Only two violations. The speeding one is listed under 22348(a) CVC. The "text" of the second charge, 27602(a)VC just carries on to the third line making it look like a 3rd charge.

From the ticket, it is evident she was stopped for going faster than a posted speed limit (22348(a) CVC). Once she was pulled over, the cop must've also seen she was wearing the glasses and tacked on the additional non-vehicle purpose display in driver's view. So, she was ticketed for wearing the google glass, but it's an important distinction to know and be aware that she was not pulled over for wearing google glass. As long as you are not breaking other laws, you will not be pulled over for wearing them.

...and get a free hair cut in the process.

May take a little more work, but just encrypt the text file yourself and send via regular email. Regular email will have less eyes looking at it. For added security modify the extension to a common one such as .jpg (from .7z or whatever format you chose). Unless they dedicated processing time to look at each individual file attached in an emal and analyze it further than reading the extension (computationally costly) you're gonna be just fine sending, "Dude, let's watch The Matrix tonight. Shhhhhhh. Bring booze. My mom's out of town."

I think this was an awesome post. I had need for it just today. Had a bunch of tabs open, accidentally closed one, didn't know which I closed...so had to do Ctrl+H for history then open them all again and close duplicates. Pain in the arse. Simple solution. Thanks.

To me, it was always "Computer geeks" or "compgeeks." The plain geeks.com wasn't familiar to me. Like when Facebook used to be thefacebook.com, and later changed it; for a long while I insisted on still writing out thefacebook.com cause it felt wrong to shorten it, not being true to it's original state.

I've been purchasing from them for years. Even with myself, it was true I'd forget about them for periods of time while ordering on Amazon. But then I would rediscover it. Bought a lot of electronics off them over the years. Makes me feel like an asshole for buying from Amazon....

BTW, I love that my slashdotters are so open minded. I can't find a like group of thinking peers at my work, on facebook, etc, so it was refreshing to see so many thought that reflected my own "crazy" free thinker thoughts.

The justice system ran its course. The protests resulted in a prosecution that never would have happened otherwise. A jury hand picked by the prosecution (6 women, 5 of whom are mothers) was unanimous in deciding the state failed to prove either second degree murder or manslaughter. It HAD to be an acquittal from the beginning because there was no way the Special Prosecutor could prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is the burden the state had to meet. Anything other than an acquittal could only have been explained as people following their emotions and not the rule of law (which saves us from these sometimes). One of our justice system's great weaknesses is actually its greatest strength, it is designed in such a way that it would rather acquit 10,000 guilty men than convict 1 innocent person.

Good answer. I was wanting to see if someone would explain it correctly or I would have to post myself. There's a lot of confusion in mainstream about police procedures and civilian responsibility.

"Most of us have seen at least enough cop shows to know police must read a suspect their Miranda rights when placing them in custody."

Wrong!

Most of us have seen enough TV to make us MISINFORMED about the world and what really happens.

To set the record straight, reading of Miranda rights is only MANDATORY when you have arrested someone (or have custody of them and enough evidence to arrest them) and you are interrogating them about the crime. Before you have enough evidence to arrest someone you can continue to question them without mirandizing them until you reasonably believe you have enough information to arrest them. Once this happens, further interrogation only admissible in court if the suspect has been mirandized (read their rights). If an officer arrests someone but does not desire to question them about their crime that officer need not mirandize their suspect. Mathematically, as they teach in police academy:

Miranda= Custody + Interrogation.

Absence of both of those factors, Miranda not necessary.

No Windows, how elitist. Perhaps you should spend the rest of the money on LP Tom Petty and Radiohead albums. Not that there's anything wrong with those artists, I'd just rather get a CD which is cheaper, better, and longer lasting.

"While the storyline is myth — there is no limit on the number of phone calls available to an accused or detainee — " In California, the arrestee has a right to 3 FREE phone calls within the local area codes (California Penal Code section 851.5). This has likely been bastardized over time to be what people perceive to be their "only calls" they get. There IS a limit on the phone calls available to an inmate outside of their 3 free ones- that limitation is that they must have friends willing to pay $20 for 15 minutes of collect calls. Which basically means the only calls most inmates get are those 3 free phone calls. As well, phone calls can usually only be made during dayroom hours- usually the 12 hours of the day general population is allowed to be outside of their rooms. My favorite line arrestees always say is, "They didn't read me my Miranda rights!" An officer only has to read you your miranda rights if they question you about your culpability in a case AFTER they've arrested you for that offense (or after they have developed enough information to be able to arrest you). The general rule for Miranda is "Custody (usually arrest) + interrogation." Absent both of those, need not be mirandized (most people aren't).

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...