And when they ask for permission to search, say "NO!"
On this weeks "Southland" there was this sub-plot about a guy hiding a camera in a coffee shop toilet. The cops asked to look at his laptop and he consented. On his screen was the live feed from his site. Why would the dumbass consent?
I used the opportunity to instruct my wife to never consent to search or answer cops questions about a crime. They are not there to help you. They are there to catch someone, and if they decide it's you, any help you give them is helping them to convict you.
The truth is that you don't have a magic money making machine that takes in time and spits out gold. No one really does. So all attempts to whine about "time not being free" are really quite assinine.
>
No, it's not. I spend 50-60 hours per week "at work" (i.e. away from home/family). That I can't turn my weekends and evenings into money at the drop of the hat does not make that time "free." It's only free in the sense that if I didn't rip DVDs I couldn't get paid to do something else (though if I wanted and needed to, I could get a second job). But in reality, if I spend time ripping DVDs, that's time not spent with my wife and kids, not going to play in the park, not going to watch my kid's baseball game, not going out to dinner, not watching a show or movie, not playing D&D, or not doing countless other things I enjoy far more than getting the fucking encoder to work correctly.
Now, the benefit of having a DRM free copy on my HDD is much greater than having an online only copy locked up in Vudu, and the gap is probably big enough that I will eventually find the time to do it (especially since I'll be buying a new PC in the next few months), but it will be a very large opportunity cost when I do it, and that is precisely what has kept me from doing it up until this point.
I 2nd this sentiment. I'm not tech-illiterate, but neither am I extremely savvy. I attempted a couple times to rip my kid's DVDs so we could load them on the laptop or iPad for vacation and found it a very frustrating experience (using Handbrake and VLC on XP). I gave up after a couple attempts and ~2-3 hours.
I would happily pay $2 per disc to get a ripped copy on my HDD. Online only doesn't work for me because I want to view them on the plane and in the hotel room (where wi-fi is spotty or non-existent).
I haven't played the "game", but I suspect that there are a lot of things like time limits that can serve as a motivation factor that actually increase user output in the aggregate. Having a time limit can give you a sense of urgency that will force you to work faster. The error rate may increase, but overall productivity could still be higher given that higher number of "answers" given per unit time.
Imagine two Magic The Gathering players. One assembles decks painstakingly, spending hours crafting card ratios just right, and researching combos to get the perfect balance of # cards to power of combo. Then he play tests it, goes back and makes adjustments, etc. The other throws decks together quickly and play tests them very quickly. He adjusts the deck without as much deliberate thought, but rather more quickly (perhaps intuitively). He is able to iterate much faster, and it's easy to imagine that if each player were given 1 month to pursue these strategies, the latter could easily come out with more decks that met some minimum standard of success (that was suitably high).
(Obviously, it's easy to see how inane, useless rewards can spur gamers to expend more time and "contribute" more to the game... just look at badges, trophies, etc. But I think it's just as possible that "negative" reinforcement ideas, such as a time limit, can have the same effect.)
If we have the capability to restore a mind to a state that is, in essence, a completely new person, then what we have is the ability to create Life. Now, we of course have the ability to create Life the old fashioned way, but I think it's a pretty big step to take a brain-dead mind and body and create within it a new life, with a new personality, new emotions, and as far as some might be concerned, a new soul. Would we really want to do that?
Don't talk about life. Don't analyze life. And most importantly, don't view your own life from a 3rd person perspective 24/7. Observation and introspection is healthy. Too much of it is a waste of time. If you're having to think about your life all the time, it means your not living it. And if you're not living it, do something about it. Don't just sit on the sidelines.
Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suit on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pissing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourselves. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got personal analytics?
Yes but how much of that available energy at the surface went to create the Tsunami?
Water doesn't compress. If you displace X cubic meters of water at the seabed, it has to go somewhere (i.e. out and up). I suppose the "impact" of that water displacement is reduced by something along the lines of the inverse square (or cube) law, as the water spreads out as it travels away from the epicenter. That is why the tsunami was much more devastating in Indonesia vs. Sri Lanka. (The direction of the wave/displacement also matters; Bangladesh experienced a much smaller surge because the wave was travelling mostly east-west.)
