Takeshi:

I read the article, and a lot more.

Given recent events (unrelated) I so rarely rely JUST on one article for information.
The child's father is also quoted : )
My guess on the 50/50 shot is that yeah, they just used what the mother said, without a good attributable quote.

I agree with you on the last point. That he has NEVER fallen asleep is absurd(more misleading I think...)... Whether he's falling asleep momentarily (with or without knowledge), or not being able to sleep for more than a few minutes at a time, he's still getting some 'rest'.
I think there's a big difference in 'not sleeping' versus 'not sleeping well'. Regardless, as he is a child, he would need to be watched all the time.

"There is an extraordinarily rare genetic disorder called fatal familial insomnia which leads to an inability to sleep and then death in about a year after initial symptoms for those who inherit the gene (though it tends to kick in later in life)."

I ran across this too...it's amazingly rare, 28 family lines have it. Thats all. Both mother and father must be carriers. It effects you at 30 - 60 years of age. NOTHING WORKS on it...no meds, nothing. It's something like 2 - 4 years between initial symptoms and death.

This falls into one of those categories that drug companies don't want to touch since there's no profit to be had. That's the sad part in all of this. Even with Chiari, the reasons that everything is 'experimental', there's just no enough people with it to make it 'worthwhile'. The surgery itself is not as 'experimental' as one would think...I think it falls into that catergory here since it's on someone so young and hasn't 'really' be used much for this disorder. But it is brain surgery and is thus, dangerous. The benefits though likely outweigh the risks. As he begins to grow, who knows what going to happen with all the bony structures in the foramen magnum and upper spinal channel. This, in and of itself, could cause death.

http://tinyurl.com/3zu3qo
Here's the URL for the Bay News Article. It's got some other info in it thats quite good.

Since I'm not a doctor (I did play one on stage once though!) I'm curious why SLEEP DEPRIVATION isn't a symptom of Chiari? This is a rare case BECAUSE it's hitting this kid so hard (1 in 1000 births may have SOME form of this disorder).

Homestarrunrun - I would assume before surgery they would have tried everything they could to get him better. But...then they run the risk of the meds doing something unexpected. Since there's no real clinical study of this disease, any meds used would technically be 'off label' uses, if they are trying to cure it. Otherwise, your just treating symptoms, and the cause is still there.

I would also make an assumption that he's on some sort of anti-inflammatory drugs (to keep swelling down) and something like interferon or the like to drop the risk of infection (an infection with a disorder like this would almost literally choke off his spinal cord with pressure...think encephalitis on steroids).

Surgery looks like the only way to relieve the pressure on his spinal column and 'get the brain back in the bucket'. This seems to 'basically' be a hernia of the brain.

Is the driver to be expected to identify the passenger by his ass?

Wow...what fun! Police line-ups, identifying the ass in court...fun!

I wanna know why, if the driver wasn't speeding, a pic was taken. Are the photographing EVERY car that passes, and only issuing tickets to those that are speeding? Is the threshold of the camera so low that all cars are photographed? Or...in the tinfoil hat mode, do they have some sort of filter for the images that will pop out pictures of OTHER crimes? Ass-Filters perhaps?

As a legal side note: Does one HAVE to identify his passenger if in fact no crime to the driver has been attributed? If it was a speeding camera, and the driver was not speeding, but they had his picture anyway (illegal?), what crime is there if that photo shouldn't even exist?

I guess they have to pay for the new CCTV's some way, so, lets watch ALL the footage and fine people to make money!

Bundercup,
I'll put what Noen said in a different way...sortof.

It's inmportant to trust your government to a certain extent, provided you have an open mind. Basically, trust them, not blindly trust them, until they do something to prevent you from trusting them (See ALL USA examples of such).

Now, the 'actual' problem with these cameras is NOT the government itself, that's over-reaching. It's with the officers that have access to it, without ANY oversight. Don't get me wrong, 99.9% (or slightly less maybe) are good cops who won't do anything 'wrong' with the data/images. It's the minority of that .1% that might pose a potential problem. No singular entity is 100% good or 100% bad, its the few in between that cause the problems.

