Except that argument is rather... well, wrong, since an invisible pink unicorn a) wouldn't be supernatural in the first place (a unicorn isn't supernatural, it's just a horse with a horn, and merely being invisible isn't supernatural either), and b) wouldn't fit the necessary conditions for creation of the universe.
Physics states certain conditions that are requisite to bring our universe into existence, and God fits the conditions practically by definition. You could hypothesize instead that the universe has the power to bring itself into existence, except now you are talking philosophy, because you are postulating the possibility that something can create itself, which is... impossible (in my opinion). Fundamentally, all explanations for how the universe was brought into existence fall under the realm of philosophy (metaphysics specifically), because although you can show what conditions are necessary to bring about such an event (basically, "the power to bring our universe into existence"), you necessarily cannot treat of them using physics or any of the sciences since those conditions by definition precede (in order of causality, although not of course in time because time doesn't exist before the universe) the existence of physics or any of nature.
You do realize there is a slight bit of difference between military grade avionics, and commercial ones, right? It's kind of a big difference, in fact, like the difference between an F-16 and a 747. Actually, not "like", that is the difference between an F-16 and a 747.
Amazing what you can accomplish when you get to cut corners.
I know, it's amazing how NASA's government redundancy made sure they never, ever lost a single rocket or satellite ever, much less a manned mission. I mean, NASA rockets never burst into flames on the launch pads or anything, burning the astronauts inside alive. Oh wait.
You know what fixes both of those issues?
FREE software. Then the code can be fixed even after the original developer is long gone.
Hardly. Not everyone who wants the problem fixed has the skills or time to do so, and not everyone who has the skills or time wants to fix the problem. The result is a ton of problems in FOSS ends up going unfixed all the time.
I’m not a fan of ubuntu nor RMS, and I definitely don’t like the sounds of this feature, but since when was "free software" equated with "respects your privacy".
It was equated when RMS said it was equated. RMS is a fanatic, plain and simple. He may be a fanatic for a good cause overall, but he is still a fanatic. That means he sees the world in a pretty simple way. Either you agree with him and follow his set rules, in which cases he recommends and endorses you, or you disagree with his position (in any way no matter how slight), in which case he rejects you completely. There is really no intermediate ground for a person like him.
It's not a criticism, exactly, he has done some good things, you just have to keep it in mind whenever he says anything about anything: he is speaking as a fanatic. There is no room for deviation from his rules.
So instead of storing highly toxic and radioactive waste deep underground in specially designed and very expensive long term storage meant to keep it safe from all kinds of disasters, we can keep storing it above ground in short-term storage pools that we know will fail if they should be exposed to a decent sized disaster. Keep in mind this isn't storage just for future waste, but stuff that actually exists, right now, sitting in short-term storage, and if you read TFA, you'll find out not only is there no other long-term storage option, there isn't even a plan for one. So who are most people going to blame when (not if, but when, unless we do something about it) those current storage sites fail? I'm betting it won't be Obama. Anyone want to take that bet?
The wealth transfer religion is that of the demagogs insisting that the unregulated market cures all ills. And it is a transfer of wealth from the productive working members of society to the non-working class of the plutocrats, those wealthy enough to grow their wealth by leaching off the labor of others without contributing any real labor in return./p>
About the first sentence first: most people against wealth transfer aren't preaching an utterly unregulated market, so nice straw man there (some do, yes, most don't). About against the second sentence: you really don't understand how capitalism works, do you? The wealthy who invest their money so that others can use it to amplify their labor are taking considerable risks, or would be if it weren't government intervention, see: bailout. The key point is that a heavy investment of capital amplifies the labor of the workers, a fact many people seem to ignore. Without those wealthy people "leeching off" others, you wouldn't have smartphones, the Internet, or almost anything factory produced, for that matter. The desire for more wealth prompts investments of money which make possible large-scale endevours that would be utterly impossible without them, and while government could in theory replace the investors, in reality the combination of corruption and lack of motivation for efficiency results in a system that simply does not work (see: Communism, esp. the USSR).
Of course you couldn't put the image on the lenses, you'd have to device a system where it projects a virtual image into the eye which appears to be a few feet away or so. Should be possible. Tricky, since it isn't like any current display technology and would require extremely advanced miniaturization, but possible.
Everyone knows that Intel is better, and competition in the CPU market is not a good thing. I hope AMD goes out of business soon, so that Intel can lower the price of their chips.
