Very cool, then it should be able to smoke a plane in destination to destination times, between crowded takeoff slots and the fact that trains can do city center to city center it's no contest. The cost is obviously astronomical because of the tunneling, but I'm not sure an artificial island expansion to add air capacity would be that much cheaper, Kansai was $20B and Chbu was $7B, add in inflation and more expensive raw material costs and you're looking at probably half the cost of the train route.

They can't un-cancel Fringe, Leonard Nimoy is dead, Josh Jackson got picked up for a second season of The Affair, John Noble is doing Sleepy Hollow. They could pickup the idea and reboot the series but the head writers are all on other projects, JJ Abrams is a bit busy, only J.H. Wyman is available from the original staff so even a reboot would be unlikely to be anything like the original run.

600km/h is 3/4 of the speed of a modern airliner (

No, it's 2/3rds, Boeing 777 cruise speed is 905km/h, 747-400, 787, and A380 are slightly faster, A340 is slightly slower.

However, if you never go anywhere and have really good 4G coverage, setting your phone to 4G-only may well be a good workaround to reduce your chance of an intercept.

The current generation of Stingray devices can do LTE interception.

And each of those 23 channels can use space division multiple access (aka beam forming, aka multi-user MIMO) so if you lay things out right you can get as few as 3-4 users per channel per conversation domain which ends up providing plenty of bandwidth.

All it does is create a very slim frame up where you can't wait for another unit to arrive, because you announced you where done with the ticket.

No, this creates a reasonableness test for a dog search without probable cause. If tickets are normally handled in 5 minutes and the officer suddenly takes 45 minutes to issue a ticket and it just so happens the drug dog shows up in 44 minutes, well then that's outside the ruling. This is where video evidence will be important, defense attorneys can establish that an average stop takes X minutes, and only stops where they want to request a drug dog without cause take X + n minutes. The cops can either slow down all stops (and get less revenue), or they can stop using drug dogs without probable cause because they can't jerk people around waiting for a dog to do a no warrant search.

Seriously? You've got a 6 digit UID but you don't know that slashdot has been dealing with rights like this since it was chips & dips.

No, it's all due to the stupid vague line between a "temporary stop", a "detention", and an "arrest". Our various branches of government have struggled with it for two centuries now.

Police need people to interact with them so the officers can do the job of investigating crimes. But legally in order to do that they must seize the thing, seize the person, seize the property, whatever. The requirements about due process, seizure of people and property, the law needed to allow for certain types of temporary seizures of people, and the balance is a hard one.

The traffic stop is just that, a stop. A temporary detention that can only last as long as necessary for the administrative task.

In the ruling (and according to most judges already), the officer stopped the individual and performed the task of writing a citation. Anything more than that is no longer a stop, it becomes either a detention or an arrest.

The ruling is clear on what the problem was here. The officer testified that they "had all their documents back and a copy of the written warning. I got all the reasons for the stop out of the way." Then after the stop was complete he did not allow the man to leave, even after the man asked to go, so the officer could call in a drug-sniffing dog. That was a second detention, done without probable cause (since he had already dealt with the reason for the stop), and was therefore unlawful.

ESPN essentially is available ala cart, ESPN, AMC, and TNT (for NASCAR) are the main draws in the sling tv offer at $20/month and AMC wasn't part of the initial offering so it was basically ESPN and TNT for $20/month.

Yeah, no. This was specifically mentioned in the Lexmark v Static Control Components case. That was already dealt with in the 6th circuit and supported 9-0 by the SCOTUS. Copy of the decision.

Automobile manufacturers, for example, could control the entire market of replacement parts for their vehicles by including lock-out chips. Congress did not intend to allow the DMCA to be used offensively in this manner, but rather only sought to reach those who circumvented protective measures “for the purpose” of pirating works protected by the copyright statute. Unless a plaintiff can show that a defendant circumvented protective measures for such a purpose, its claim should not be allowed to go forward. If Lexmark wishes to utilize DMCA protections for (allegedly) copyrightable works, it should not use such works to prevent competing cartridges from working with its printer.

... By contrast, Lexmark would have us read this statute in such a way that any time a manufacturer intentionally circumvents any technological measure and accesses a protected work it necessarily violates the statute regardless of its “purpose.” Such a reading would ignore the precise language – “for the purpose of” – as well as the main point of the DMCA – to prohibit the pirating of copyright-protected works such as movies, music, and computer programs. If we were to adopt Lexmark’s reading of the statute, manufacturers could potentially create monopolies for replacement parts simply by using similar, but more creative, lock-out codes. Automobile manufacturers, for example, could control the entire market of replacement parts for their vehicles by including lock-out chips. Congress did not intend to allow the DMCA to be used offensively in this manner, but rather only sought to reach those who circumvented protective measures “for the purpose” of pirating works protected by the copyright statute. Unless a plaintiff can show that a defendant circumvented protective measures for such a purpose, its claim should not be allowed to go forward.

Yes it is a short line, but it seems rather bright-line to cite in this case.

Agreed.

The three causes are clear enough in the news report: Two drunken roommates around 1:00 AM were in a fight. That's it. What they were arguing about is irrelevant.

Having heard drunks argue, I can assure you it was not an articulate and well-reasoned discussion. The argument could have been about anything from a favorite phone operating system to a favorite sports team or a favorite color. The fact that they reached for the nearest beer bottle as a weapon is unsurprising.

While the full extent of atrocities was not known until after the war, that massive atrocities focussed on Jews were being committed was in fact known to the allies by the end of 1942. For example, the Polish government in exile submitted a report on the extermination of the Jews to the United Nations in December, 1942.

His remains were already exhumed, burnt to ash, and the ashes thrown down the Elbe by the KGB, personally I think they should have been glassified in porcelain and placed in a toilet in the main synagog in Berlin so that the jews could piss on him for the rest of eternity, but I like symbolism like that =)

Doesn't Germany have the equivilent of a Son of Sam law where criminals and their heirs can't earn a profit from their heinous acts?