store the metadata of, I mean. Damn smart text..

The cost of storing metadata is relatively cheap. It's small text files. You could site the metadata if hundreds of thousands if not millions of people's metadata on a single consumer available hard drive. DNA sequencing, though improving by leaps and bounds, is still manually and computationally labor intensive.

True. But why tie up their genetic testing labs for no purpose?

No, they never do that... :-)

No doubt government lies and conceals. No debate here. Just ask yourself what they have to gain from obtaining DNA at a huge cost timewise and financially to them. The only possible scenario I see is if they wanted to get Joe Schmoes DNA so they pretend to get samples from people all around him so Joe doesn't get suspicious that govt is tracking him. But why would they go to that effort when they could just get his dna of his unfinished pizza crust at Dominos when they see him eat there. Most of what the government secretly does, get this, they do so secretly. Surprise! The news has been all over this since they did it last month. The sobriety story holds up and I can't think of any conspiracy theories that do. Common sense makes life easier for most people. Be cautious, sure, protect yourself, but use common sense. Don't be sheep blindly following news which exists not to inform you but to make money off advertising via page clicks.

Is your assumption just because they could do it, that they are? Despite the fact that there's no benefit to getting DNA samples from random drivers but there is a huge time and monetary cost to do so? Are you a sheep or are you just playing devil's advocate?

"if they'd like to provide DNA samples" You can't detect drugs in DNA, but you can detect drugs and DNA from blood and cheek swabs. Misworded. Now people are all neurotic about their DNA being obtained when it's the content of alchohol and drugs in their system they're checking.

You apparently failed to understand what you were reading. The officer's only knowledge of suspect's illegal behavior when they initiate the stop is usually a traffic offense, yes. They are not psychic and do not know that the person is fleeing because there is a weapon in the car, all they know is the suspect ran a stop sign and then refused to stop for police. But they suspect when a suspect runs that there is something more nefarious to the fleeing. It is not until they catch the suspect, if they catch them, that they find the guns, drugs etc. Don't confuse the officer's probable cause for the stop with the suspect's motivation for fleeing. If you look further down on that fbi link, you'll see the percentage of reasons why suspects fled.

They start as stops for minor offenses, but the reason most people run isn't for minor offenses. There's a subtle difference. The cop sees a person run a stop sign, they go to stop them. Is the person fleeing cause they ran a stop sign? No, the person is fleeing because they have warrants, or drugs in the car, or guns, etc. The cop doesn't know this though, they're not psychic. So, to the public, "Why did you chase him? All he did was run a stop sign!" If it comes to the attention of the bad guys that when they run and drive recklessly, that the police will stop chasing them, this will make bad guys run MORE thus endangering MORE lives in the long run. There are consequences for everything. Very few people run just because of a traffic offense, there's usually a lot more behind them running. Stopping pursuits teaches the bad guys to run more often. BAD MOVE.

Only two violations. The speeding one is listed under 22348(a) CVC. The "text" of the second charge, 27602(a)VC just carries on to the third line making it look like a 3rd charge.

From the ticket, it is evident she was stopped for going faster than a posted speed limit (22348(a) CVC). Once she was pulled over, the cop must've also seen she was wearing the glasses and tacked on the additional non-vehicle purpose display in driver's view. So, she was ticketed for wearing the google glass, but it's an important distinction to know and be aware that she was not pulled over for wearing google glass. As long as you are not breaking other laws, you will not be pulled over for wearing them.

...and get a free hair cut in the process.

May take a little more work, but just encrypt the text file yourself and send via regular email. Regular email will have less eyes looking at it. For added security modify the extension to a common one such as .jpg (from .7z or whatever format you chose). Unless they dedicated processing time to look at each individual file attached in an emal and analyze it further than reading the extension (computationally costly) you're gonna be just fine sending, "Dude, let's watch The Matrix tonight. Shhhhhhh. Bring booze. My mom's out of town."

I think this was an awesome post. I had need for it just today. Had a bunch of tabs open, accidentally closed one, didn't know which I closed...so had to do Ctrl+H for history then open them all again and close duplicates. Pain in the arse. Simple solution. Thanks.

To me, it was always "Computer geeks" or "compgeeks." The plain geeks.com wasn't familiar to me. Like when Facebook used to be thefacebook.com, and later changed it; for a long while I insisted on still writing out thefacebook.com cause it felt wrong to shorten it, not being true to it's original state.