Yea, because usually when a company has no competition they lower prices. Happens all the time.
Since the lower receiver is the "regulated" part of the AR-15 (the part that the ATF considers to be the actual gun), isn't think rather illegal?
Home-made rifles are completely legal, you just can't sell or otherwise distribute them. The plans for them, on the other hand, you can distribute, hence the project.
Do you have any idea how much power ray-tracing costs? Obviously not, but the short answer is "a lot more than we have." You can't do it with anything available at the consumer level, not in real time with any decent level of rays or bounces.
On the other hand, some games really have pushed the PC gaming envelope (I'd say Planetside 2, for example). It's just getting pretty rare, since console level graphics look "good enough."
Moore's law has nothing to do with performance, numbnuts. Apparently the real geeks left Slashdot ages ago.
Yes and no. Moore's law states that the number of transistors will double every 2 years. The problem is that we are nearing the peak of what is possible with current technology in a single core, hence all the focus on 4,6,8, and even 16 core systems for consumers (always been popular in supercomputers and the like). That means doubling transistor count every 2 years can be done through increasing cores... but there is no point in doing that if programs can only use a few of them (very few consumers now need 4 cores, much less 8 or 16).
So, if you can scale up the ability to use processor cores, then Moore's law can continue to hold for CPU's as we increase processor cores. If you can't, then it won't. It'll have to stop sometime, of course, just not necessarily today.
And how, exactly, do you navigate a PC interface with menus and text entry using a gamepad? I mean, I suppose you could map one of the sticks to virtual mouse, but that type of system sucks (I've done it before), and is a tad bit more work than most people are willing to put forward. The interface is the key: being able to navigate through menus and text entry (yes, Valve has apparently devised a text entry scheme that doesn't totally suck) using the controller.
But the mass is not distributed over that volume. inside the black hole the mass is actually contained in an infintesimal point, and the density is infinite. At least according to the math;
Ah yes, but it also can't be, since time travels slower and slower the deeper you go, it would take infinite time for matter to actually reach that point. The actual matter distribution depends on a lot of things, mostly how it was formed. Presumably, there is at least a central region with density greater than a neutron star, but if the majority of the matter in the star was added later, or was otherwise distributed throughout the whole region of the black hole during or after it's formation, that matter would still (probably) not be very near the center, since time dilation would slow it's collapse into the hole to a crawl (or stop, actually, relative to us).
It's a little more complicated than that, of course, since time and space become all twisted around after you enter the black hole (forwards in time means deeper into the hole, for instance). Anyways, most of the mass distribution would depend on it's formation, which we have no clue about right now. Actually, it would take an infinite time for matter to even reach the event horizon, although I do believe the horizon could expand to swallow the matter, which would mean that matter that falls into it ends up "suspended" (so to speak) in the hole, which means if it formed by accretion of matter the density inside may well be about what is calculated. It's impossible to ever know for sure, since information about matter inside cannot escape, so we will never know the actual distribution (we can guess, but that is all).
And, interestingly enough, given the mass and size of the hole, air at sea level is about 19 times more dense than the black hole is. Black holes are just strange.
He didn't use internal FBI resources, hence the computer repair shop. He asked his friends at the FBI if they knew how to clear the laptop. They didn't, so he took it to the shop. That's hardly using FBI resources (the summary is more than a little misleading).
Agreed on the shop, they sound pretty incompetent.
Keep in mind this wasn't exactly the computer specialist division of the FBI, considering he had to take it to a computer repair shop to get them to fix it. TFA says he asked his colleagues, without knowing anything more I'd assume they don't work in the "cybercrime" division. So more like it survive cleaning by some random individuals and a probably-incompetent computer repair shop (Geek Squad or similar, they probably thinking knowing how to use regedit makes them computer "experts".) The FBI as an organization was completely uninvolved.
This is not a critique of you, I don't know you or your situation personally so obviously I cannot and will not judge, but:
This is a kind of selfishness. You indicate that you think of having children entirely around how it would impact you, personally, and what you want. The problem with this is that having children is fundamentally not about you. It's about the potential children you could have, and about their well-being and prosperity, even if it is extremely costly and a tremendous sacrifice to you personally, and at a slightly higher level the economic and demographic well being of the country, which relies on a steady stream of young people to work and produce for society, and of course at the highest level it is simply about the continuation of the species and making sure humanity survives and prospers. That is why animals, all animals (humans included) have children. It isn't for your own pleasure or well-being, although I should point out that having kids actually does make you live longer, and happier, and in the long term more stably, since you have children to support and help you once you grow old.
