t's possible for something pretty close to this to occur in real life. The two that come to mind from personal experience are bicycling on a very flat/smooth road and skiing in deep fresh powder. Both give your inner ear very little movement to detect and so you have lots of visual stimulation with very little corresponding motion feel.
The opposite is reading a book while driving as a passenger in a car, bus or train. Makes some people sick. Your inner ear notices lots of motion, while your eyes see no motion at all staring at the book pages.
Mortal Mac users: Open Keychain Access, click on "System Roots", type "Comodo" in the search box, Click to unlock the "System Roots" keychain, then delete the "Comodo Certificate Authority" certificate. You'll probably have to enter your login password at some point.
The implications for the groundwater must be absolutely horrific. All the water they have sprayed through those plants will be leaching very long lived isotopes into the ground water if the containment is breached.
Correction: All the water they have sprayed through those plants will be leaching very, very tiny amounts of very long lived isotopes into the ground water if the containment is breached which are so diluted that there will be no measurable effect on anyone's health.
As someone who has an 8 year old nephew within 100k of the plant I find trace elements of Plutonium disturbing to say the least.
100 kilometers? I heard of the following calculation: Assume you get a new job at a nuclear reactor. And you want to move close to your new place at work. Obviously there is a chance that you might die at your home as a result of a nuclear accident. The nearer you move, the higher the chance. On the other hand, there is a chance that you might die in a car accident on your way to or from work. They further away you move, the higher that chance. Since one chance increases by moving nearer, and one chance increases by moving further, there must be an optimal distance where your risk is minimized.
That distance is about 1.5 km. And it includes the risk of a _real_ disaster, not something that is mostly contained like this incident in Japan.
If you pay for your nephew to fly from Japan to the USA, he will get more radiation during the flight because of the increased radiation level at larger heights above sea level.
As usual. The ITC doesn't decide whether there is patent infringement, they decide whether there is enough evidence of patent infringement so that a company should be stopped from importing things into the USA to stop them from infringing on patents. So they should only stop the most obvious cases. The patent dispute goes to court anyway, and if the ITC had stopped Apple from importing iPhones into the USA, and then it turned out that actually Apple hadn't infringed on any patents, then that would be some major problem.
And of course Kodak can ask the ITC to reconsider its decision. So they will look at the exact same evidence again. Now I don't know what the rules are for a decision of the ITC, but in a court judgement the ruling would only be changed if the first judge had made blatant errors. I'd think that is unlikely to happen.
"I can make a firm pledge under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
You do know that two billion does not hold a candle to the combined sales of every other hardware maker in the world right?
I think if anyone else distributing applications for mobile devices had paid an amount anywhere remotely near two billion dollars to developers, we would have heard about it. We haven't.
Why the hell shouldn't someone from Iran be able to buy a SSL certificate? Seriously. Racist summary much.
Nobody except Google should be able to buy an SSL certificate for www.google.com. Whether Google resides in Iran or not shouldn't make a difference, and whether that somebody who isn't Google resides in Iran or not shouldn't make a difference either.
On the other hand, trying to buy a certificate for a US company when you are not even from the USA is just a tiny little hint that something might not be quite right here. Just like trying to buy a certificate for an Iranian company when you are not from Iran is just a tiny little hint that something might not be quite right.
Or Apple can't find any replacement that works, and they realize spending thousands of dollars developing a replacement in-house just to continue fighting their own petty war against Openness is idiotic.
There is no "petty war against Openness". With the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad Apple is selling some very, very popular devices. The software on these devices, and what you can and also what you can't do with them has a lot to do with the popularity. If you sold cars and started explaining to potential customers all the different ways you can tune the engine, then some (few) would be delighted, some wouldn't care, and some would _run_. It seems that Apple can use GPL v.2 licensed software on these devices while having the devices work as they want to, but not the same with GPL v.3 licensed software.
So Apple has three choices: Change the way that software on the iDevices works, find all the Samba copyright holders and convince them to give Apple a different license, or stop using Samba. The first is not acceptable to Apple, the second is difficult (it worked very fine for Apple with CUPS), so the third choice is it. Nothing petty about that.