I think we'd prefer it hit in shallow water if it had to hit the ocean.
I don't think so. The shallower the water, the more it's like hitting land. If it hits land, there will be a huge dust cloud which will cause all sorts of problems (e.g. health, change the albedo of the planet, etc.). If it hits in deep water, most airborne matter will be water vapor, which shouldn't be nearly as dangerous. Also, if it were to hit far from shore, any wave caused by displacement would be minimized by the time it reached shore.
See my other post. Apple will buy Visa, or simply develop their own credit system. Why let the 3% Visa is collecting on every App Store transaction get away? And with iWallet, that 3% is of a much larger pie.
Like my sibling post says, using a debit card is terrible. Lose your phone and your bank account will be drained with no recourse.
I've seen this idea coming for a while now, though I thought it would be the carriers who would take on the roll of creditor. As this progresses, Apple will realize that they are losing margin by allowing Visa and MC to handle the credit too. Why only get 30% from the purchase of the app when you can get 33-35% by being the creditor? I just hope the Regulators wake up in time and treat Apple (or the carriers) like CC companies when they inevitably start doing this.
I fail to see how that would be a worse use of taxpayer dollars than, say, the shuttle program was.
Besides the direct benefit of 120 tech spin-offs, I'd say fixing the Hubble Telescope and keeping it up to date provided us with tremendous scientific benefit.
If it hit the water, it may cause a tsunami wave. Depending on where that wave makes landfall, it could disrupt anywhere from dozens to millions of people.
But weren't the tsunami's (2004 and Japan's) caused when large (kilometers long) sections of the seabed were suddenly raised up, displacing the seawater? The displacement of a 140 m meteor doesn't seem like it would be as much.
Further reading:
The energy released on the Earth's surface only (ME, which is the seismic potential for damage) by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami was estimated at 1.1×1017 joules,[24] or 26 megatons of TNT. This energy is equivalent to over 1500 times that of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, but less than that of Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated. However, this is but a tiny fraction of the total work done MW (and thus energy) by this quake, 4.0×1022 joules (4.0×1029 ergs),[25] the vast majority underground.
While the wikipedia page doesn't say how much water was displaced, it does say this:
the earthquake had made a huge impact on the topography of the seabed. 1,500-metre-high (5,000 ft) thrust ridges created by previous geologic activity along the fault had collapsed, generating landslides several kilometers wide. One such landslide consisted of a single block of rock some 100 m high and 2 km long (300 ft by 1.25 mi). The momentum of the water displaced by tectonic uplift had also dragged massive slabs of rock, each weighing millions of tons, as far as 10 km (6 mi) across the seabed.
If authorities combed through their picture database, they'd find tens of thousands of illegal to own that have been transported across borders. IANAL, but it does sound very tricky.
Surely Safe Harbor applies, no? As long as the host makes sufficient effort to prevent the dissemination of the content I'd think they'd be OK. Might want to get a letter from the DoJ of the respective jurisdictions though.
Here's my take. An atheist is more or less a "non-theist." That is, he does not believe in the deity of others. In my mind, God (or Allah, etc.) is a creation of Man, and I don't believe that Man can know God enough to come to a complete understanding/definition. Therefore, I cannot believe in God/Allah - I am an a-theist.
But, I don't have the hubris to think that I can know the intimate workings of the Universe (at least at this point, and in the long foreseeable future). Therefore, I am an agnostic - I literally don't know.
In addition, anyone currently receiving some form of "entitlement" should not get to vote because what they're going to vote for is not difficult to guess and this situation is too exploitable and too dangerous for our long-term survival.
Excellent idea. Only the non-retired rich should be able to vote.
So, he was arrested for disobeying a dispersal order, but he was charged with resisting arrest.
I do not think you are correct. Again, IANAL, but at least on TV when the cop says, "You're under arrest" the suspect says, "On what charge?" But more importantly, the General Counsel of the National Press Photographers Association seems to think that there is a problem with being charged only with resisting arrest. Perhaps he was arrested on the charge of failing to disperse, but the fact that they are not pressing that charge is the problem?