The mindset you exhibit is extremely common. It's the whole reason the US isn't having enough kids to sustain itself, and the reason the Japanese are probably going to collapse in a few decades from a population implosion. That attitude will destroy the country in which it becomes widespread, almost inevitably (hell, it's part of what destroyed Rome all those years ago).
However, it's the lowest it's been in 90 years. The US birthrate was very high before the 20th century. The population was relatively small, most people were farmers, and needed all those kids. My mother is 83 and the baby of the family, and she has three brothers and six sisters. Back then, that was normal. before 1900 the average family was even bigger.
This is only a record low for most of our lifetimes.
I'm confused, you claim this isn't a record low because it used to be much much higher 100+ years ago? Your post honestly doesn't make any sense to me. This really is almost certainly a low for the US, since as you yourself point out, before the advent of modern medicine and technology, many women would have 5+ children. They needed to: not only was the help around the farm vital to succeed, but with the death rate being so high, especially among infants, the population could only stay steady if everyone who could had a lot of kids.
Also, I should point out that it is a record low, quite literally: it's the lowest on record, which by definition is a "record low". It may or may not be the lowest ever for the US, but it quite likely is.
That would be tricky. Mercury's gravity is a little more than 1/3rd Earth's, so you'd have to hit the surface pretty damned hard to get the debris high enough to make it worth doing. Worse, the kickup would scatter debris all over the surface, contaminating other craters and interesting locations with debris, some of it from the Earth missile. The last part alone would make it a rather terrible idea.
Yes, they mean that he doesn't understand that selling GPL'd software doesn't in fact violate the GPL.
No, in this context since he stated both selling LibreOffice and violating the GPL, it means selling the binaries without distributing the source. If he said violating the GPL by selling Libre Office, you would be correct. As it is, you are wrong, sorry. It doesn't even matter if he knew selling GPL'd software was violating the GPL or not, the way he phrased it.
Dual core AMD x64 processor: $58. Hard drive: $59. MB: $59 with integrated AMD Radeon HD and all the extras (didn't see gig-E or USB3.0 in the first example, but you can shop around). 4GB ram: $19 (yeah, ram is that cheap). 250W PSU (couldn't even find 150W): $20. Case: $15. Total: $230 USD, right now. And that is bottom-end components, if you want anything higher, you start getting cheaper than the mass-produced stuff. This took me 1-2 minutes to find, if I shopped around I could maybe push it a bit cheaper (of course, that is with sales, but that works in your advantage since you can pick up each component separately or in combos for the best prices).
And I'm not even using any combo deals, which could drop the price a few dollars. Of course, you don't get Windows for that price, but you don't get the shovel-ware crap, either, plus you get to choose exactly what components you want to maximize without massive markups. Most of the components are likely going to be junk at that price... but the whole computer is junk at that pre-built price.
Are we really in a first world country when we are punished for attempting to hold our law enforcement officers to a standard?
The fact that we are even discussing this issue makes me question the validity of our laws.
No, the ban was ruled unconstitutional, so we aren't in such a country (did you even read the headline?). That's one thing the courts are for, so I would say the law is working as intended, more or less (in this case, of course). It's up to Illinois voters to remove the people responsible for trying to make such a law from power, but that would be their problem.
Yes, because 13 seconds of lunging requires a 68 second response of multiple people beating someone. Your premise is that if they showed the first 13 seconds people would of regarded the reaction as reasonable. I think you may want to reconsider that premise.
I think you completely missed the OP's point. The point is that a video recording (any video recording, for that matter, not just of police) can and almost inevitably will, given the generally sensationalist bent of the media, be taken out of context. In the case of his example, that doesn't mean the beating would be justified, not by a long shot. But it would certainly make a lot more sense, and be far less grievous, than a beating for no reason whatsoever. It's pretty easy to edit video footage to show whatever the hell you want it to show (reality TV shows exist because of that fact).
Does that mean the police can ban recording them? No, not by a long shot. But the concern is valid. The response would be to record every police encounter themselves, although that is technically challenging in some cases (already done, IIRC, by most departments for traffic stops). Something like Google Glass would help considerably. Even then, their response wouldn't get as widely published as initial "shocking" footage, but it would help a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that argument is rather... well, wrong, since an invisible pink unicorn a) wouldn't be supernatural in the first place (a unicorn isn't supernatural, it's just a horse with a horn, and merely being invisible isn't supernatural either), and b) wouldn't fit the necessary conditions for creation of the universe.
