Good lord, I'm outraged.
I mean, seriously, is that how we're training our soldiers now? To take a cartridge and simply throw it at the enemy, presumably by hand, instead of actually firing them with some sort of a gun?

I mean, maybe they're putting them in some sort of a slingshot or something, which I suppose could do some damage, perhaps even making someone lose an eye. But still, using a rifle would be a FAR more effective way of hitting targets with bullets.
:P

Yes, the above was 100% sarcasm. Maybe it's because I've actually fired a gun before, but it's hard for me to imagine anyone falling for something so obviously false.

Yes. Lots of things are radioactive. Very few of them are concentrated enough to hurt you.

Alternative names? Here are a few thoughts:

Laser-powered. Hey, everyone likes lasers! Lasers are cool! (Not literally)
Heat-reactive (rather than radioactive)
And if those don't work, we'll just tell everyone that they're powered by magic rocks

Exactly, I agree 100%. There are non-military applications to this (warehouse workers, nurses using it for patient care, returning mobility to the injured/ill, and so on). This is the creation of an industry that may see big returns. The fact that the initial use for it is military doesn't mean that it is limited to that functionality forever.

Also, as cool as this looks, what we will have in fifty years will make this look like a bunch of tinker toys powered by springs and rubber bands. But the first generation is needed in order to get to the next.

I can't really conceive of any situation where 6 (presumably fit) police officers would have trouble subduing an unarmed suspect in a way that wouldn't cause his death. Yes, he was mentally ill and therefore quite dangerous when agitated, but a six on one advantage more than eliminates that. Not even a martial arts master would be able to overcome that kind of a disadvantage. Not unless the police approached him one at a time, as in most martial arts movies.

Tazering once to get him down is fine, and then closing and grappling with him. One officer per limb, one on the head to prevent biting, and one to help get the restraints on. The injuries all around would have been minor to insignificant. This man didn't need to die.

All of this is my opinion, yes, but in my opinion those officers showed no restraint and excessive force. They're guilty of at least manslaughter if not outright second degree murder (I don't buy first degree murder, because it doesn't seem premeditated). At the least, all officers involved should (again, in my opinion) be dismissed from the force immediately upon the resolution of the investigation.

I am aware that there may be information that I'm missing, but it's very hard to imagine what information would make me believe that these officers acted appropriately.

Depends on the wording of the agreement, I think... If they say that they'll get it off of those sites permanently, then you may be able to get them for breech of contract (I'm not a lawyer, obviously).

Also, it makes financial sense to play it somewhat straight. If people's mugshots keep popping up, people will start to catch on that paying them does nothing but empty your bank account, and you'll STILL have that picture up there. That will get around, and they will lose "customers" (for lack of a better term... maybe I should say "victims").

That's true, but large swaths of the population are also willing to believe the worst of others based on rumors.
An employer doing a Google search on an applicant's name and seeing a mug shot pop up probably won't bother looking any further, and will stick that application in the recycle bin. And that's just one example.
I see it as a way of punishing people who haven't even been convicted. In my mind, mug shots should be restricted to law-enforcement only until/unless the accused is convicted. If charges are dismissed or the accused is found not guilty, then it should be expunged automatically, along with the record of the arrest.

How is he "lucky" if all he's getting is another 3-4 crappy songs? :)

You want an introduction, try Equestria Daily at equestriadaily.com
Pony news, links to art, music, fics, and videos, no explicit rule 34 posted on the site itself (at least that I've ever seen) and generally speaking a good place to go for pony community stuff.

"Ignoring the law" isn't automatically the same as "breaking the law".
Also, when discussing corrupt or unfair laws, voting your conscience and finding the violator innocent is more a form of civil protest.
Finally, "ignoring the law" doesn't necessarily mean that you hurt someone, whereas "breaking the law" usually means that you have.

I get what you're trying to say, and I agree that the law needs to be obeyed... to the point where it makes sense. When the law itself is what is unjustly hurting people, that law needs to go.

Of course there's a right to bear cameras. Just because it isn't spelled out in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right. Look through the Constitution and tell me where it says you have a right to breathe, walk, read, or have consensual sex. Should the state be allowed to take any of those away because "it's not written in the Constitution"? No, of course not.

It's important to remember that the Constitution doesn't GRANT rights. It's assumed that, unless otherwise noted, those rights exist and are protected. There are very specific ways in which the state can violate those rights, and the Constitution spells those out (such as: needing probable cause or a warrant for a search).

Apples!
Very small rocks!
Wait, no.
Churches!

Evidenced by those potential terrorists who did manage to get past airport security but were stopped by alert passengers and flight crew. The TSA security is a joke, because it's predictable and therefore can be countered. Anyone who tried a 9/11 style plane takeover now would likely be beaten down well before they even reached the cockpit door.

Problems may appear down the road, yes, but there is one effect it has that is both immediate and very troubling.

That effect is that the child is taught that someone with authority over them has the right to touch them in whatever way they wish without the child's consent.

"Think of the children" is very appropriate in this context, even though that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to these abuses.

Sadly, what I can see happening is if you decrypt your drive and they don't see the data they assumed was in there, they will most likely assume that you have a hidden volume as well, and hold you in contempt until you divulge THAT password... even if one doesn't exist.

I never assume law enforcement will be practical or reasonable when it comes to people getting caught in the gears.