Every police force everywhere has a bad cop, but the entirety of the forces are quite respectable. Whenever you get someone in a position of power, it CAN corrupt them. Recently on a SINGLE day we had 6 police officers in court in Toronto on different charges (prostitution, drugs, . . . ). Is the Toronto Police Force bad...no...just some of it's officers.

To finish off, I don't think they should add more cameras. It won't prevent any more crime. It MAY help catch more criminals, but...good police work can do the same thing.

@JC:

"What would they do, complain that I took a bribe and didn't follow through on my part?"

That sounds like a fun game...but, your wrong. You DID follow through on "your part"(if you were playing). You would have had to take down the negative review to get the refund, and then post a NEW review about their WORSE behaviour. Technically, you would be in the clear, since both reviews would, in their entirety, be different. Bad faith maybe...well...defiantly...but you did everything they required...with a twist.

In fact, if it were me, and I was 'pissy' about it, and since I can be quite the 'asshole', that MAY be something that I would do!

What about the basic human error? Have they forgotten that those still exist? The one that gets me the most is:

"You understand and agree that the charges for goods / services specified are irrevocable, undisputable and may not be charged back, contested or challenged in the future, doing so breaches your agreement which is a legal contract."

A few disturbing things in this:
1. Irrevocable. Only if you got what you paid for, NOT for substandard products or services.
2. Breaches agreement. Would that not be 'our' agreement, between the two parties...not 'Your' agreement.
3. "Legal contract" - insofar as you can call it 'legal' sure. Chances are though, that something in the contract is 'illegal' which makes the whole rest of it null and void. Just don't sign them if there's a 'stupid' clause and take your business somewhere else.
4. Undisputable...isn't even a real word.

But yeah...if my credit card was stolen and purchases made on it before I cancelled, your DAMN RIGHT I would chargeback if there were NO OTHER remedies available.

*Putting on my tinfoil hat*

There has to be more to this story than we know. She made plans to make sure her car/condo would be paid for while she was away (prison). Apparently took a white box of 'information' when she went to her mothers (as stated by the landlord she talked to just before leaving).
The last thing that strikes me was the phrase "suicide notes". Notice that there's an 's'...meaning more than one. Who leaves more than one?

If she felt her life was in danger, I would think that she may have sent correspondence to someone, somewhere...a "in the event of my death" type letter. Wait a few weeks, I bet there will be new 'evidence'.

What ever happened to common sense? I mean, I know it's not that "common" to run into something like this, but c'mon...
There is SOOOO much wrong in this world, and this just adds to it. Did they thinking she was faking not having arms?

I think they need to start a common sense class at some high school...call it...continuing education (since obviously it's needed...).

I've really wanted to introduce this to Toronto. A lot of people here need non-nefarious re-education.

#43 - Takuan

Almost...almost got it. It's..."they are only here to serve you...on a platter".

It's a nice platter though...so, consider yourself lucky I guess.

C'mon, he should have been arrested. He /was/ stealing souls!

Seriously...as soon as photography becomes a crime, I say BLANKET BAN...no news cameras, no CCTV, no dashboard police cams, no red light cameras...NOTHING. NOTHING that can take, receive, or store any image. No computers, no TV's, no cellphones, NOTHING.
That way we can tell who the criminals are...they will be the ONLY ones with cameras.

/end sarcasm

@#22...
What about suing for false advertising? PlaysForSure doesn't sound like it will after August 31 if you upgrade. The correct name for the service will soon be "PlaysUntilYouUpgrade".

@41:
I think they were talking about your OWN gov't being tyrannical, not an opposing one. Wow...I didn't mean it that way...but in the FUTURE...you may have a gov't that becomes tyrannical.