Physics states certain conditions that are requisite to bring our universe into existence, and God fits the conditions practically by definition. You could hypothesize instead that the universe has the power to bring itself into existence, except now you are talking philosophy, because you are postulating the possibility that something can create itself, which is... impossible (in my opinion). Fundamentally, all explanations for how the universe was brought into existence fall under the realm of philosophy (metaphysics specifically), because although you can show what conditions are necessary to bring about such an event (basically, "the power to bring our universe into existence"), you necessarily cannot treat of them using physics or any of the sciences since those conditions by definition precede (in order of causality, although not of course in time because time doesn't exist before the universe) the existence of physics or any of nature.
You do realize there is a slight bit of difference between military grade avionics, and commercial ones, right? It's kind of a big difference, in fact, like the difference between an F-16 and a 747. Actually, not "like", that is the difference between an F-16 and a 747.
Amazing what you can accomplish when you get to cut corners .
I know, it's amazing how NASA's government redundancy made sure they never, ever lost a single rocket or satellite ever, much less a manned mission. I mean, NASA rockets never burst into flames on the launch pads or anything, burning the astronauts inside alive. Oh wait.
You know what fixes both of those issues? FREE software. Then the code can be fixed even after the original developer is long gone.
Hardly. Not everyone who wants the problem fixed has the skills or time to do so, and not everyone who has the skills or time wants to fix the problem. The result is a ton of problems in FOSS ends up going unfixed all the time.
I’m not a fan of ubuntu nor RMS, and I definitely don’t like the sounds of this feature, but since when was "free software" equated with "respects your privacy".
It was equated when RMS said it was equated. RMS is a fanatic, plain and simple. He may be a fanatic for a good cause overall, but he is still a fanatic. That means he sees the world in a pretty simple way. Either you agree with him and follow his set rules, in which cases he recommends and endorses you, or you disagree with his position (in any way no matter how slight), in which case he rejects you completely. There is really no intermediate ground for a person like him.
It's not a criticism, exactly, he has done some good things, you just have to keep it in mind whenever he says anything about anything: he is speaking as a fanatic. There is no room for deviation from his rules.
So instead of storing highly toxic and radioactive waste deep underground in specially designed and very expensive long term storage meant to keep it safe from all kinds of disasters, we can keep storing it above ground in short-term storage pools that we know will fail if they should be exposed to a decent sized disaster. Keep in mind this isn't storage just for future waste, but stuff that actually exists, right now, sitting in short-term storage, and if you read TFA, you'll find out not only is there no other long-term storage option, there isn't even a plan for one. So who are most people going to blame when (not if, but when, unless we do something about it) those current storage sites fail? I'm betting it won't be Obama. Anyone want to take that bet?
The wealth transfer religion is that of the demagogs insisting that the unregulated market cures all ills. And it is a transfer of wealth from the productive working members of society to the non-working class of the plutocrats, those wealthy enough to grow their wealth by leaching off the labor of others without contributing any real labor in return. /p>
About the first sentence first: most people against wealth transfer aren't preaching an utterly unregulated market, so nice straw man there (some do, yes, most don't). About against the second sentence: you really don't understand how capitalism works, do you? The wealthy who invest their money so that others can use it to amplify their labor are taking considerable risks, or would be if it weren't government intervention, see: bailout. The key point is that a heavy investment of capital amplifies the labor of the workers, a fact many people seem to ignore. Without those wealthy people "leeching off" others, you wouldn't have smartphones, the Internet, or almost anything factory produced, for that matter. The desire for more wealth prompts investments of money which make possible large-scale endevours that would be utterly impossible without them, and while government could in theory replace the investors, in reality the combination of corruption and lack of motivation for efficiency results in a system that simply does not work (see: Communism, esp. the USSR).
Of course you couldn't put the image on the lenses, you'd have to device a system where it projects a virtual image into the eye which appears to be a few feet away or so. Should be possible. Tricky, since it isn't like any current display technology and would require extremely advanced miniaturization, but possible.
Everyone knows that Intel is better, and competition in the CPU market is not a good thing. I hope AMD goes out of business soon, so that Intel can lower the price of their chips.
