely not the lame, hacked apart SyFy edit.
It would still be nice for them to actually acknowledge this major point of the Doctor Who universe and do something clever with it. Yes, we know that it's possible for Time Lords to achieve more than 12 regenerations. They gave the Master a whole new set (somehow) at one point. But don't just ignore it and pretend like it's not there. Also, they tacitly acknowledged a regeneration limit when River Song used up all her "remaining" regenerations to save the Doctor's life, and then got angry when he "wasted" regeneration energy (which he can apparently just tap at will now) healing her hand. I understand that they're not just going to dump this cash cow once they reach 13 because of an artificial limit they set like 35 years ago. But at least acknowledge it and do something with it.
If they kept us on a nine-month cliffhanger and reveal said crimes to be how he ended the time war (which we've known for years now), so help me, I'm starting the Revolutionary War all over again...
Not much of a cliffhanger. Of course he's some between-eight-and-nine version that ended the time war. The interesting thing will be to find out how he did it. What is the "Moment?" How did it simultaneously destroy both the Timelords and the Daleks? Well, most of the Daleks. Actually, he screwed up the bit about destroying the Daleks pretty bad. How many managed to slip through? Plus like a million hiding in the Void. Plus Davros survived.
Okay, let me start over. Of course he's the one who ended the Time War by destroying the Time Lords and probably at least a majority of the Daleks. The question is, how did he do it? What exactly did he do? What is the "Moment," and how come it worked so well against Time Lords and so poorly against Daleks?
iTunes. Seriously, they're $2 an episode, and they come out the next morning.
She would make an awesome Doctor. And she's ginger. If it's Rupert Grint, I may just have to stop watching. I was willing to give Matt Smith a chance, and he was much better than I had feared, but I'm tired of this race to prepubescence. And while we're talking crazy paradoxes, I actually kind of liked Paul McGann. His TARDIS console room was easily my favorite of all time. If they're not going to give us Catherine Tate, bring back Eight as Twelve. Make it have something to do with the Valeyard if you want. Just give me an actor who doesn't look like he's twelve.
Maybe he wanted to blow something up, out in the middle of nowhere, for entertainment.
Adam, is that you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
If they want to ask you questions, it's up to you but if you have *anything* to hide, I'd recommend you decline.
You may want to watch this video and then take out the part between the commas. It's 48 minutes well spent. tl;dr (or dw) version: Never, ever talk to police. Ever. It can't help you. (Of course, as my .sig says, this isn't legal advice.)