Nor did the founders anticipate digital media, yet the 1st Amendment protects speech on the Internet. Are you suggesting that only the technology available at the time the Constitution was written should be protected?

. . .cops lie. They will lie to secure a conviction, but crowd-sourced photographic evidence is what will counter their culture of concealing misbehavior. Dash cams might help, too, but not as long as cops are in control of the on-off switch (see here and here).

I recently purchased a 2011 model-year GM Lambda-platform vehicle with the in-dash navigation unit. It has 2011-era bluetooth support (i.e., hands-free profile only), and a really craptastic USB implementation that doesn't easily allow third-party music apps to play over USB. Considering that model-year implies 2010 at best, we're talking tech that's at least four years old.

The map data is also from the 2011 model-year, so it is really old and the UX is terrible. Updating the maps requires a $200 DVD. WTF?

So, for around $500 more than the DVD upgrade, I can get all of the modern conveniences and map data that updates at Internet speed. I am at the edge of my seat waiting to see the options once they become widely available.

How ignorant can you sound?

Where does it say "Apple head unit"? The head unit is branded by the component manufacturer and provides an interface to allow display and interaction with an Apple device.

Where do you come up with "super expensive'? The NEX devices from Pioneer are receiving firmware updates for existing installations. How is that expensive?

Not only did you not understand the article, but you don't understand CarPlay itself. I have no idea how you got mod points for your response.

It's very clearly explained in the opinion PDF linked in the summary.

From the opinion, the court got this part right:

There are so many things left for us yet to discover and so many questions about our universe that are still unanswered. I can hardly believe that this is getting media exposure. But then again, it seems that just about anything can get exposure on the Internet these days.

I find this statement to be one of the best examples of the condescension that many religious people feel the need to express toward atheists. "Oh, my. I'm so sorry for you."

Atheists don't need an imaginary friend in the sky to make them feel that they are not alone. Instead, they surround themselves with friends and family, and enjoy this life because they know there won't be anything else.

If anything, I think atheists in general cherish the one life we have better because of the knowledge that this is all there is.

The legislature quickly remedied that. http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/...

If it's a copyright issue, the DMCA already empowers the copyright holder to have the violating images taken down. So, no new law is needed to address this.

You are right, but according to TFS, the KER is mounted to the "undriven axle" which suggests it is mounted in a perpendicular orientation rather than parallel.

The cameras are similar. Unless there's a clear view of the driver in the photo, there's no way to be sure that the registered owner of the vehicle was driving at the time of the violation.

I wondered the same thing. Maybe this offers plausible deniability and a reason not to opt out.

Every encryption scheme will fall at some point. Once quantum computing fully arrives, I guess encryption will be mostly moot.