Yea, because usually when a company has no competition they lower prices. Happens all the time.
Woooosh!
Since the lower receiver is the "regulated" part of the AR-15 (the part that the ATF considers to be the actual gun), isn't think rather illegal?
Home-made rifles are completely legal, you just can't sell or otherwise distribute them. The plans for them, on the other hand, you can distribute, hence the project.
Do you have any idea how much power ray-tracing costs? Obviously not, but the short answer is "a lot more than we have." You can't do it with anything available at the consumer level, not in real time with any decent level of rays or bounces.
On the other hand, some games really have pushed the PC gaming envelope (I'd say Planetside 2, for example). It's just getting pretty rare, since console level graphics look "good enough."
s'it quite difficult sometimes.
Moore's law has nothing to do with performance, numbnuts. Apparently the real geeks left Slashdot ages ago.
Yes and no. Moore's law states that the number of transistors will double every 2 years. The problem is that we are nearing the peak of what is possible with current technology in a single core, hence all the focus on 4,6,8, and even 16 core systems for consumers (always been popular in supercomputers and the like). That means doubling transistor count every 2 years can be done through increasing cores... but there is no point in doing that if programs can only use a few of them (very few consumers now need 4 cores, much less 8 or 16).
So, if you can scale up the ability to use processor cores, then Moore's law can continue to hold for CPU's as we increase processor cores. If you can't, then it won't. It'll have to stop sometime, of course, just not necessarily today.
And how, exactly, do you navigate a PC interface with menus and text entry using a gamepad? I mean, I suppose you could map one of the sticks to virtual mouse, but that type of system sucks (I've done it before), and is a tad bit more work than most people are willing to put forward. The interface is the key: being able to navigate through menus and text entry (yes, Valve has apparently devised a text entry scheme that doesn't totally suck) using the controller.
But the mass is not distributed over that volume. inside the black hole the mass is actually contained in an infintesimal point, and the density is infinite. At least according to the math;
Ah yes, but it also can't be, since time travels slower and slower the deeper you go, it would take infinite time for matter to actually reach that point. The actual matter distribution depends on a lot of things, mostly how it was formed. Presumably, there is at least a central region with density greater than a neutron star, but if the majority of the matter in the star was added later, or was otherwise distributed throughout the whole region of the black hole during or after it's formation, that matter would still (probably) not be very near the center, since time dilation would slow it's collapse into the hole to a crawl (or stop, actually, relative to us).
It's a little more complicated than that, of course, since time and space become all twisted around after you enter the black hole (forwards in time means deeper into the hole, for instance). Anyways, most of the mass distribution would depend on it's formation, which we have no clue about right now. Actually, it would take an infinite time for matter to even reach the event horizon, although I do believe the horizon could expand to swallow the matter, which would mean that matter that falls into it ends up "suspended" (so to speak) in the hole, which means if it formed by accretion of matter the density inside may well be about what is calculated. It's impossible to ever know for sure, since information about matter inside cannot escape, so we will never know the actual distribution (we can guess, but that is all).
And, interestingly enough, given the mass and size of the hole, air at sea level is about 19 times more dense than the black hole is. Black holes are just strange.
He didn't use internal FBI resources, hence the computer repair shop. He asked his friends at the FBI if they knew how to clear the laptop. They didn't, so he took it to the shop. That's hardly using FBI resources (the summary is more than a little misleading).
Agreed on the shop, they sound pretty incompetent.
Keep in mind this wasn't exactly the computer specialist division of the FBI, considering he had to take it to a computer repair shop to get them to fix it. TFA says he asked his colleagues, without knowing anything more I'd assume they don't work in the "cybercrime" division. So more like it survive cleaning by some random individuals and a probably-incompetent computer repair shop (Geek Squad or similar, they probably thinking knowing how to use regedit makes them computer "experts".) The FBI as an organization was completely uninvolved.
This is not a critique of you, I don't know you or your situation personally so obviously I cannot and will not judge, but:
This is a kind of selfishness. You indicate that you think of having children entirely around how it would impact you, personally, and what you want. The problem with this is that having children is fundamentally not about you. It's about the potential children you could have, and about their well-being and prosperity, even if it is extremely costly and a tremendous sacrifice to you personally, and at a slightly higher level the economic and demographic well being of the country, which relies on a steady stream of young people to work and produce for society, and of course at the highest level it is simply about the continuation of the species and making sure humanity survives and prospers. That is why animals, all animals (humans included) have children. It isn't for your own pleasure or well-being, although I should point out that having kids actually does make you live longer, and happier, and in the long term more stably, since you have children to support and help you once you grow old.
