Your argument doesn't make sense. Why would people file complaints of actual police misconduct when there's no camera available, but suddenly stop filing those complaints when the camera was there (even if the footage was "lost")?

And that also doesn't address the other statistic, a reduced number of incidents using force. What, are those incidents no longer being reported because officers can throw away the footage? That doesn't make sense either.

What storyline -- that sometimes people lie about what police do? Do you seriously believe that doesn't happen? And anyone who believes it does is a fascist?

Not only this -- I suspect that a large part of the 90% drop in complaints has to do with the fact that it makes it a lot harder for people to lie about their interaction with a police officer.

And yet, the actual evidence cited in the summary shows the exact opposite result of your theory.

Kind of funny, considering that you also posted a comment about how the anti-vaccination movement ignores real evidence that contradicts their views.

You're off by a factor of a thousand here -- 10k * $100k is $1 billion, not $1 trillion. According to the article, ongoing costs would be in the hundreds of millions per year per airline, so a rough order-of-magnitude estimate might be $1 billion per year.

Worth it? Maybe. I'd like to see some examples of where a system like this would have actually saved some lives first -- the article doesn't give any. After all, there's an awful lot of things you can do for $1 billion a year that are more likely to save lives than betting it on the off chance of an airliner crash.

What I learn from your statement is that apparently vegetarianism stunts your sense of humor.

If you're buying bottled water in preference to drinking tap water, then you're not actually poor.

Your test is showing that too many students are unprepared for college? Well, we can solve that problem -- just change the test!

There's something fundamentally wrong with our schools when it is a rarity for a high school graduate to be capable of composing a short written essay.

What I was referring to was 26% * 115 million = 30 million. That means that the minimum number of Blu-ray players sold must be at least 30 million if 26% of households were to have a Blu-ray player. So if 26% of American homes have a Blu-ray player, then the 2.5 million number is an order of magnitude off.

Building a transparent linux-based proxy/firewall/gateway with sslstrip/ssldump is sexy.

There's something wrong with your numbers here -- there were about 115 million households in the U.S. in 2010. The sources I can find with a quick Googling say the number is more like 40 million Blu-ray players.

I do agree that trying to compare not knowing Blu-ray to not knowing what a car is is a really bad comparison. There is no segment of society that has not had personal experience with cars. There are lots of people who will have never seen or used a Blu-ray player.

You mean two political parties.