Yeah, after I posted that it occurred to me that it may be a quote or literary reference rather than late-night math. I once had friend try to tell me -- very poorly and at excruciating length -- all about The Hitchhiker's Guide, which completely killed any interest I may have otherwise had of ever thinking of it again, much less reading it. Unfortunately this can be something of a handicap here on slashdot!

What do you get if you multiply six with nine?

I have a feeling you're going to want to take this one back ;)

YES. YES!! Good God -- FINALLY!!

See below -- maybe he used @IslandRecords ? It has one tweet on bieber.

I found an @IslandRecords, which has 1 tweet on the subject:

But that's all I've seen. What happens if someone delete tweets (I don't do twitter)? Does it leave a notice of deletion?

Eaxctly. And as you said, who among that crowd would have been following Roppo anyway? Bieber, yes. Roppo, um no. It's hard to imagine that Roppo could have added anything at all to police efforts even had he fully and happily complied.

The whole thing is pretty unclear, and TFA just makes it worse:

On what basis is Kafka/AllThingsD making this presumption? Nothing else I've seen "presumes" this.

In any case, it would seem very odd that Roppo would be in a position, having been arrested, to tweet "...the police have already arrested one person from my camp..."

As a more sensationalist/gossip-y paper, I certainly wouldn't put up any of my own money that they're right. But there's no reason to think they got it wrong.

The NY Daily News, says (according to police) you were right the first time (except they didn't specify the use of twitter):

These are Justin Bieber's tweets, not James Roppo's (the label exec who was arrested)

For clarifications sake, I don't know if this guy really did send the tweets after the crowd dispersed completely. Its something I heard on another site.

Actually, according NYDailyNews, you're right:
James Roppo, 44, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said.

Never mind; I read below.

The guy continued to send out tweets that he was signing autographs after the giant crowd dispersed. He was being an asshole and a danger to public safety to satisfy his Internet ego.

Where did you read/hear this? I've read several articles/accounts of this, but I haven't seen anything that says the guy (Roppo) tried to incite the crowd or kept promoting the event after police had shut it down. (Seriously: I'm not saying you're wrong -- I just looking for your source).

Excellent point here. The whole thing is mere window dressing.

A supervisor is unlikely to know much more than the original officer. Thus it seems high likely that if the front-line officer thought something on your machine was "questionable," the supervisor will not know any better than him/her, and will authorize holding and/or copying your laptop.

The concept being that the content of the lectures you attended has an agreed upon finite value: You paid a semester's tuition for them.

No -- the "contract" was to pay someone to deliver a service, i.e. to teach. The "content" only has value (under law) as either: 1) some tangible expression (i.e. a work of some form of authorship); or 2) as a patent (for creating some new and useful thing or method) or trade secret.

Since #2 obviously does not apply here, the only consideration is copyright. As long as the student wasn't copying from some actual (tangible) expressive work created by the teacher, the notes belong to the student, who can do with them as he/she wishes.

If the "content" could be "devalued" as suggested, then merely sharing something you've learned (i.e. paid to learn) with someone (e.g. showing someone how to work a math problem, telling your mother what you learned in school today, etc.) would also be an "actionable" devaluation.