So, to answer your question, no, I can't give examples, but I wouldn't expect to be able to. We just don't know, and we can't know, for sure. Ordinarily, I'd agree with you, but as things stand now, there are reasons we wouldn't be able to cite examples..
I don't know. On this I kind of lean toward the Alien Landing Conspiracy Rule: the government is not capable enough to keep such a conspiracy secret. It's not really the same, of course, but I have a hard time believing that the government would be able to arrest and indefinitely detain protesting citizens on any type of scale without word getting out or questions being asked. People have families that will miss them. Everyone is recording these events and pushing them out to the internet. I think its a bit paranoid to assume that the government could really pull citizens off of public streets and detain them in secret on any type of scale. They're much more likely to do it publicly, and play the terrorism card to the hilt (to mix my metaphors).
Because here in the USA, if you do much more than that without really covering your ass, you become a "terrorist" and a guest of the government down in Gitmo.
Really? Can you give some examples? The only one I can actually think of is the Yemini-American cleric Obama had killed. I believe that all they had on him publicly was that he was basically the propaganda arm of AQ (i.e. lots of hateful speech, but no action). Of course, the government is saying they have evidence he was an actor too, but I don't think there's been any evidence to that made publicly available.
I mean, I think it's criminal what they did to the kids at UC Davis, and what happened in Oakland, if not criminal, was certainly a shame. But I didn't hear of any Occupy protesters being sent to Gitmo, or even being indefinitely detained.
I agree that we are travelling down a perilous road and our liberties are being eroded, but your hyperbole doesn't help make that case.
The individual was being arrested for failure to obey a dispersal order, which was exactly what the officer said, not for "resisting arrest".
No, he wasn't. From TFA:
Miller was charged with a single count of resisting arrest. "Aside from a blatant violation of Mr. Miller’s First Amendment rights to record matters of public interest in a public place," [National Press Photographers Association General Consul] Osterreicher wrote [in a letter to the Miami-Dade PD], "we do not understand how, absent some other underlying charge for which there was probable cause, a charge of resisting arrest can stand on its own?"
Now, I agree that there are occasions where the police can give lawful dispersal orders, but I don't believe those orders should apply to members of the press who are documenting events (and not participating in whatever actions are causing the police to call for dispersal). Of course, as you point out, it is extremely difficult for police on the ground to identify who is "legitimate" press (and hard for us as a society to decide what "legitimate" press even is). But the thorniness of that problem should not give police the blanket authority to disperse/arrest everyone and prevent documentation of such events.
You mentioned "two separate things": the charges for which he was arrested; and the "opinion" that the arrest was illegal (it's a minor point, but I agree with you). You left out a third thing, which is probably the most important part of this piece.
After he was arrested, while the police had his camera in custody, they allegedly erased video of the events up to and including his arrest. I can't think of any reason this can be justified. If the footage was taken illegally (which may be the case since the appellate ruling referenced was for a MA case and may not apply in FL - IANAL), then the police should have preserved the evidence for trial. If the footage was not taken illegally, then there is no reasonable cause for them to delete it either. I don't think I would hold the police to a 100% standard in terms of returning property whole to suspects - it's possible if they impound your car that it get's dinged accidentally in the impound lot; your phone or computer may get dropped (not "dropped" - that would be a problem) on the floor of the evidence room. Accidents happen and like I said, I would expect the police to be perfect. But here it seems someone deliberately access the camera's memory and selectively deleted videos. It's hard to construe that as accidental.
Bottom line, once the police have evidence in custody, they are obligated to preserve it. That apparently didn't happen here, and if the allegation are true and there are no repercussions, then it is indeed a scary (police) state we live in.
"If you're a Zune Pass subscriber, you may need to sync your device with your PC to refresh the rights to the subscription content you have downloaded to your device.
That's the scariest sentence in that entire article.
Slashdot Mirror
And when they ask for permission to search, say "NO!"
On this weeks "Southland" there was this sub-plot about a guy hiding a camera in a coffee shop toilet. The cops asked to look at his laptop and he consented. On his screen was the live feed from his site. Why would the dumbass consent?
