Reid singlehandedly tried to undermine the NRC from the top by appointing (via BO) Jaszko as NRC chair. Putting an incompetent political appointee in charge of an agency as important as the NRC is its own form of willful negligence. Thankfully he was driven out when it became clear he was not fit to hold such a position.

I've convinced more than one cop to let me off. You have to know what the line is and read the officer's demeanor. Sometimes nice guy approach, some times a tougher stance is needed, no guarantees either way. Thanks for your unsolicited advice though.

The point regarding privacy is not to make a case against using the cameras, its more to make sure the impacts and consequences are considered in advance. Doing so and taking steps to address them can help achieve a successful outcome a lot quicker than simply dismissing those concerns or rationalizing them away.

Or maybe, just possibly, cops are like almost every other human being and reject the notion of having their every move on tape. I would hate that, regardless of the benefits.

A step forward or backward? Do you want every encounter you have with an officer to be publicly available? Lets say you bet pulled for speeding, but felt it was not excessive and challenged the officer. The next week, you are at that job interview and here they have video evidence that you don't respect authority.

A very hypothetical case, I know, but as someone who has gotten his share of tickets, I will say I typically accept that I deserved the ticket and treat the officer with the appropriate respect and tone, but one or two cases I was quite upset and it probably would not have come off on camera very well even though there was nothing disrespectful said.

Another consequences might include the reluctance of some citizens to talk to police about certain things or people, or just have a simple friendly conversation. Everyone will feel the need to apply the "lawyer filter" to everything they say. That won't help trust one bit.

Licensee specific watermarks always seemed to me to be a logical path to take, even with other DRM in place, just to help track and find sources of distribution.

Of course, you forgot to mention that the actual levels/concentrations of the will be insignificant with respect to human health risk for almost that entire area in a relatively very short period. (Actually, it is already safe in most areas, but logistics, conservatism, and validation efforts all prevent a quicker return). And, have you ever even thought about the relative risks associated compared to the overall benefits we have gained from offsetting "mind-numbing" masses of air pollutants and greenhouse gasses. Or is your whole position based on your fear of radiation, lack of risk perception accuracy due to the ongoing anti-nuke FUD, which the oil and gas industry thank who wholeheartedly for supporting.

So, it seems you think its quite OK for those entities that decided tsunami walls were sufficient protection for towns and villages, and those that designated safe elevations for villages and told people it was OK to build their homes, not to worry, and turned out to be wrong.... to not be held to account, even though many lives were lost due to that mistake. And somehow, only the nuclear site presented a case of negligence and collusion. Despite the fact that the actual plant itself saved the lives of some people that were able to make it to the main plant structures in time. Yeah, its OK for thousands to die and lose their loved ones, but very small portion of land requiring remediation for a few decades is your outrage.

Your selective outrage is quite telling.

So, what will Netflix do when a customer can't get access to the data that they paid Comcast to deliver to said customer?

I see fur in the future.

Making the phone useless is what I meant by lowering the return on theft. So your are saying the same thing as "3) Steal less as the return is not worth the effort."

Don't take it too seriously. I should have said "possible". I was made somewhat in jest.

1. Not understanding the intent in how I used 'theory', despite the incorrectness, speaks to your communication skills.

2. You should have cited your evidence sooner, rather than the misapplied car theft example.

That is a good question. For parts, the same, for re-use it depends on the effectiveness of the bricking.