Incorrect. It does matter what my preferences are, and I do have a right to privacy. The camera footage should and will be redacted.

It's in public space, but not always a good idea to release publicly. For example, if a cop happens to be the first person on the scene of an accident I was involved in, I would prefer if that video is not released, unless it's necessary to a court case. If it were a medical first responder it'd actually be illegal for them to release film of me in that situation, under HIPAA. Cops are exempt from HIPAA, but that doesn't make it a good idea for them to completely ignore privacy of 3rd parties.

If it were Exxon vs. the attorney general of Alabama, I'd be hoping for a way they could both lose...

The North Korean news agency mentioned (KCNA) has the statement on their website. It seems to be a weird webapp that doesn't allow direct linking, but you can find it if you click on "English" at the top, then scroll down a bit to "DPRK Foreign Ministry Rejects U.S. Accusation against Pyongyang over Cyber Attack". Or just look here:

Pyongyang, December 20 (KCNA) -- A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK gave the following answer to a question put by KCNA Saturday as regards the U.S. accusation against the DPRK over a cyber attack on a movie company in the U.S.:

Obama, Kerry and other high-ranking authorities of the U.S. cried out for sort of counter-measure Friday, claiming that the results of the investigation into the cyber-attack on the Sony Pictures Entertainment proved that the DPRK was behind it. They, without presenting any specific evidence, are asserting they can not open it to public as it is "sensitive information."

Clear evidence is needed to charge a sovereign state with a crime. Reference to the past cyber-attacks quite irrelevant with the DPRK and a string of presumptive assertions such as "similarity" and "repetition" can convince no one.

The U.S. act of daring charge the DPRK with a crime based on absurd "investigation results" reveals its inveterate bitterness toward the DPRK. This is proven, as in the recent cyber-attack, by the recent urge made by a man called a "human rights special envoy" of the U.S. State Department to movie-makers that they should harass the north Korean government and keep alive scenes hurting the dignity of the its supreme leadership. The U.S. ruling quarters are working hard to divert the criticism of its administration to the DPRK as the plan of putting on show the anti-DPRK film on Christmas Day canceled due to the controversial cyber-attack, causing an uproar in the U.S.

We will never pardon those undesirable elements keen on hurting the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK. In case we retaliate against them, we will target with legitimacy those responsible for the anti-DPRK acts and their bases, not engaging in terrorist attack aimed at the innocent audience in cinemas. The army of the DPRK has the will and ability to do so.

The U.S. State Secretary is going to justify the production of the movie hurting the dignity of the supreme leadership of a sovereign state while trumpeting about the freedom of expression. He should know that there is punishment of libel in enforcement of international law.

We propose the U.S. side conducting a joint investigation into the case, given that Washington is slandering Pyongyang by spreading unfounded rumor. We have a way to prove that we have nothing to do with the case without resorting to torture as what the CIA does.

The U.S. should bear in mind that it will face serious consequences in case it rejects our proposal for joint investigation and presses for what it called countermeasure while finding fault with the DPRK.

There is not, but there will be free speech.

Almost stone-throwing distance from Redmond, too.

Debian does not use a "wheel" group. Some Debian-derived distros might, but Debian itself doesn't. I recently installed a Debian server, and it is not how you describe: a root password was set during install, and there is no wheel group. This was from the official Debian 7 "wheezy" installer.

They're around in some indirect sense, but the current company named "Tucows" is mostly a different one. Tucows was a Michigan-based internet company that in 2001 was acquired by a Toronto-based company, Infonautics. Infonautics subsequently changed its own name to Tucows, because it was a better-recognized brand. So the current Tucows is largely a rebranded Infonautics, and still headquartered in Toronto. But, it does also own the former Tucows assets as well, so they persist in that sense.

Businesses that have gone through as many rounds of acquisitions and mergers as this one have are a bit Frankensteinish, so it's hard to say what is new or old or mashed up together.

Yeah, that's my worry. It looks like the design materials projected 60,000 daily trips once it's fully up and operating, with a 10-minute peak headway. If we make the optimistic assumption that these are all displacing single-occupant-car roundtrips, that's 30,000 cars taken off the road (in reality, some are probably displacing bus trips). Which is not nothing, but may not be enough to significantly affect congestion in or out of Santa Monica.

I do think the smaller cars can be interesting if coupled with high-frequency service. The Copenhagen Metro is an example of this kind of "light metro", which runs only 3-car trains, but it runs them at 2-minute headways during peak times, and 6-8 minutes off-peak. But it's: 1) fully grade-separated; and 2) fully automatic train control (no driver).

Will be interesting to see whether the Expo Line extension from Culver City to Santa Monica (opening 2015 or 2016) helps at all. Might not be high-volume enough to matter though, even if it's successful in terms of ridership (it's a light-rail line, not a full metro).

Google Maps used to send you down random side streets thinking it would save 3 minutes, which it often didn't (my least favorite was when it took you on a route that ended up requiring you to take an unprotected left through traffic, something that on its own easily ate any time savings and more). I notice they're a bit more conservative on that in the past few years; they only tell me to hop off the freeway and take a surface street when it's really going to save a significant amount of time.

The real solution for this neighborhood, though, is to complain to their local politicians. If the neighborhood isn't intended to be a through route, it's pretty easy to make it unattractive as a through route, e.g. by making some of the streets one-way. That's not uncommon at all in traffic planning.