Well, if you apply a little logic that defense seems a lot more probable than 'I was minding my own business doing nothing wrong and the officer started clubbing me.' If there are officers who beat people for no reason then they need to be sent to jail, if there are officers who use excessive force when it isn't needed then they need to be retrained or fired, and when an officer is in a situation which requires force and he uses the proper amount of force he should be commended. We can't make a judgment without seeing the full story and something captured on a cell phone camera won't cut it unless it caught the entire incident.

I kinda understand where the officer was coming from. There were some people loitering outside a gun buyback and buying guns. This in itself is not illegal, but if the owners of the property object then the loiterers can be asked to leave, or they can call the police and ask the police to make them leave. All normal. When the officer gets their CCLs that's pretty normal too, people loitering where they don't belong buying guns seems like probable cause. The problem is that the officer treated them like criminals instead of like innocent bystanders conducting a harmless transaction where they are not wanted. There was no cause for the officer to get upset with the questions being asked. The problem here comes from the police officers assumption that he is the law rather than the enforcer of laws, and sadly that is pretty common in these incidents. Once he had determined that the people there were within their legal rights he should have asked them not to loiter around there and wished them a happy holidays.

I work with an ex police officer and he's pretty set against 'civilians' recording police, in his eyes its another way to get innocent police officers in trouble since a lot of the videos that have implicated officers in the past have lacked any context. This makes sense because a clip showing police brutality could be part of a longer incident where the suspect resisted arrest and tried to hurt the officer. I understand that in the heat of the moment a person who feels their life is in jeopardy may use force which seems excessive out of context. That being said, the same officer buddy is in favor of red light cameras, the nanny state, and airport scanners that see through your clothes. You can't have it both ways in a free and just society. You can't give the police the ability to watch everyone while denying the public the ability to watch the police. I think a better solution, that nobody in law enforcement would like, would be to put cameras on police officers and also allow the public to photograph them. That way in a court of law you have evidence that can provide context to any side videos in play. If the police officer is innocent he has nothing to fear from the surveillance, that's the line they have been feeding the public in general so it's fitting for it to fly back in their faces.

Then why does the bill of rights outline the rights of individuals? Oh yeah, it doesn't. I specifically outlines the powers and rights of the federal government. Sadly most individuals and the federal government have forgotten that the government works for us at our express consent. I think it's time to remind the politicians in Washington just what WE HIRED THEM to do.

From that writeup this version of net neutrality looks very reasonable, although without seeing the source text there is no way of knowing what loopholes exist. My question is where does the government regulation of content come into play? Will the government stifle freedom of the press/freedom of speech on the internet? Wikileaks is a prime example, there are a lot of politicians on both sides of the isle that would like to see the site nuked from orbit permanently, but it is also a prime example of freedom of the press.

When has the government defunded anything? Anything big? They are much more likely to create the FCC Joint Bipartisan Regulation Committee which will provide 'oversight' to the FCC while each member will pocket even more corporate cash.

As a Fox News watching republican I'm amused by your comments. As I have stated before the problem with conservatives supporting Net Neutrality is not the intent of it, but rather the different definitions of it. This current FCC/Corporate push is pretty much what most conservative think net neutrality is all about. It's not about freedom, instead it's about government regulation and corporate interests. I don't care if my ISP offers different tier services, but when they start blocking or charging extra for things just because they can it becomes a fight. I don't want the government controlling what content I can access, but I don't want ISPs controlling it with charges either. Data should be treated as data, usage should be treated as usage, and it should all be more like a utility and less like a premium service. The solution isn't to simply treat the internet like a third world street and let everyone drive the way they please with no regard to other drivers, but turning it into police state toll roads isn't a great option either. If you actually talk to people in the modern conservative movement you will find that most of us are more libertarian and less good ol boy republican. The way it is now though, either political party is going to get it wrong, the question isn't what's right, but rather what's the least wrong.

While this may be true, I've had checks and netflix DVDs stolen from the mail. Most of the post offices security is through obscurity, if what you're sending is obvious then it can and might get stolen.

Now we are slashdotting porn sites. I'm ok with paypal or amazon going down, but loss of porn on the internet could cause serious consequences. If the world goes to war over this, don't say I didn't warn you.

Funny but if you raise crops for use beyond your immediate family you're technically correct on most of those points.

In other words bandwidth should not be restricted so that friday night surfing becomes a pain? Update the infrastructure and stop oversubscribing?! If they did that the costs WOULD skyrocket. Yes ISPs do things for profits and some do have huge profit margins, but they do this because it is so hard to get into the industry and they will continue to do this until the regulations and technology allows more options for broadband. Pay as you go does not solve these issues, but it does allow people to pay for what they uses. Either PAYGo, caps/throttling/blocking, or overselling until we are all back in the days of 28.8 because of all the torrents/movies downloading on our block. You choose.

Umm... maybe I missed something I thought we were talking about Pay As You Go VS 'Unlimited' (but very limited) or capped plans. If this argument is about Pay WHERE You Go then I'd like to change my position.

Exactly,the consumers want pay as you go internet. How many discussions on slashdot have we had against download caps/restrictions where the only logical conclusion is pay as you go internet. You can't have unlimited throughput, no restrictions, and a low price! It doesn't work, because the peak bandwidth does cost money. The ISP industry needs to either put restrictions on how much you can use per package, or they need pay as you go. We the consumers have pushed them there because of how much we consume, and I for one welcome pay as you go.

I for one have three bikes at home and only two cars, does that mean that the era of the car is over at my house? I really tire of these slanted news articles that crumble with the slightest application of common sense.

Well, I mostly commented to stir the pot, but it's pretty obvious from the series that Starbuck was 1/2 cylon and possibly capable of cylon resurrection. That would make her father one of the original cylons who recreated resurrection on earth. Sure there are a lot of jumps to make any of it make sense, but that's still a lot more believable than "she was an angel".