Shrink-wrap licenses have, in many situations, been ruled as unenforceable, because you have to break the wrap to read the license, so you cannot agree to it before purchase. In any case, the term "license" means "not purchased", as if it is really a purchase, then the rights of the owner are well established. Apple is, in my opinion, trying to change the rules about that, and this is what bothers me the most.
In the US, what happens is that there is no legal contract until you have read and accepted the license. No legal contract means nothing can be enforced, and you have no right to make copies of the software, like running or installing it. If you use the software in breach of an EULA, then it is same as with a breach of the GPL: It is copyright infringement. Nobody can "enforce" the license (like nobody can force you to publish the source code for a GPL application), but a breach of the license would be copyright infringement.
Stupid example: Instead of saying "You can install this software on one computer" the license says "You can install this software on one computer, you agree to pay $10,000 for every further computer that you install it on". If you don't agree to this, it cannot be enforced. So if you installed the software on two computers, that's two times copyright infringement (the first copy is already illegal because you didn't agree to the license), but no $10,000 payment.
Also false--Apple is switching away from GCC because it's clunky, slow, outdated, and the GCC team is hostile to Apple's extensions and does not want Apple's contributions--every developer I know has been very much looking forward to being able to drop GCC and use LLVM.
I think it is a bit of both. Apple has stopped with gcc 4.2 while adding massive amounts of work to LLVM; they could probably have upgraded to a much later version from a technical point of view, but didn't want to for licensing reasons. On the other hand, LLVM is now reaching the point where it is superior to gcc in every respect (massively better compile times, much better error messages, all the compile time information available to the editor and much more) and allows compilation at runtime (great for OpenCL). And it seems that it has a much saner code base that can be improved much easier.
So long as you pass on to your customers the benefits that you gained by adopting GPL'd software, no problem. They can use it. If you want to pass on a version with additional restrictions on what they can do with the software, then no, you can't do that. And that's the entire point of the GPL. Is it so hard to understand?
And that is exactly why Apple can't use this on the iPhone. They don't want iPhone customers to replace system software with modified system software. They don't mind giving the customers the source code, even if it means that a lot of Apple written source code is running on Nokia or Android devices, and they don't mind customers installing modified or improved versions of Samba on an Android phone. Just not on an iPhone. Which means no GPL v.3 software for Apple.
However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially.
That should be: However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially in the way they want to use it.
On the iPhone and iPad, Apple wants the device itself to be closed, which means the user is not allowed to install operating system components. Samba is an operating system component. If Apple allowed the end user to replace it, then jailbreaking would be as easy as replacing Samba with a hacked version, then using Samba from within any application. On MacOS X, no problem; you may replace Samba as much as you like; if it doesn't work, it's your problem obviously.
So on iDevices, Apple cannot use GPL v3 code commercially _the way they want to use it_. So they can't use it. At that point it's obviously better to have one code base and replace it on MacOS X as well.
Leveraging a monopoly in one market (MP3 players) to gain a monopoly in another (online music stores) is a violation of antitrust law. The problem no longer exists, so damages will be limited, but if Real want to continue to pursue this based on the situation 5 years ago, then that is between them and the lawyers on both sides, who will likely be the only winners here.
RealNetworks always could put its music onto iPods - the one thing that Apple stopped them from doing was adding Apple's "Fairplay" DRM to their music. They could have just lived without DRM; their customers would have loved it.
Here's why: I am quite very strongly against stupid patents, and software patents tend to fall into the "stupid patent" category. Now the i4i case seems to be the strange and unusual situation where a company (i4i) is honestly competing as best as they can, gets ripped off in a completely legal way by the big bully Microsoft, and turns into a patent troll and wins - so two wrongs produced a right.
But when Microsoft argues that it should be made easier to invalidate bogus patents, that is an absolute good thing. Yes, it would also hurt i4i who deserves a payout from Microsoft, but not one for patent infringement, but the people hurt most would be patent trolls.
Even with the center of mass of each planet exactly in the L point of the other, then if the planet has a radius of 100km, parts of it will be 100kms away from the lagrange point --> inestability, whatever long it takes to become catastrophic.
Actually, two earth sized masses on opposing sides of the sun will stabilise each other.
I'd never work for any company that puts restrictions on my out-of-hours work. My time, my IP, my money, period. It is offensive that they think 30% of the money their employees make in their own time should go to Microsoft.