I'm all for 'licencing' of firearms. Basics of firearm safety (don't shoot the wall your wife is behind for example), how to maintain a weapon in good working order (if you need it, you don't want it to jam), and other things. Limiting weapons to those who do not have serious criminal records, and making it a crime for those who cannot possess.
Not that that will make any difference.

In addition, if you want to carry...I want you to be able to hit your target. So, before you can carry, I would love to see a mandatory range test. If I remember from an earlier article correctly, pilots who carry have to pass a test like this...and its apparently quite easy.

Hopefully these things will cut down the whole innocent bystander thing.

Anyone here watch Jericho? Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment played a really big part in the finale.

"It's much easier for a corrupt government to take over when it's citizens can't shoot back".

"Some are dumb as a bag of hammers"

I believe this also applies to a number of humans as well.

"As for the unidentified patient, she still needs knee surgery and plans to file a lawsuit."

No shit? Of course she still needs knee surgery! My mom just had her hip replaced, it was easier than to let the bone heal itself, bad fracture, but good bone strength. Regardless...the DOCTORS labeled her so they didn't do the wrong one.

@8
I don't know what the Fire Dept says in your area regarding high-rise building and hotel evacuations, but within the last few years, more and more departments are telling you to stay put (not evacuate) unless the fire is on your floor, or directly above or below. That's why fire alarms are quickly followed by an announcement of location/floor of the alarm. BTW - this hasn't yet been 'applied' to 'public' building like theatres and such.

New building guidelines are for pressurized hallways and stairwells(during alarm conditions), to keep smoke out and fire in. Apparently, since this was introduced, there has not been one fire that has passed INTERNALLY from one suite to another. Balconies are a completely separate matter.

The reason they ask you NOT to leave is that, since you likely safer where you are, you will only get in their way, and are more likely to get hurt by the evacuation process (falling/tripping...) than by smoke or fire. But again, this is only for newer buildings.

Ha...alarm just went off here! Great timing.

Jericho's has NOT wrapped yet. Unless you have information that I don't have. There's a few things still outstanding in the game to this point.
And in the Jericho spirit, come to the boards, watch the show, we need more viewers. On the plus side...it's quite good and well written.

I actually just started into ARG, due to Jericho, and I can say, it's been frustrating and exhilirating, often around the same time!

Tom, you misunderstood what I meant. I may not have been clear. Theft is theft. It doesn't matter where it happens. Businesses protect themselves against theft. It may be basic bag searches upon leaving a facility, or video surveillance, or whatever. It matters not WHO is in control of an area where thefts are happening (note I didn't say allowed to happen...), what matters is that that organization is responsible. TSA, FBI, CIA, KFC, IHOP, 7/11, it doesn't matter.

And yes, one stolen bag per year is too many. Lost luggage is another deal entirely however.

Tom, it's not a matter of the average dollar value, or how much is stolen each year. In this case, (based on what I've read) context doesn't matter either. If I steal a loaf of bread to feed my starving family, it's still theft. As is taking anything out of a piece of luggage that it not 'illegal'. Its not how much, it's that it's happening at all. When I was young I lived near a factory that made car parts (small parts, easy to steal). Every employee had their bag 'inspected' on the way out. Just a peek, nothing big. Why can't the TSA add this to employees at airports? This I think would stop most thefts. Think of it this way, if you know you might get caught, you likely wouldn't do something. If theres NO chance of getting caught, it just goes on unchecked...

And yes...Airport food sucks.

"The sad truth is that unless you join them in the conquest you'll never fruitfully reach any prizes because the 'hive' will get there first."

That's not entirely true. It all depends on the type of game and the types of clues given. I'm playing one now, and I've found more things just popping in once and a while, at opportune times. It also helps to be able to think outside of the box. I have no idea how many people we have playing right now, but there doesn't seem to be much of a "I got it first" type of mentality going on. I do see where your coming from saying that if your not an insider, you don't stand a chance. I was an outsider too for a while. The game started in August, and 'we' didn't find out until November (part of the plan!). I haven't gotten in on any chats yet (aside from a weekly 'roundup' that didn't include the 'regular' ARG players). But as a collective we've pieced together quite a bit

"The sad truth is that unless you join them in the conquest you'll never fruitfully reach any prizes because the 'hive' will get there first."

