I imagine this would be mapped from the brains of "like" individuals- not necessarily of the same sex, race, etc, but usually from one geographic area. The problem with is that maybe this is not how all brains "map" learned things, but maybe a result of western thinking/education. Perhaps native Americans, who might view trees as just as close to humans as pigs are, might have quite a different "mapping." It would be interesting to see if this was a result of how our education system is (Western species/classification) geared rather than how our brains actually group things (as in, perhaps it is a manifestation of our education system rather than inherent organizational heuristics in the brain).

I'm all ears. Evidence to the contrary? Really, I want to know...

The pictures of "Evidence" shown on the ticket are likely not showing evidence of the speed infraction, but of the car that committed the speed infraction. A radar or lidar gun was pointed down the street, observed a car speeding, then took pictures of the offending vehicle as it moved up to the stop light (pictures from the rear of vehicle more likely to show plates, some people don't like to put plates on front of their car). Analogy: a shooting is committed, when the officers arrive they take picture of the suspect. The suspect presents these pictures in court and says, "Look, your honor, this "Evidence" doesn't show me with the guns in my hand, therefore they prove I didn't do it." Ummmm, no.

Great regulation; in addition to their minds being corrupted, the kids are going to be falling asleep during school as well.

Here's a simple breakdown. Number 1- the mother must know she does not have the RIGHT to fly, and therefore is subject to any whims the TSA has. She is consenting to the act by merely flying, if she doesn't want to be searched, no one is going to force her to be, all she has to do is leave. Flying is not a right. This is not a message in defense of TSA, it is merely fact. This is why she got convicted. Due to her behavior, it clearly made TSA nervous. And when people get nervous, they have to, for security and safety reasons, devout more personnel and time to that person. Because of this, they had less resources to search and secure all the rest of the passengers, any of whom who could be wanting to do harm. This mother, likely knowing what was going to happen once she got there, and though she has a right to be upset, caused the TSA to be distracted from their duties. She chose to act in such a way that the process was less secure for other people. Even if she only delayed 1 other person 1 second, she committed the crime she was found guilty of. And she would have. If you watch the video you can see how many agents they had dealing with her, and how calmly they were trying to do it to avoid such a situation. BTW, she only got a slap on the wrist, which is deserved and far less than what she could have gotten.

True, true enough about the bad guys overhearing the police transmissions in the back of the radio car. But at this point, they've already been caught. And if they happen to overhear traffic concerning a friend who's about to be arrested, they can't do anything about it because they're handcuffed, without cell phone, and probably won't get their calls in a jail for at least an hour or so. It's all about officer safety so the gangsters, bank robbers, etc, can't know the officers are coming to get them and thus prepare their offense better.

Not gonna happen. It's not a single key encryption they're using. The key would only be good for one transmission if broken. Then the next transmission is done with a randomly generated OTHER key.

The problem is, by the time they figured out the key, it's days later and Freedom of Information Act could have been faster. And their key is no longer good because it switches keys with every new transmission. They would, in addition to breaking the key, have to know the randomly ordered next set of keys. Since each one of those is physically programmed into each radio, not gonna happen.

People are so paranoid nowadays. Let's say everytime they fingerprinted you, they retained a copy, and submitted them to the Dept. of Justice to do a criminal check. The only people that would have anything to worry about are criminals. All they are doing is logging you, same as using a user name and password. Just quicker. And less foolable. Boohoo.

In California, if a you refuse a breathalyzer or urine sample, your license is AUTOMATICALLY revoked for one year. When you get your license here, you sign a paper saying that you consent to either test if you are asked to perform one. Whereas if you consent, and you are arrested for DUI, you in some circumstances retain your driving privileges pending a hearing with the DMV.

Want to prevent lives from being destroyed because of some dumb ass. Every "point" is an analogy. All listed crimes are reckless, but none of them resulted in anyone's injury. They are all illegal because of the likelihood that, if not stopped, they will result in injury to someone else. I don't get how people can even defend people who drive drunk- they are reckless, and don't care about anyone but themselves. Why do you think people should have the right to recklessly endanger someone else's life? Because that is what you are defending, unless you are just saying that in addition to being arrested and convicted, that they should not be publicly shamed?

You say arresting people for DUI is like a pre-cog court? Isn't it illegal to point a loaded gun at people even though you don't shoot them, because of reckless endangerment? Isn't it illegal to possess bomb making equipment, even though you haven't built a bomb, because of reckless endangerment? Isn't it illegal to light a building on fire, even though everyone escaped? Arresting people for DUI is the one of the only types of arrests that saves lives. You are behind the wheel of a weapon, and not completely able to control it. Trust me, the only ones who get treated like they killed someone are the ones who do. Otherwise the courts just fine the hell out of em and make em attend AA classes. If it was rich, I'd hire more officers everyday just to pull people over for DUI. People who drive drunk are douchebags.

This guy was hacking systems, to make money for himself, so that people could allow their systems to read pirated games, because they are thiefs and don't want to pay people who worked hard to create the games. No ifs ands or butts about it. If you wrote a book, and someone went out and copied all those books and sold them and reaped the profit for it when they did jack sh*t, don't you think that would be illegal? What you are going to say is that this is a bad analogy, because the guy wasn't copying games. But he was allowing the systems to play copied games, without which the people copying games would have no job. And he is therefore an accomplice. And should be punished. Pot smokers support drug dealers supports the drug trade which results in countless deaths and costs each year. The drug user is just as guilty in creating the drug trade. This guy is just as guilty in the piracy. Boo Hoo.

And then I realize there's the actual police report...

I'm sure they are only telling part of the story. The truth will probably be something more like this: 1) student texting in class, 2) student refuses to give up phone to teacher, despite it being against school policy, 3) teacher calls in campus police because student not complying and being disruptive, 4) student resists (misdemeanor!) police and does not give up phone. The article leaves out that this girl is a problem in the class in the past. People will say, "Oh my god this is horrible she was only texting..." In reality, this is not the case, newspapers love to fry people on the first page and exonerate on the back page- it sells better this way.