I used the opportunity to instruct my wife to never consent to search or answer cops questions about a crime. They are not there to help you. They are there to catch someone, and if they decide it's you, any help you give them is helping them to convict you.
Not many DVDs are worth the re-watch anyway, older movies are available for streaming, and new hits are on "OnDemand", iTunes or even RedBox.
For me, the biggest reason to rip DVDs is because my kids will re-watch videos scores of times.
The truth is that you don't have a magic money making machine that takes in time and spits out gold. No one really does. So all attempts to whine about "time not being free" are really quite assinine.
>
No, it's not. I spend 50-60 hours per week "at work" (i.e. away from home/family). That I can't turn my weekends and evenings into money at the drop of the hat does not make that time "free." It's only free in the sense that if I didn't rip DVDs I couldn't get paid to do something else (though if I wanted and needed to, I could get a second job). But in reality, if I spend time ripping DVDs, that's time not spent with my wife and kids, not going to play in the park, not going to watch my kid's baseball game, not going out to dinner, not watching a show or movie, not playing D&D, or not doing countless other things I enjoy far more than getting the fucking encoder to work correctly.
Now, the benefit of having a DRM free copy on my HDD is much greater than having an online only copy locked up in Vudu, and the gap is probably big enough that I will eventually find the time to do it (especially since I'll be buying a new PC in the next few months), but it will be a very large opportunity cost when I do it, and that is precisely what has kept me from doing it up until this point.
I 2nd this sentiment. I'm not tech-illiterate, but neither am I extremely savvy. I attempted a couple times to rip my kid's DVDs so we could load them on the laptop or iPad for vacation and found it a very frustrating experience (using Handbrake and VLC on XP). I gave up after a couple attempts and ~2-3 hours.
I would happily pay $2 per disc to get a ripped copy on my HDD. Online only doesn't work for me because I want to view them on the plane and in the hotel room (where wi-fi is spotty or non-existent).
I haven't played the "game", but I suspect that there are a lot of things like time limits that can serve as a motivation factor that actually increase user output in the aggregate. Having a time limit can give you a sense of urgency that will force you to work faster. The error rate may increase, but overall productivity could still be higher given that higher number of "answers" given per unit time.
Imagine two Magic The Gathering players. One assembles decks painstakingly, spending hours crafting card ratios just right, and researching combos to get the perfect balance of # cards to power of combo. Then he play tests it, goes back and makes adjustments, etc. The other throws decks together quickly and play tests them very quickly. He adjusts the deck without as much deliberate thought, but rather more quickly (perhaps intuitively). He is able to iterate much faster, and it's easy to imagine that if each player were given 1 month to pursue these strategies, the latter could easily come out with more decks that met some minimum standard of success (that was suitably high).
(Obviously, it's easy to see how inane, useless rewards can spur gamers to expend more time and "contribute" more to the game... just look at badges, trophies, etc. But I think it's just as possible that "negative" reinforcement ideas, such as a time limit, can have the same effect.)
If we have the capability to restore a mind to a state that is, in essence, a completely new person, then what we have is the ability to create Life. Now, we of course have the ability to create Life the old fashioned way, but I think it's a pretty big step to take a brain-dead mind and body and create within it a new life, with a new personality, new emotions, and as far as some might be concerned, a new soul. Would we really want to do that?
Don't talk about life. Don't analyze life. And most importantly, don't view your own life from a 3rd person perspective 24/7. Observation and introspection is healthy. Too much of it is a waste of time. If you're having to think about your life all the time, it means your not living it. And if you're not living it, do something about it. Don't just sit on the sidelines.
Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suit on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pissing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourselves. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got personal analytics?
Have you considered learning calculus?
Have you considered learning editing? Topher Grace has.
This Wired article put's the Pentagon's black budget at about $50B per yer.
Yes but how much of that available energy at the surface went to create the Tsunami?
Water doesn't compress. If you displace X cubic meters of water at the seabed, it has to go somewhere (i.e. out and up). I suppose the "impact" of that water displacement is reduced by something along the lines of the inverse square (or cube) law, as the water spreads out as it travels away from the epicenter. That is why the tsunami was much more devastating in Indonesia vs. Sri Lanka. (The direction of the wave/displacement also matters; Bangladesh experienced a much smaller surge because the wave was travelling mostly east-west.)