That's not entirely true. It all depends on the type of game and the types of clues given. I'm playing one now, and I've found more things just popping in once and a while, at opportune times. It also helps to be able to think outside of the box. I have no idea how many people we have playing right now, but there doesn't seem to be much of a "I got it first" type of mentality going on. I do see where your coming from saying that if your not an insider, you don't stand a chance. I was an outsider too for a while. The game started in August, and 'we' didn't find out until November (part of the plan!). I haven't gotten in on any chats yet (aside from a weekly 'roundup' that didn't include the 'regular' ARG players). But as a collective we've pieced together quite a bit

Takuan...actually...Canada will be swinging down to take over. Don't worry, it'll be painless. We'll bring beer!

Plus, we've been quietly sitting here watching what's been going on...and were itchin' to get goin'!

#10 posted by Mechalith , February 12, 2008 2:45 PM

I'm sure your right that many people have bought homes that previous owners have died in. The difference in this one seems to be that the body was STILL in the house...which is entirely different than someone just having died there and THEN the house was sold.

Don't worry about cleaning! You can get a maintenance contract!!

--
Octopus Studios can arrange a maintenance contract for your Silverfish Aquarium, in the event that you do not wish to personally maintain it.

This service, undertaken by a third party professional, includes all necessary maintenance in the form of cleaning, servicing and general upkeep.

Please contact us for further details regarding this service.

--

Personally, I wish they would start LSD testing again. Like way back when, controlled, medical doses. "Clean" drugs, without additives. Since we have identified so many new diseases and disorders, I think this drug may have new uses. Low dose tests should be tried for people with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, other forms of late-onset dementia. LSD is an untapped well that could be quite beneficial to the medical community. Of course, you'll have to watch out for the Feds.

Personally, I've never tried it. Not that I don't want to, I just don't trust anything off the street. If I do try it, I want it to come directly from the Medicine bottle, from a reputable pharmaceutical company.

If a sound system at a rock concert can't extinguish flames, I can't see how this is gonna work on anything larger than well...the candle they tested it on. Plus, do you think that maybe to low bass note was pushing a great deal of air?? Air can put out a fire of that size too!

I think I'm on both sides of the fence on this one. Though I agree a law for prohibition of these items is dumb, and a waste of money, I also can see that they don't want to have to respond to false alarms (though, in the article they admit they haven't had to). "Consumer grade" detectors are 'unreliable'. Some are good, but most only detect 'radiation' not a 'level of radiation'. You could likely get it to go off if you broke open a smoke detector, but there's no danger from the radiation...

However, if it's false positives they worry about, they should also instruct the fire department not to respond to any fire calls either, since most of them are false alarms as well.

I've read both reports...I don't know who to believe any more. Suffice it to say, both are likely lying somewhat. However, if the Officer asked her to move her car a few feet (versus honking, which apparenlty started this...but NOT in the police report, only independant eyewitnesses) I doubt there would have been any problem.

#12 hit it perfect. It's about maintaining control. But, that is WAY to much of a slippery slope to go down. Arrest everyone and let the courts figure it out is ... stupid.

Did they confiscate the "Other Merchandise"? If not, this was quite selective in what they seized.

Also, and this is not in regards to this case, but as a whole issue, after the seizure what do they do with items? I ask since if this get thrown out in court (for whatever reason) that must be returned to him. No 'crime' per se means no seizure. If the time limit on the ticket runs out, and they then give it back...who pays? Call me curious, but things like this could get interesting. Especially since one of the more vocal officers in the Toronto area has actually called for vehicles to be seized and DESTROYED immediatly...no need for that pesky trial...

Is that a glass of Rye next to the Coke??