There have been plenty of discussions here on Slashdot about the situation in the games industry and how idiotic they are to overwork their employees. There are scientific studies that show that if you work 60 hours a week for 6 weeks, you actually do less work than if you worked 40 hours those weeks. Because of your tiredness you slow down so much that you end up doing less in 60 hours than you would do in 40. So if you are paid to work 40 hours a week for Microsoft, and then work another 20 hours on the side, then clearly Microsoft (or any other company) will not get the work that you are paid for.
And, then Microsoft, my employer, come and take 30% of the revenue?
If that same Microsoft employee wrote software for the iPhone and it appeared on the Apple App Store, then Apple would keep 30% of the revenue, so there is nothing wrong with that. This might very well be the exact same conditions that Microsoft gives to anyone developing software for their phones.
Then the legislation is utterly retarded (nothing new in the West in general - not just US sadly when it comes to corporate interests). But what exactly stops employee from, say, develop on their own time, and let their spouse/kid/parents/cousin claim copyright?
Very clever. Now lets say the employer finds out. Suddenly you and someone else are in court for fraud. Could your spouse / kid / parents / cousin demonstrate that they have the ability to write this software?
There are also issues with Mac OS X not handling failing drives gracefully by not giving other processes any CPU time when the kernel starts working on reading a bad sector, plus even obviously bad sectors are commonly not marked.
1. MacOS X has Time Machine, which means there is no excuse whatsoever if you don't have a backup.
2. If there are any bad sectors, I want to know about it. 500 GB Hitachi 7200rpm drive cost me £45 including P&P, and about five minutes replacing.
All in all, I treat the hard drive as a consumable. Like the tyres on your car.
Haven't we learned by now that "easily fixed in software" means "flipping hack that may or may not do what you think for the 1st 1-3 years, may require a firmware update that may brick your device and will introduce another attack vector that will require an even more intrusive security solution to mitigate"?
What kind of idiots do we have here on Slashdot? On my Mac, every application can access any bit of RAM - but only if the operating system allows the access. That is standard technology in operating systems for more than twenty years. Just like an application can _try_ to read or write anything and fails if it doesn't has the right to access the memory, a device connected to Thunderbolt can _try_ to read or write anything and fails if it doesn't have the rights, given to it by the operating system.
Sure, if you want any device plugged into your expansion port to have full root access to all of your data If on the other hand you want to be able to know you can safely connect someone elses camera/USB type drive to your laptop without fear, then you will still want USB ports.
Now we are in idiot territory. A device can request access to some area of memory. The operating system has to open up that area. Without that, no memory access. And do you actually think Apple would be so stupid to do that?
The summary says prosecutors obtained the suspect's records. But the title has it right; DoJ pulled bank and credit records on someone not suspected of a crime. If I were the news man, I'd demand to see the warrant.
Not hundred percent sure how it works exactly, but I think only the suspect has protection of the law. If you are suspected of a crime, evidence of your crime is in my posession, and the police gets that evidence without a warrant, then my rights might be violated. So that evidence couldn't be used against me, but _you_ are not protected.
Because every police raid that ever happens is reported on in the mainstream media mere hours after it happened? Especially those of questionable legality that they would want to keep quiet until they have something solid? Even the ones that have to do with crimes that the vast majority of people don't care about (i.e. not a drug bust, child prostitution ring, or related to a professional athlete)? I realize this is Germany and not the US, but your suggestion seems a little...optimistic. I'm also assuming you've gone through all the German news sites to make sure it wasn't reported on and you aren't just assuming...right?
Question: Who took the photo? If the German police wants to keep something quiet then obviously they are not going to take snapshots and give them to the person living at the home to distribute them on the internet. Is it the person living there? Well, that would be stupid, because if you are outside your home when police arrives, you aren't going to wait for them to smash down your door, but open it. Or was it some neighbour? Why isn't this mentioned then? And again, if the police wants to keep it quiet why did they allow him to take photos?
Or is this just some picture of some raid, probably on the home of some armed robber, picked deliberately to give the impression of police brutality? And the "raid" was actually just a policeman with a search warrant in his hand, ringing the door bell? By the way, a "raid of questionable legality" doesn't become legal if the police then find evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
t's possible for something pretty close to this to occur in real life. The two that come to mind from personal experience are bicycling on a very flat/smooth road and skiing in deep fresh powder. Both give your inner ear very little movement to detect and so you have lots of visual stimulation with very little corresponding motion feel.