I think we'd prefer it hit in shallow water if it had to hit the ocean.
I don't think so. The shallower the water, the more it's like hitting land. If it hits land, there will be a huge dust cloud which will cause all sorts of problems (e.g. health, change the albedo of the planet, etc.). If it hits in deep water, most airborne matter will be water vapor, which shouldn't be nearly as dangerous. Also, if it were to hit far from shore, any wave caused by displacement would be minimized by the time it reached shore.
See my other post. Apple will buy Visa, or simply develop their own credit system. Why let the 3% Visa is collecting on every App Store transaction get away? And with iWallet, that 3% is of a much larger pie.
Like my sibling post says, using a debit card is terrible. Lose your phone and your bank account will be drained with no recourse.
I've seen this idea coming for a while now, though I thought it would be the carriers who would take on the roll of creditor. As this progresses, Apple will realize that they are losing margin by allowing Visa and MC to handle the credit too. Why only get 30% from the purchase of the app when you can get 33-35% by being the creditor? I just hope the Regulators wake up in time and treat Apple (or the carriers) like CC companies when they inevitably start doing this.
I fail to see how that would be a worse use of taxpayer dollars than, say, the shuttle program was.
Besides the direct benefit of 120 tech spin-offs, I'd say fixing the Hubble Telescope and keeping it up to date provided us with tremendous scientific benefit.
If it hit the water, it may cause a tsunami wave. Depending on where that wave makes landfall, it could disrupt anywhere from dozens to millions of people.
But weren't the tsunami's (2004 and Japan's) caused when large (kilometers long) sections of the seabed were suddenly raised up, displacing the seawater? The displacement of a 140 m meteor doesn't seem like it would be as much.
Further reading:
The energy released on the Earth's surface only (ME, which is the seismic potential for damage) by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami was estimated at 1.1×1017 joules,[24] or 26 megatons of TNT. This energy is equivalent to over 1500 times that of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, but less than that of Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated. However, this is but a tiny fraction of the total work done MW (and thus energy) by this quake, 4.0×1022 joules (4.0×1029 ergs),[25] the vast majority underground.
While the wikipedia page doesn't say how much water was displaced, it does say this:
the earthquake had made a huge impact on the topography of the seabed. 1,500-metre-high (5,000 ft) thrust ridges created by previous geologic activity along the fault had collapsed, generating landslides several kilometers wide. One such landslide consisted of a single block of rock some 100 m high and 2 km long (300 ft by 1.25 mi). The momentum of the water displaced by tectonic uplift had also dragged massive slabs of rock, each weighing millions of tons, as far as 10 km (6 mi) across the seabed.
If authorities combed through their picture database, they'd find tens of thousands of illegal to own that have been transported across borders. IANAL, but it does sound very tricky.
Surely Safe Harbor applies, no? As long as the host makes sufficient effort to prevent the dissemination of the content I'd think they'd be OK. Might want to get a letter from the DoJ of the respective jurisdictions though.
Boston Tea Party: Criminal action or patriotism?
Here's my take. An atheist is more or less a "non-theist." That is, he does not believe in the deity of others. In my mind, God (or Allah, etc.) is a creation of Man, and I don't believe that Man can know God enough to come to a complete understanding/definition. Therefore, I cannot believe in God/Allah - I am an a-theist.
But, I don't have the hubris to think that I can know the intimate workings of the Universe (at least at this point, and in the long foreseeable future). Therefore, I am an agnostic - I literally don't know.
In addition, anyone currently receiving some form of "entitlement" should not get to vote because what they're going to vote for is not difficult to guess and this situation is too exploitable and too dangerous for our long-term survival.
Excellent idea. Only the non-retired rich should be able to vote.
So, he was arrested for disobeying a dispersal order, but he was charged with resisting arrest.
I do not think you are correct. Again, IANAL, but at least on TV when the cop says, "You're under arrest" the suspect says, "On what charge?" But more importantly, the General Counsel of the National Press Photographers Association seems to think that there is a problem with being charged only with resisting arrest. Perhaps he was arrested on the charge of failing to disperse, but the fact that they are not pressing that charge is the problem?
a printed picture of Goatse
I read that as "a painted picture of Goatse." I thought, "You, Sir, are a connoisseur."