@ #13 Svenski

Hey, at least he up front about trying to be corrupt. Or...put another way...at least he's honest about being dishonest.

Certainly more studies need to be done on this. I think it was a limited study of 15 people with most showing improvement. Even if only 50% showed improvement, that's better than a lot of drugs out there. I just saw a study where the placebo was 14% more effective than the drug itself.
This is a first step. Most times in studies like this it's not nearly as impressive, so I think that may be why it was published this early. If there's no ill effects on the patients in a set period of time, I'm sure this will get approval for a larger study.
The problem right now is that its an off-label use of the medication, which makes it harder to do a large study off the top, show that it works and you'll get your approval.

If its cyber-squatting, how long to you have to wait for 'them' to register it before you 'can'. Stelmach waited 4 months. Arguably, for politicians, he should have been given more time to complete a 10 second task but still.

It doesn't even appear as if Stelmach wanted the address...only the money collected from the advertisements. My guess is that ANY money that is generated will be far less than what the taxpayers are footing for his lawyers. Surprisingly similar to the RIAA and MPAA not getting near enough return for their litigation.

For all those who said he deserved what he got, did you read the article or just the synopsis. Having read the article, he asked for and GOT the exit seat. "Ramone" said as much. When he asked Ramone whether it was an exit seat, Ramone said yes. When Narissa (The customer service agent) called Ramone, SH HD DFFCLTY NDRSTNDG HM. Therefore, the obligation to fix this lies with the airline. The fact that he complained at all shouldn't be factored in to what he recieves (which shouldn't be a flight mind you...). If you go to a restaurant and order a steak, and they bring you chicken, you complain right. He ordered the exit seat, and was told he had it, didn't get it because Ramone can't speak the good english, and OMG complained.

Don't get me wrong, his letter wasn't worded well, demands instead of requests...but, overall, the Airline screwed up on this one. They should do the responsible thing, send Roger to training, Ramone to ESL, and follow up on ALL complaints against staff.

What? No irony photo of the 'no photos' sign?
But it is nice to know who's taking YOUR picture when you in there.

The police were "conducting surveillance" for a while before the man arrived.

I imagine the radio call went like this. "Uhh..we have a topless woman in the park." "Roll the surveillance team." "Which one?" "All of them...in fact, I'm going too".

Even if she wasn't working for the police, SHE initiated it. SHE is to blame, maybe not in a legal sense, but morally at least. SHE must be held accountable for what she did. When you sue the city and the police for this, sue her too.

I think there is good re-course for diminished mental capacity in this case. C'mon, if you see a topless woman, many men will become less 'involved' in the reality going on around him. Apparently this also includes surveillance teams, which, on the best days, are easy to spot.

Strict liability is stupid to begin with. There's many reasons why some people may do something. Put it this way, if my house were on fire, and I ran out naked, in that juristiction, I could be charged. A reasonable person would say It's okay. Strict liability says I have to be charged.

Tom,
Thanks for mentioning Maher Arar (who is still on a no-fly list).

One thing that hasn't been mentioned about how this type of screening doesn't work, you need TIME with the person to establish a baseline for their natural behaviour. This 'could' be those random questions, but if so, they're many questions short of anything that would be useful.

On top of not having enough baseline to ask ACTUAL questions, this ALSO changes based on whether your left or right handed. When Law Enforcement uses this technique, they've seen the suspect for hours (so its NOT just the face they look at...it's the WHOLE PICTURE). BTW - the guys that were caught with cigs at Heathrow...likely GAVE themselves away by looking like they were smuggling something, not some tiny facial expression.

I believe this technique is useful...just not at an airport, and definatly not with someone who has zero experience in psychology, or college for that matter.

This is almost as good as those chocolate chip, pancake wrapped, sausages on a stick!

I don't know about you, but not much that comes out of a can like that tastes good. I mean, c'mon, even pancake mix and water would be better than this.