The opposite is reading a book while driving as a passenger in a car, bus or train. Makes some people sick. Your inner ear notices lots of motion, while your eyes see no motion at all staring at the book pages.
How about telling us mortals how to do that?
Mortal Mac users: Open Keychain Access, click on "System Roots", type "Comodo" in the search box, Click to unlock the "System Roots" keychain, then delete the "Comodo Certificate Authority" certificate. You'll probably have to enter your login password at some point.
The implications for the groundwater must be absolutely horrific. All the water they have sprayed through those plants will be leaching very long lived isotopes into the ground water if the containment is breached.
Correction: All the water they have sprayed through those plants will be leaching very, very tiny amounts of very long lived isotopes into the ground water if the containment is breached which are so diluted that there will be no measurable effect on anyone's health.
As someone who has an 8 year old nephew within 100k of the plant I find trace elements of Plutonium disturbing to say the least.
100 kilometers? I heard of the following calculation: Assume you get a new job at a nuclear reactor. And you want to move close to your new place at work. Obviously there is a chance that you might die at your home as a result of a nuclear accident. The nearer you move, the higher the chance. On the other hand, there is a chance that you might die in a car accident on your way to or from work. They further away you move, the higher that chance. Since one chance increases by moving nearer, and one chance increases by moving further, there must be an optimal distance where your risk is minimized.
That distance is about 1.5 km. And it includes the risk of a _real_ disaster, not something that is mostly contained like this incident in Japan.
If you pay for your nephew to fly from Japan to the USA, he will get more radiation during the flight because of the increased radiation level at larger heights above sea level.
As usual. The ITC doesn't decide whether there is patent infringement, they decide whether there is enough evidence of patent infringement so that a company should be stopped from importing things into the USA to stop them from infringing on patents. So they should only stop the most obvious cases. The patent dispute goes to court anyway, and if the ITC had stopped Apple from importing iPhones into the USA, and then it turned out that actually Apple hadn't infringed on any patents, then that would be some major problem.
And of course Kodak can ask the ITC to reconsider its decision. So they will look at the exact same evidence again. Now I don't know what the rules are for a decision of the ITC, but in a court judgement the ruling would only be changed if the first judge had made blatant errors. I'd think that is unlikely to happen.
"I can make a firm pledge under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
A new tax is not a tax increase.
You do know that two billion does not hold a candle to the combined sales of every other hardware maker in the world right?
I think if anyone else distributing applications for mobile devices had paid an amount anywhere remotely near two billion dollars to developers, we would have heard about it. We haven't.
Why the hell shouldn't someone from Iran be able to buy a SSL certificate? Seriously. Racist summary much.
Nobody except Google should be able to buy an SSL certificate for www.google.com. Whether Google resides in Iran or not shouldn't make a difference, and whether that somebody who isn't Google resides in Iran or not shouldn't make a difference either.
On the other hand, trying to buy a certificate for a US company when you are not even from the USA is just a tiny little hint that something might not be quite right here. Just like trying to buy a certificate for an Iranian company when you are not from Iran is just a tiny little hint that something might not be quite right.
Or Apple can't find any replacement that works, and they realize spending thousands of dollars developing a replacement in-house just to continue fighting their own petty war against Openness is idiotic.
There is no "petty war against Openness". With the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad Apple is selling some very, very popular devices. The software on these devices, and what you can and also what you can't do with them has a lot to do with the popularity. If you sold cars and started explaining to potential customers all the different ways you can tune the engine, then some (few) would be delighted, some wouldn't care, and some would _run_. It seems that Apple can use GPL v.2 licensed software on these devices while having the devices work as they want to, but not the same with GPL v.3 licensed software.
So Apple has three choices: Change the way that software on the iDevices works, find all the Samba copyright holders and convince them to give Apple a different license, or stop using Samba. The first is not acceptable to Apple, the second is difficult (it worked very fine for Apple with CUPS), so the third choice is it. Nothing petty about that.
Shrink-wrap licenses have, in many situations, been ruled as unenforceable, because you have to break the wrap to read the license, so you cannot agree to it before purchase. In any case, the term "license" means "not purchased", as if it is really a purchase, then the rights of the owner are well established. Apple is, in my opinion, trying to change the rules about that, and this is what bothers me the most.