The mindset you exhibit is extremely common. It's the whole reason the US isn't having enough kids to sustain itself, and the reason the Japanese are probably going to collapse in a few decades from a population implosion. That attitude will destroy the country in which it becomes widespread, almost inevitably (hell, it's part of what destroyed Rome all those years ago).
However, it's the lowest it's been in 90 years. The US birthrate was very high before the 20th century. The population was relatively small, most people were farmers, and needed all those kids. My mother is 83 and the baby of the family, and she has three brothers and six sisters. Back then, that was normal. before 1900 the average family was even bigger.
This is only a record low for most of our lifetimes.
I'm confused, you claim this isn't a record low because it used to be much much higher 100+ years ago? Your post honestly doesn't make any sense to me. This really is almost certainly a low for the US, since as you yourself point out, before the advent of modern medicine and technology, many women would have 5+ children. They needed to: not only was the help around the farm vital to succeed, but with the death rate being so high, especially among infants, the population could only stay steady if everyone who could had a lot of kids.
Also, I should point out that it is a record low, quite literally: it's the lowest on record, which by definition is a "record low". It may or may not be the lowest ever for the US, but it quite likely is.
That would be tricky. Mercury's gravity is a little more than 1/3rd Earth's, so you'd have to hit the surface pretty damned hard to get the debris high enough to make it worth doing. Worse, the kickup would scatter debris all over the surface, contaminating other craters and interesting locations with debris, some of it from the Earth missile. The last part alone would make it a rather terrible idea.
Yes, they mean that he doesn't understand that selling GPL'd software doesn't in fact violate the GPL.
No, in this context since he stated both selling LibreOffice and violating the GPL, it means selling the binaries without distributing the source. If he said violating the GPL by selling Libre Office, you would be correct. As it is, you are wrong, sorry. It doesn't even matter if he knew selling GPL'd software was violating the GPL or not, the way he phrased it.
Dual core AMD x64 processor: $58. Hard drive: $59. MB: $59 with integrated AMD Radeon HD and all the extras (didn't see gig-E or USB3.0 in the first example, but you can shop around). 4GB ram: $19 (yeah, ram is that cheap). 250W PSU (couldn't even find 150W): $20. Case: $15. Total: $230 USD, right now. And that is bottom-end components, if you want anything higher, you start getting cheaper than the mass-produced stuff. This took me 1-2 minutes to find, if I shopped around I could maybe push it a bit cheaper (of course, that is with sales, but that works in your advantage since you can pick up each component separately or in combos for the best prices).
And I'm not even using any combo deals, which could drop the price a few dollars. Of course, you don't get Windows for that price, but you don't get the shovel-ware crap, either, plus you get to choose exactly what components you want to maximize without massive markups. Most of the components are likely going to be junk at that price... but the whole computer is junk at that pre-built price.
Are we really in a first world country when we are punished for attempting to hold our law enforcement officers to a standard?
The fact that we are even discussing this issue makes me question the validity of our laws.
No, the ban was ruled unconstitutional, so we aren't in such a country (did you even read the headline?). That's one thing the courts are for, so I would say the law is working as intended, more or less (in this case, of course). It's up to Illinois voters to remove the people responsible for trying to make such a law from power, but that would be their problem.
Yes, because 13 seconds of lunging requires a 68 second response of multiple people beating someone. Your premise is that if they showed the first 13 seconds people would of regarded the reaction as reasonable. I think you may want to reconsider that premise.
I think you completely missed the OP's point. The point is that a video recording (any video recording, for that matter, not just of police) can and almost inevitably will, given the generally sensationalist bent of the media, be taken out of context. In the case of his example, that doesn't mean the beating would be justified, not by a long shot. But it would certainly make a lot more sense, and be far less grievous, than a beating for no reason whatsoever. It's pretty easy to edit video footage to show whatever the hell you want it to show (reality TV shows exist because of that fact).
Does that mean the police can ban recording them? No, not by a long shot. But the concern is valid. The response would be to record every police encounter themselves, although that is technically challenging in some cases (already done, IIRC, by most departments for traffic stops). Something like Google Glass would help considerably. Even then, their response wouldn't get as widely published as initial "shocking" footage, but it would help a lot.