I call "WAR ON BREAKFAST"

I don't remember where I saw it (it may even have been here), but in Israel, where they've been dealing with terrorism for many years, it seems as though their security is so 'relaxed'. The story goes like this. There's an elderly woman (American) in line at security. She put her little baggie of liquids on the scanner and proceeds. A few steps later she realizes that she has a bottle of water on her. She goes to hand it to the screener who looks kinda funny at her and says: "This is Israel, we've been dealing with terrorism for 50 years. This water bottle...isn't dangerous." They have experience, they know what their doing.

I would assume that Fox would have the ability to figure out WHO owned the image...after all...it came from her site. Okay, I'd likely be able to figure it out. Now, how hard is it to fire off an email saying that "Fox would like to use your image during its football broadcast." It seems as though this could be really easy to have avoided.

I don't think you should sue unless you get a pro bono lawyer. The amount you would recieve would be pittence compared to the legal fees (though, there is that one woman who had one downloaded song and cost her $22,000).

If Fox retransmits this broadcast (online...in DVD form...), she should immediatly send a takedown notice (FOR THAT IMAGE) not the entire game.

Can you make Fox put a cover image over the original saying that since we stole this image, we are no longer able to display it.

I heard this line a while ago...and think it holds pretty true.

"The illusion of torture gets results. Torture only works in the movies".

From reading more on this...apparently she was in country before this as well (but after 9/11) without problems with her visa, so it begs the question WHY NOW...not just WHY.

@#2 in regards to hair and nails growing after death , I agree, they don't. Their right in their explanation about fingernails receding and all of that. However, where I feel this came from is from the lack of earlier medical knowledge about death itself.

More than a few cases of people being buried alive led to the advent of the breathing tubes and bell pulls being added...to warn people that hey, I'm not dead. This is where I think it came from originally...where it would indeed look as though hair and fingernails grew while the person was 'dead'.

Maybe a law should be passed making it 'illegal' for someone to look up an old 'unenforced' law or by-law for the express purpose of 'gettin a neighbour'. I believe there is already a good term used for what this person did...Harassment.

#14:

Hold on though...before the movie starts, you get trailers and promo's. I often see "this movie is not yet rated"... I agree that they wouldn't show a film that hadn't been rated...but the trailers?

Unless of course I may have stumbled onto a loop-hole...the "film" isn't rated...but the trailer is...

@#1

Have you seen Robin Williams "Live on Broadway"??
His suggestion I believe (its been years) was to paint nipples on the front of blimps. Just to add confusion to the war (WW2)...'Look. A t*t. Look at the t*t...the t*****t.'

Spikeles:

Would it be legal say, to rip MP3's to a shared folder if it's ONLY shared to yourself (IE, a home network)? Or is it only illegal if it's shared to other networks? I'm curious.

Just a few things from "THe Verdict" last night on CTV that may be worth mentioning here. Most of these points have been brought up by others here already. The police in this case tasered after only 24 seconds of viewing the 'suspect'. They NEVER cleared the area before taking him down. They yelled orders at him in English (AFTER they had been told that he spoke NO english). They never (on tape, or in records) talked to anyone in the area BEFORE tasering him (hence, they didn't know anything about why he was behaving as he was). The people that the mother had asked about trying to find her son didn't seem to do anything either...he was less than 100 feet away the whole time...behind closed doors. They also approached confrontationally. Had they walked in with their hands in the air and off to the side, in a 'what's wrong' kind of way, this WHOLE thing could have been avoided. They didn't need to KILL her son...which they did. I say that as a fact, due to the rules laid out regarding the taser, and it's after effects. As soon as the man was down, they jumped him, knees to the neck and back, which restricts airflow. After a taser hit, you have to regain breathing control, by breathing faster and deeper. This is why the manual says (as stated by RCMP trainers) that there is a minimum time from tasering to "major restraint"...since most of the time one hit and cuffs are enough. Even if you had no breathing problems whatsoever, 600lbs of cop on top of you can quickly suppress your breathing.