In the US, what happens is that there is no legal contract until you have read and accepted the license. No legal contract means nothing can be enforced, and you have no right to make copies of the software, like running or installing it. If you use the software in breach of an EULA, then it is same as with a breach of the GPL: It is copyright infringement. Nobody can "enforce" the license (like nobody can force you to publish the source code for a GPL application), but a breach of the license would be copyright infringement.
Stupid example: Instead of saying "You can install this software on one computer" the license says "You can install this software on one computer, you agree to pay $10,000 for every further computer that you install it on". If you don't agree to this, it cannot be enforced. So if you installed the software on two computers, that's two times copyright infringement (the first copy is already illegal because you didn't agree to the license), but no $10,000 payment.
Also false--Apple is switching away from GCC because it's clunky, slow, outdated, and the GCC team is hostile to Apple's extensions and does not want Apple's contributions--every developer I know has been very much looking forward to being able to drop GCC and use LLVM.
I think it is a bit of both. Apple has stopped with gcc 4.2 while adding massive amounts of work to LLVM; they could probably have upgraded to a much later version from a technical point of view, but didn't want to for licensing reasons. On the other hand, LLVM is now reaching the point where it is superior to gcc in every respect (massively better compile times, much better error messages, all the compile time information available to the editor and much more) and allows compilation at runtime (great for OpenCL). And it seems that it has a much saner code base that can be improved much easier.
So long as you pass on to your customers the benefits that you gained by adopting GPL'd software, no problem. They can use it. If you want to pass on a version with additional restrictions on what they can do with the software, then no, you can't do that. And that's the entire point of the GPL. Is it so hard to understand?
And that is exactly why Apple can't use this on the iPhone. They don't want iPhone customers to replace system software with modified system software. They don't mind giving the customers the source code, even if it means that a lot of Apple written source code is running on Nokia or Android devices, and they don't mind customers installing modified or improved versions of Samba on an Android phone. Just not on an iPhone. Which means no GPL v.3 software for Apple.
However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially.
That should be: However, the Samba team has moved active development of the project to the more strict GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially in the way they want to use it.
On the iPhone and iPad, Apple wants the device itself to be closed, which means the user is not allowed to install operating system components. Samba is an operating system component. If Apple allowed the end user to replace it, then jailbreaking would be as easy as replacing Samba with a hacked version, then using Samba from within any application. On MacOS X, no problem; you may replace Samba as much as you like; if it doesn't work, it's your problem obviously.
So on iDevices, Apple cannot use GPL v3 code commercially _the way they want to use it_. So they can't use it. At that point it's obviously better to have one code base and replace it on MacOS X as well.
Leveraging a monopoly in one market (MP3 players) to gain a monopoly in another (online music stores) is a violation of antitrust law. The problem no longer exists, so damages will be limited, but if Real want to continue to pursue this based on the situation 5 years ago, then that is between them and the lawyers on both sides, who will likely be the only winners here.
RealNetworks always could put its music onto iPods - the one thing that Apple stopped them from doing was adding Apple's "Fairplay" DRM to their music. They could have just lived without DRM; their customers would have loved it.
Here's why: I am quite very strongly against stupid patents, and software patents tend to fall into the "stupid patent" category. Now the i4i case seems to be the strange and unusual situation where a company (i4i) is honestly competing as best as they can, gets ripped off in a completely legal way by the big bully Microsoft, and turns into a patent troll and wins - so two wrongs produced a right.
But when Microsoft argues that it should be made easier to invalidate bogus patents, that is an absolute good thing. Yes, it would also hurt i4i who deserves a payout from Microsoft, but not one for patent infringement, but the people hurt most would be patent trolls.
Even with the center of mass of each planet exactly in the L point of the other, then if the planet has a radius of 100km, parts of it will be 100kms away from the lagrange point --> inestability, whatever long it takes to become catastrophic.
Actually, two earth sized masses on opposing sides of the sun will stabilise each other.
I'd never work for any company that puts restrictions on my out-of-hours work. My time, my IP, my money, period. It is offensive that they think 30% of the money their employees make in their own time should go to Microsoft.
