The whole lot of everybody involved need a good boot to the head. (naah naah!)

Especially when we only have his side of the story.

Before some of you bleat "Public place, no reasonable expectation of privacy"

What's to bleat? He took the picture inside of a building. The only public place is outside, on the door, on the street. Inside of the building is the ownership of the business owners, who contracted these guys to do their work. Clearly, they could have placed a visible barrier around them before doing the work. But they couldn't. Why? Would it not go against the fire code to block the use of a fire alarm in the event of a fire? What if this guy 'peeked' behind the curtain and saw it, and then went and pulled the switch? He is, after all, a self-proclaimed anarchist...

The point is, he went out of his way to take the picture. He even admitted to it.

"Oh, hai! I see you are moneying the machine! A peecture I will take because I CAN!!!"

EDIT: Judge Judy actually was an accredited family court judge, and I am wrong, there is some realism to the actual cases being tried.

"He's guilty of being an ass. Sorry to inform you that is NOT against the law. Case dismissed." - Judge Judy just a few weeks ago.

Judge Judy is not a real judge, she's a TV show character. Nothing more, nothing less. If you honestly thought that she's a real, accredited and nominated judge, then think again.

The point of the Judge Judy show is to bring satire to the family court system. It reflects SOME things that happen in real life. However, this is a civil court matter, not a family court matter, and even if Judge Judy was real, the quoted judgement would probably not stand in this case.

It will be interesting to see what way this all goes...

The police officer can question anyone they like and handcuff them if they are being an ass.

Exactly, it's also known, in some places, as failure to cooperate with a peace officer.

In other words, if you willingly fsck with a cop, the cop automatically has the right to fsck with you back.

"Stops you"? In what way? You mean, pulls you over to talk to you? Or "stops you" by putting the cuffs on and "stops you" from moving around freely?

So does this 'photographers right' apply to every state in the country, or just the state of Oregon? As I recall, this incident happened in the state of Washington.

(Score:2, Troll)

Pure BS.

He's right, how would you account for the reflection of the sun off of a panel like that? Ever tried looking at one yourself at an angle in the sun? Whoever modded this modded it wrong, or they're for the killing of soldiers. I've never been in the military and even I'd stick with the AA-battery idea.

Automation is one thing, driver education is another.

Defensive driver courses are a much better target for the money, as they benefit the people driving directly. Even teenagers can take them. Plus, you get 10% off of your car insurance. AAA handles them all over the place.

It depends on what area of the country you're talking about. If you think that all public schools teach the same things, then clearly your perception of American education is not correct.

Many schools don't have such courses, so colleges wind up picking up the slack where they leave off. Therefore, only the kids who are exposed to schools and districts where any kind of computer courses are offerred really benefit.

Of course, if there's no interest in a community, then why should a district impose such a level of technology? After all, everyone has computers at home and kids are growing up with them, just like people have been growing up with cars for well over 50 years now and so driver education got integrated somehow.