Hey,
In Toronto Ontario I recently saw a parking officer (and they have cars...that's another story) who almost got into 3 accidents and broke about 7 moving violations in the span of about 3 minutes. Coincidentally these were the LAST three minutes he would have been able to write tickets (time parking). We also have a new ticket creator where the officer just inputs the info, and the ticket pops out. Problem being that IF the car pulls away before the guy puts the ticket on the car, they have NO way of knowing that they have a ticket until they renew their licence the next year, and HAVE to pay the ticket. The other bad thing about the ticket creator is that low and behold, they write the next ticket while DRIVING to the next illegally parked car! If talking on a cell phone is bad, inputting data and reading licence plates has to be worse. Hence why the guy almost hit 2 cars and a pedestrian.

Oh, and two nights ago I just about saw a cop hit 2 people as he was coming around a corner without his siren...which would have been okay had the cop not been driving on the SIDEWALK at the time...

I second that Biznatch. Not to say that writers don't take parts of real stories to make their own. I've also seen this kind of thing on NCIS, and Bones...

I think the TSA REALLY needs to get their act together...and quickly. I flew from Detroit to Vegas a little while ago. I wish I had gotten pictures of this... The signage at the check-in desks for both places were different. As in, one asks you to CHECK you laptop (what's the point...so you can't use it on the plane, or so that baggage handlers can steal them??), But it ALSO tells you to keep you keys (for what reason??). Vegas is exactly opposite to that. They tell you to keep your laptop (BECAUSE it might be stolen) but check your keys. I didn't. So I had my knife (keychain knife) taken away. I hadn't used it in years, and basically forgot it was there. Lovely TSA agent though...even tried to take my KitKat. I informed her that she was also being watched by the cameras...and that taking it would only provide a few minutes of chocolate pleasure. All fun and games until someone is ACTUALLY suspicious. They also don't seem to be able to follow their own guidlines of putting a label on the OUTSIDE of a bag that hadbeen opened and checked. *note...do NOT put all of your electronics in a single bag... I found the tag that should have been on the outside, buried in the bottom of my bag...and my alarm clock missing. Wouldn't you feel safer if the same rules applied to EVERY agent...

@Deb,
I doubt the info from the Body Farm would have been of any value to the Truscott case. Since time of death had been established by the stomach contents (at the time there had been some research done into it) the state of hte body itself makes no here or there. However, in the science at the time in regards to stomach contents it was stated that it could only give a basic time of death (range of 1.5 - 3 hours, within eating AND time of death). The medical examiner of course gave a timeframe well below the threshold. This was done partly due to incompetence and largely (in my view...being skewed because of 'personal involvement' to the case) due to the fact that the police KNEW who had done it based on faulty evidence gathering and not following up on leads.
It's sad that it took 47 years for justice to ALMOST get done. Remember, he still isn't 'innocent' of the crime. My grandmother went to her grave feeling guilty for sending him to prison. Even though it was a over-aggressive prosecutor who only hand-picked the evidence she gave, she still felt guilty. I've read her original statement to the police...and about 75% of it confirms his innocence, the other 25% 'could' be circumstantsial evidence at best. Guess which part the prosecution used!

You'd think by now they would've figured out how to fake FAA and purchase records. The CIA really needs to hire a few good counterfitters and hackers to get the job done right! Whatever happened to "we have no record of that" . . . now it's a long list of associated people with ties to the top. Get some other friends...try democrats, they haven't had a good scandal in a little while...

BlackAndy@15

What do you mean by appointing someone who has experience is disaster response as FEMA head? Isn't that something you can learn on the job? I mean look at Micheal Brown. Remember, he did a 'heckuva' job. Now look where he is...got his own disaster company (don't know if he causes them or fixes them...maybe both), and was recently in California talking disaster. Seems to have worked out well for him.

