To do that, they would have to show that it works better than already-proven technology like the police radio.

Ok, so either the police department is liable for his death by requiring police to drive in an unsafe manner (because typical cops would drift lanes while texting), or the officer is liable because most officers can stay in their line while texting. I don't see how neither can be at fault.

His duty to respond over the computer is unquestioned. While this would be normally illegal, he was allowed to do it since the job required it.

Unlike speeding to catch someone, the "line of duty" didn't require or even suggest that he should violate the lane or traffic yielding rules. He should be prosecuted on THOSE grounds.

For example, a policeman can't be arrested while responding to a call and speeding to get there.
A policeman, even on duty, CAN be convicted of violating the law if speeding because they wanted to get to lunch quicker.

Incorrect, he broke two in fact. He failed to yield to traffic on the road ahead of him (the bike), and he crossed the solid white lane when he entered the bike lane.

Many of those people live in not so profitable areas because they are growing food for people in the profitable areas. Not everyone in a rural area is there to get away from it all.
Also, there are many young people that would LOVE to move away from the sticks, but without access to the Internet at a young age, they'll be stuck on the farm, at Walmart or in the energy business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Yes, it is a bad movie, but it tries hard.

I'm sure there are not. Apple really locks down what apps can do, and recording calls would be something they wouldn't allow.

Unless, of course, you're talking of a jailbroken version.

Only loosely on-topic, but why is it socially acceptable for many cat owners to simply let them have the run of the neighborhood?

As a dog owner, I have to keep my dogs strictly controlled, but neighbor's cats will shit all over the place and cause my dogs to go nuts as it flaunts across the front porch.

Is it just because OMG DOG ATTACKS?

You're preaching to the converted on the shitty implementation of this list. I don't support or defend it.

I just don't like people drawing a conclusion from a statement that isn't consistent with it.

You're misunderstand the point. This is simple logic.

A terrorist can have an affiliation with a group, or act independently.

So, a person can be in three states:
A: not a terrorist,
B: a terrorist without group affiliation
C: a terrorist with an affiliation.

The list contains 60% of the people in group C. 40% are either A or B. All of the ones that are B still fit the criteria for the watch list, so those are valid. There isn't enough info to tell us if the distribution is 60% C, 40% B, and 0% A (which would be perfect), or if there is some other mixture where people in group A are listed but shouldn't be, so we don't know how inaccurate the watch list is.

No, but it should be expected. A connection to the Internet is still consider untrusted.

Passenger data in the infotainment system? What makes you think there is anything sensitive in there?
I thought it was just shitty movies and games, along with a GPS map of where the plane is that is viewed only by passengers.

Maybe I've seen too many movies, but I always was told there was a "DRILL" code book and a "LIVE" code book, so the operator would know.

So, the crux of the issue is what the EU laws apply to: Their citizens only, all people in their borders, or all people and objects in their borders.

Very interesting.

Is that a true statement?
My understanding, which may be wrong, is that EU law would not compel you to release that information. However, if you chose to (because you wanted to be released from jail in the US), then the EU would not prevent you.