There have been plenty of discussions here on Slashdot about the situation in the games industry and how idiotic they are to overwork their employees. There are scientific studies that show that if you work 60 hours a week for 6 weeks, you actually do less work than if you worked 40 hours those weeks. Because of your tiredness you slow down so much that you end up doing less in 60 hours than you would do in 40. So if you are paid to work 40 hours a week for Microsoft, and then work another 20 hours on the side, then clearly Microsoft (or any other company) will not get the work that you are paid for.
And, then Microsoft, my employer, come and take 30% of the revenue?
If that same Microsoft employee wrote software for the iPhone and it appeared on the Apple App Store, then Apple would keep 30% of the revenue, so there is nothing wrong with that. This might very well be the exact same conditions that Microsoft gives to anyone developing software for their phones.
Then the legislation is utterly retarded (nothing new in the West in general - not just US sadly when it comes to corporate interests). But what exactly stops employee from, say, develop on their own time, and let their spouse/kid/parents/cousin claim copyright?
Very clever. Now lets say the employer finds out. Suddenly you and someone else are in court for fraud. Could your spouse / kid / parents / cousin demonstrate that they have the ability to write this software?
There are also issues with Mac OS X not handling failing drives gracefully by not giving other processes any CPU time when the kernel starts working on reading a bad sector, plus even obviously bad sectors are commonly not marked.
1. MacOS X has Time Machine, which means there is no excuse whatsoever if you don't have a backup. 2. If there are any bad sectors, I want to know about it. 500 GB Hitachi 7200rpm drive cost me £45 including P&P, and about five minutes replacing.
All in all, I treat the hard drive as a consumable. Like the tyres on your car.
Haven't we learned by now that "easily fixed in software" means "flipping hack that may or may not do what you think for the 1st 1-3 years, may require a firmware update that may brick your device and will introduce another attack vector that will require an even more intrusive security solution to mitigate"?
What kind of idiots do we have here on Slashdot? On my Mac, every application can access any bit of RAM - but only if the operating system allows the access. That is standard technology in operating systems for more than twenty years. Just like an application can _try_ to read or write anything and fails if it doesn't has the right to access the memory, a device connected to Thunderbolt can _try_ to read or write anything and fails if it doesn't have the rights, given to it by the operating system.
Sure, if you want any device plugged into your expansion port to have full root access to all of your data If on the other hand you want to be able to know you can safely connect someone elses camera/USB type drive to your laptop without fear, then you will still want USB ports.
Now we are in idiot territory. A device can request access to some area of memory. The operating system has to open up that area. Without that, no memory access. And do you actually think Apple would be so stupid to do that?
The summary says prosecutors obtained the suspect's records. But the title has it right; DoJ pulled bank and credit records on someone not suspected of a crime. If I were the news man, I'd demand to see the warrant.
Not hundred percent sure how it works exactly, but I think only the suspect has protection of the law. If you are suspected of a crime, evidence of your crime is in my posession, and the police gets that evidence without a warrant, then my rights might be violated. So that evidence couldn't be used against me, but _you_ are not protected.
Intel® Core i7-740QM processor (quad core 3.6 GHz)
Intel says the i7-740QM is 1.73 GHz.
Because every police raid that ever happens is reported on in the mainstream media mere hours after it happened? Especially those of questionable legality that they would want to keep quiet until they have something solid? Even the ones that have to do with crimes that the vast majority of people don't care about (i.e. not a drug bust, child prostitution ring, or related to a professional athlete)? I realize this is Germany and not the US, but your suggestion seems a little...optimistic. I'm also assuming you've gone through all the German news sites to make sure it wasn't reported on and you aren't just assuming...right?
Question: Who took the photo? If the German police wants to keep something quiet then obviously they are not going to take snapshots and give them to the person living at the home to distribute them on the internet. Is it the person living there? Well, that would be stupid, because if you are outside your home when police arrives, you aren't going to wait for them to smash down your door, but open it. Or was it some neighbour? Why isn't this mentioned then? And again, if the police wants to keep it quiet why did they allow him to take photos?
Or is this just some picture of some raid, probably on the home of some armed robber, picked deliberately to give the impression of police brutality? And the "raid" was actually just a policeman with a search warrant in his hand, ringing the door bell? By the way, a "raid of questionable legality" doesn't become legal if the police then find evidence.