Not that I read many blogs, but my memory of him is that he was worst than most bloggers. Heck, Slashdot itself was (is) basically a blog. The other contributors back then were far, far better.

Katz always seemed to be some guy from the outside of a subculture who tried to be seen as an expert in it by declaring strongly held opinions. Bad enough, but the opinions were usually ingratiating, patronizing, and/or wrong.

Even Michael Sims wasn't as bad!

Don't I know it.

The only thing for sale at the National Mall is freedom and 'merica. No pressure cookers.

The summary isn't quite right. A warrant would not be required to seize your phone or other recording device if the officer has probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime (and exigent circumstances exist, which they probably do). Then he can try to get a warrant to get that evidence off your device. An example would be they roll up on a crime scene and you were recording before they got there, or, maybe you got video of the suspect assaulting the police. They wouldn't need a warrant to seize it at that point, because exigent circumstances (you could leave, the evidence could easily be destroyed if they don't secure the phone) would justify seizure without a warrant. However they could not legally search it without a warrant. (Typically in a case where a bystander has video of the crime they'll be cooperative and send the video to the police if possible, or give consent to them to get it off their device).

The smarter police aren't going to go around taking phones. If they believe you have evidence on your phone they'd probably like to talk to you about what you saw anyway and ripping your phone out of your hands isn't going to help that. But just be aware that they can most likely legally seize your phone without a warrant, if they have probable cause it has evidence of a crime, and if seizing your phone is the only way to preserve that evidence from being destroyed or lost (you could delete the video or walk away before a warrant could be obtained).

In most jurisdictions felony murder is actually a lesser form of murder.

Generally a felony is a series crime, a misdemeanor is a petty crime. Misdemeanors usually carry a maximum punishment of less than one year, felonies have much higher punishment.

As far as what crimes are classified as what is up to the legislature, obviously, but the legal distinction is more significant than just a label. One of the biggest distinctions being that felonies require a grand jury indictment (in states that have grand juries), or a probable cause hearing in non grand jury states.

Also it's not like the U.S. invented the distinction, we inherited it from England.

Every ABA accredited JD program in the US requires you to first have a bachelor's degree at a minimum.

Many states now give felons the right to vote back after they have served their time in prison or on probation.

There's a discussion about a fork over here.

somenickname (1270442) has registered some domain names that could be used (http://bangslashdot.org|.com|.net) (eg !/.)

Slashdot Beta ruins the foundation of Slashdot, the discussion system.

Dice: listen to your users and abandon the project. Accept your losses and move on before your users move on to other sites.