This is called an "abundance of caution," and is perfectly understandable to anyone that hasn't been living under a rock for the last twenty years.

In 'abundance of caution' the police should tear open the trunk of any vehicle parked anywhere with a sealed trunk of any vehicle left unattended, since you can never be too sure there's not a pressure cooker in there, or god forbid.... some bags of fertilizer.

Were you paying attention to what two idiots did with pressure cookers in Boston a few years ago?

So if the idiots had put their stupid s*** in a laptop bag or suitcase, then you would say the cops should break into any car left unattended with a suitcase or laptop bag visible and detonate the bag?

Idiots do a lot of stupid things all the time with ordinary things.

That doesn't make mere ownership and display of one of the things some idiot or another has done some stupid thing with in the past a crime or probable cause for police invasion and excessive force in the unnecessary destruction of personal property.

There's not a current legitimate emergency situation that justifies the mass seizure or destruction of innocent people's pressure cookers.

Home come Google doesn't have a Facebook login, yet?

I feel they should index the page in search results and make the image available from the Cache.

Google fingered bad parenting for its lack of women techies.

More like: Google disagrees with their parenting.

Just because their values as parents didn't agree with your values today, Or your general desire to have more people in computer science, in order to reduce wages, Or your desire to have more diversity among computer scientists to help you comply with arbitrary government-imposed regulations on your employee population : does not make them bad parents.

He's not getting the book thrown at him in any of the media accounts I've read, he's getting the same treatment he would have received if he was pulled over for a routine traffic stop.

He wasn't driving at the time, and the miscarriage of justice is wanton and unnecessary destruction of valued personal property --- his vehicle, and his cookingware.

That doesn't mean cruising past the White House on this little road trip is a sensible decision, never mind parking nearby while I grab a bite to eat or take a few photos.

He didn't pack his car full of firearms and cruise past the Whitehouse.

It was a pressure cooker, and he left his car parked at the mall.

I don't know what shops are at the mall his car was found at, but I would imagine that they sell pressure cookers.

And these are ordinary cooking appliances, not weapons.... I would not be the least bit surprised for there to be many instances of people having left one in their car.

They are doing background checks likely, but not the store.... authorities are checking with retailers after purchase, by delivering orders to provide records of customers' purchases of certain items.

Your backpack will blow up even if it only had clothes and a vibrating dildo in it.

Now... what happens if you're one of those enthusiast preppers and accidentally left behind a backpack full of accessories and water containers heavily shielded with blastproof heat-resistant armor, and latched up tight with blastproof padlocks? :)

Well, sure. If he told the investigators that he drove it there

You can't unintentionally confess to a crime. e.g. He can't be called to testify against himself,

but it would seem that the guy was driving on a suspended or revoked license

He was not caught by police driving on a suspended driver's license: his car was parked at the time, so there should be no probable cause to arrest.

Someone else can still drive the vehicle for him.

Also, the police should have to pay for replacement of his vehicle and replacement of his pressure cooker, before he can be arrested. As I see it, right now: so far: the police have committed the bigger crime, which is wanton destruction of property.

This is astonishing because it suggests the absence
of legal authorization (because if there were clear legal authorization
you can bet the government would be citing it),"

Law enforcement can still conduct an illegal search to further their investigation. They cannot use evidence in court that they directly discovered as a result of the search; However, they can still use the information to help develop their investigation, And once they've found what they think is the truth, they will be able to leverage a practice called parallel construction to develop their case: without needing to make their illegal search or evidence that came from their search part of the case.

The challenge, and the difficulty is.... our legal system doesn't provide any way to challenge actions by law enforcement: there is no way for a citizen to pursue action against the police department.

It's as if you need an additional prosecutor and an additional police department whose job is solely to investigate and monitor the police, And who the primary police department must submit all reports and bodycam footage to.

Doing it that way lets you choose a non-smartphone plan even with your smartphone.

I already have a plan with several phones on it at $10/Extra line with unlimited texting and hundreds of shared minutes that are not completely used every month.

Clearly dropping a line and getting a GoPhone .10/minute plan with $0.25/Text is insanely expensive; each line easily sends 50 texts a month, possibly more, so that's an extra $13 to $20 a month.

The idea is to have a phone the existing SIM card can be swapped into without incurring an extra $10 or $20 a month in additional recurring costs.

An 'emergency order' will extend the rule until Congress comes back from a very well deserved vacation

Not likely. The executive does not have the authority to extend a law that congress decided to let lapse.

If congress does not take action to re-authorize, then the authorization is gone effective immediately at the date of expiration; not at the date it is most convenient for the NSA or others.

So, you want a dumb phone, but you want it to have smart phone features

I want something as close to a smart phone as possible that The phone company will not force me to get a data plan for

ATT, Verizon, and others have a policy that you cannot use certain phones on their network without a data plan. They will automatically upgrade you to a data plan, even if you would rather use your phone with WiFi.

I want the phone with the most features as possible that you can use without a data plan.

Frankly, I would like an Android device with no non-Wifi data functionality, that the phone companies would classify as a dumb phone.

My prediction would be the debates over whether human-caused climate change exists and is important or impactful w/acceptance of a need to change will still be ongoing for 15 years at least, with no major predictions accepted as valid or invalid by the opposing parties, because there are very strong economic, political, and commercial/personal brand interests by many people, and especially powerful people with deep pockets in the outcome of this debate on both sides, And politics tends to always trump science, logic, and rational action, at least for the short term.

See James Hansen's paper on Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric CO2: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...

no contract can trump the fact that things and people that are visible from public property have no expectation of privacy.

Correct. Also, no contract not agreed to by the party in question can surrender any of their rights.

For example: your next door neighbor whose backyard is visible from your property or the public street cannot sign a contract with a photographer for exclusive landscaping rights and then take away your right to photograph the portion of their property that is visible from the street or visible from your property.

They can sign an "exclusive" agreement, but it's not worth the paper it's printed on, unless they conduct physical actions on their own such as installing high fences to protect the exclusivity.

You retain those rights, and so long as you do not commit a grievous breach of privacy: such as trespassing onto their property to open a gate or create a hole in a fence or covering, or conduct an intrusion upon seclusion such as photographing your neighbor naked in their backyard behind a high fence, from your ladder (It's not a breach if you use a taller tripod or climb a ladder on your property or public property to get an aerial view of their lawn, not photographing anything offensive or invasive to their person): there is no legal authority against you as a 3rd party to stop or prevent you from photographing just to support their obligations under an exclusivity contract.

Your post in response to a request for pairs of links contained only a single link and was thus automatically rejected. FAIL.

Your request is unreasonable. Just because you would like real-world data to take a certain format: does not mean that you get to choose the format.

It is still sufficient to invalidate the claim that: none of the actual predictions made over these years by the "alarmists" have ever materialized.

when a result is known, it is too easy to find somebody having "predicted" it.

That is complete and utter nonsense, when the subject is modeling the value of a variable over a period of time.

It is implausible that someone randomly predicted all or most every possible set of results. That would only be possible with a simple 'binary' prediction such as "A positive trend", or at least a prediction of a small number of datapoints, or datapoints that can take on a limited number of discrete values.

Models make specific predictions over a period of time, when most of the predictions made by the model are accurate to a reasonable degree (no model is perfect), then the prediction was made and came true, And it cannot be attributed to the claim that "'once a result is known, it is too easy to find somebody having "predicted" it.'".