However I think there is a real danger of honest mistakes being abused, and like I said most of the abuses I know about used those.

If the cameras are only under the control of the people they are supposed to be monitoring, they will wind up being used only to clear, never to convict. I don't want the police getting any access to the videos that the accused doesn't have.

Honest mistakes are already 'abused' in our legal system. Cameras add nothing to that. But they can - if the system is set up properly - reduce a whole host of other abuses.

In the old days, before computers went solid state, smoking on startup was often put down to worn valve-guides.

Damn... I think Americans call them "tubes" -- in which case the joke doesn't work :-(

Let's be clear, does the policeman misremembering and event change what actually happened in anyway?

Doesn't change the event itself, no - but a pattern of errors can speak volumes about intent and state of mind. And many crimes (and torts) depend on intent and belief. So, note, do many defenses.

What is being unsaid is that you are accusing either side of lying to cover up and thus the lying person must be a bad person worthy of punishment for that reason

No. I am, in fact, relying on the deterrent effect of the video. I am trying to prevent lying, not catch someone in a lie. If you know your actions are being monitored, you will behave differently and note what happens more carefully. I'm not trying to 'trip people up'. I am trying to help make it so that testimony is actually accurate. If people are given the opportunity to slant their narrative, they will - this a human thing, hardly limited to police. By reducing the opportunity for this, by requiring people to more carefully examine their memories and words, I'm hoping to make "our justice system" better.

Why, have you never remembered an event wrong?

Sure I have. So what? If police misremember the event, is that somehow not relevant?

The behavior of everyone will be plain to see on the video

That was actually caught on video, that is. As I explicitly pointed out. I spoke - direct quote here - about the ability "to craft a story that fits what was recorded, and leave out or invent things that weren't picked up". What happened before, or just offscreen? Police are known to claim that someone was "reaching for a gun" - even when it didn't happen. But if the camera angle is bad, they will know they can claim that regardless of what they actually remember.

every lawyer knows the trick of picking out one detail someone got wrong and spinning that into proof that everything they say is a lie

But... but... if "The behavior of everyone will be plain to see on the video", how could a lawyer get away with that?

Frankly, I consider that a feature, not a bug, anyway. Eyewitness testimony really is ureliable. 'Bout time juries learned that applies to police too.

Officers would be permitted to view video they recorded before making statements in cases where their conduct was questioned

I would vastly prefer they make statements without access to the video. Seeing the video allows them to craft a story that fits what was recorded, and leave out or invent things that weren't picked up. If they don't know exactly what the cameras saw, they have to stick much closer to the truth.

Um, those are for the Hanwha Eagles in Korea, not Japan. Confirm by clicking the link to the BBC article.

I did even less -- I cut the added sugar (specifically fructose) to the AHA recommended limits, but I allowed myself to eat all the other carbs I liked, and as much raw fresh fruit as I liked. Weight fell off me and has stayed off for 6 months now. My waistline dropped by 4". So far it seems I can basically eat as much as I like, including carbs, whenever I'm hungry, and stay at a healthy weight, so long as I keep my sugar intake low. So personally, I'm pretty much convinced that Dr Robert Lustig is right about fructose.

Of course, YMMV, I'm not a doctor, etc etc.

It is designed aircraft-style with positive buoyancy. So you don't flood tanks or anything like that, you "fly" down using control planes to keep you down just as an aircraft uses wings to keep you up. So, just as an aircraft will descend to the ground if the whirly bits stop turning, so will this return to the surface.

This is just another example of the way the UK government and Civil Service, as institutions, do not understand IT. Down at the bitface, there may well be some very competent IT people - but their voices do not reach up to the levels that have control. The people who actually make the decisions, both politicians and civil servants, have no gut fel for IT. The assume that if you had over enough money to a plausible contractor, you will get something that works. The contractors, of course, are building something that meets the spec. The idea that "something that works" and "something that meets the spec" are not the same thing completely escapes them. On a large scale, the NHS IT fiasco.

  In this case, they bought drives specified as encrypted, and assumed the job done. Anybody who thought through the problem would have realised that there is a second, administrative phase: who sets they keys, who holds them, what happens if they are ill or leave, should we change the keys if people who know them leave... A side effect of this thinking would have been to decide when to turn on encryption, who to do it etc. But because they had bought a box with "encrypted" on the side, they assumed that the technology fairies would do the rest.

I'm fairly certain that the terms of service explicitly forbids that kind of use.

The danger of semi-autonomous vehicles is abuse of Wagnerian music and a mild but dull 5 minutes of YouTube? On a medium full of people ghost-surfing their cars, some guy with a self driving car having it self drive (with nothing bad happen) is pretty low on the overall YouTube of Stupid scale.