So, to answer your question, no, I can't give examples, but I wouldn't expect to be able to. We just don't know, and we can't know, for sure. Ordinarily, I'd agree with you, but as things stand now, there are reasons we wouldn't be able to cite examples..
I don't know. On this I kind of lean toward the Alien Landing Conspiracy Rule: the government is not capable enough to keep such a conspiracy secret. It's not really the same, of course, but I have a hard time believing that the government would be able to arrest and indefinitely detain protesting citizens on any type of scale without word getting out or questions being asked. People have families that will miss them. Everyone is recording these events and pushing them out to the internet. I think its a bit paranoid to assume that the government could really pull citizens off of public streets and detain them in secret on any type of scale. They're much more likely to do it publicly, and play the terrorism card to the hilt (to mix my metaphors).
Because here in the USA, if you do much more than that without really covering your ass, you become a "terrorist" and a guest of the government down in Gitmo.
Really? Can you give some examples? The only one I can actually think of is the Yemini-American cleric Obama had killed. I believe that all they had on him publicly was that he was basically the propaganda arm of AQ (i.e. lots of hateful speech, but no action). Of course, the government is saying they have evidence he was an actor too, but I don't think there's been any evidence to that made publicly available.
I mean, I think it's criminal what they did to the kids at UC Davis, and what happened in Oakland, if not criminal, was certainly a shame. But I didn't hear of any Occupy protesters being sent to Gitmo, or even being indefinitely detained.
I agree that we are travelling down a perilous road and our liberties are being eroded, but your hyperbole doesn't help make that case.
The individual was being arrested for failure to obey a dispersal order, which was exactly what the officer said, not for "resisting arrest".
No, he wasn't. From TFA:
Miller was charged with a single count of resisting arrest. "Aside from a blatant violation of Mr. Miller’s First Amendment rights to record matters of public interest in a public place," [National Press Photographers Association General Consul] Osterreicher wrote [in a letter to the Miami-Dade PD], "we do not understand how, absent some other underlying charge for which there was probable cause, a charge of resisting arrest can stand on its own?"
Now, I agree that there are occasions where the police can give lawful dispersal orders, but I don't believe those orders should apply to members of the press who are documenting events (and not participating in whatever actions are causing the police to call for dispersal). Of course, as you point out, it is extremely difficult for police on the ground to identify who is "legitimate" press (and hard for us as a society to decide what "legitimate" press even is). But the thorniness of that problem should not give police the blanket authority to disperse/arrest everyone and prevent documentation of such events.
You mentioned "two separate things": the charges for which he was arrested; and the "opinion" that the arrest was illegal (it's a minor point, but I agree with you). You left out a third thing, which is probably the most important part of this piece.
After he was arrested, while the police had his camera in custody, they allegedly erased video of the events up to and including his arrest. I can't think of any reason this can be justified. If the footage was taken illegally (which may be the case since the appellate ruling referenced was for a MA case and may not apply in FL - IANAL), then the police should have preserved the evidence for trial. If the footage was not taken illegally, then there is no reasonable cause for them to delete it either. I don't think I would hold the police to a 100% standard in terms of returning property whole to suspects - it's possible if they impound your car that it get's dinged accidentally in the impound lot; your phone or computer may get dropped (not "dropped" - that would be a problem) on the floor of the evidence room. Accidents happen and like I said, I would expect the police to be perfect. But here it seems someone deliberately access the camera's memory and selectively deleted videos. It's hard to construe that as accidental.
Bottom line, once the police have evidence in custody, they are obligated to preserve it. That apparently didn't happen here, and if the allegation are true and there are no repercussions, then it is indeed a scary (police) state we live in.
Ahh, of course. That all makes perfect sense.
it is possible if one ear is in an area of destructive interference, the other will be in an area of constructive interference.
That would be interesting to experience too.
"If you're a Zune Pass subscriber, you may need to sync your device with your PC to refresh the rights to the subscription content you have downloaded to your device.
That's the scariest sentence in that entire article.