: )

I think some good will eventually come of this. Since it has been discovered that he had no drugs or alcohol in his system (latest autopsy report) which contradicts one of the first claims by the cops (but how were they to know???). There have now been calls to have front line officers to be trained in 'psychological assessment'...a basic checklist to see if the subject is 'disturbed' in some way. This is also echoed with 'basic' medical training (like what the EMT said earlier) to determine if it's related to diabetes, or alcohol withdrawl (as is likely in the Gautbaum case in Phoenix) or something else. Will this work 100%...of course not, nothing ever does.

Police also need to learn a few other things. I think the person who said they should learn Aikaido is partially on track. They really need to get away from coming in like they HAVE to attack the person (attack being the wrong word, but used for clarity). Notice when you see cops walking toward a group of people, they're arm is almost always slightly elevated above their gun holster. This is an aggressive posture, and most recognise it as that. Also needed is a way to determine if the subject isn't following orders, why they are not. Do they have something to hide or do they not understand (ie, not speak english).
The easiest thing to do, though not in all cases certainly, is to approach the subject in a non-confrontational or passive demeanor. IE...walk towards them with your hands off to the sides, like how cops have subjects walk towards them. It's passive, and can easily have a calming effect on a subject, versus running in yelling and holding weapons. Of course, this only works if the person is not harming OTHERS (others being humans or live beings, innanimate object do not count). If the officers LIFE is in danger, they can escalate force, if they might get HURT (non-lethal) then they cannot escalate force. Getting hurt on the job is part of life, and if you take a few bruises, but save someones LIFE, I think it's worth it. Don't you?

What gets me (after reading the judges statements) is that the Special Agent who coerced the false statement, didn't think it would be used in court. Really? You get a statement from a guy who says he's guilty, and you DONT think it will be used in court? Then why question anyone?

I guess the easiest way to do this is to take the 'bomb', walk to security like usual. And answer their questions as usual. Did you pack your own bags - yes. Did anyone ask you to take something on the plane - yes. Who asked you - your boss!

Unless of course they tell you to lie...
Hey, I wonder if getting pictures taken with the guy and bomb and you posing would get you off if someone were to take this seriously...

@sam

The article also stated that ComCast did not block ALL torrent traffic. But the ones that it DID block (on uncopyrighted files) the computers recieved reset packages NOT sent by the other user, but rather generated elsewhere.

Was it unscientific...yes. Is it absolute...no. It may just be a trial to see if the software they're using works...

I"m a little confused on the "commercial property" aspect of this. Since the album is not yet finished, it isn't really commercial property in the sense that it is something that could be sold when it entered the US. It wasn't being sold in the US when it got there, it was being transfered for mastering (and most audio techs will likely agree that the 'original' is better than a copy). If it's "commercial property" as a work product, anyone who travels to the US for work across this particular entry point should also have things confiscated. For example, if an insurance salesman crossed there for a meeting in Seattle or wherever, and has client files(digital) with him, those, as a work product, should be seized?

I do see that this has gotten out of proportion, but I can understand why. It's a realitvely (sp) big name, with an anticipated album, which may be delayed by unrecognizable reasons.

@Timkuo

You 'might' be right on loitering. However, if this is the case, why only one person charged if he was in a group? If he was "standing still" as the report seems to indicate, does that mean that the others were "moving around" so as to not get charged with loitering? Or did they scatter when the cop showed up?

If there was a phone complaint (or any complaint) made, then the officer could easily have walked up to the group, said "Hey, someone complained about you being here, I'm just doing my job, would you mind moving on"...it's simple, it's easy...

As to "flailing hands"...I'm afraid that if I were ever arrested (for something like this) I would get charged for resisting. I talk with my hands alot. If arrested, I would likely throw my hands up in the air in a 'what did I do" fashion. Which, could be described as "flailing'...or resisting.

I think your generally right on the attitude here about it almost always being the polices fault. However, I must say that many people who are "bullied" by the police (which again is only a small portion of the force, but they do make the news...) are willing to accept without reasoning that they have committed an offence and want to be done with it. Take the fine or whatever and be done with it. I think Sen. Craig tried this and failed miserably.
Since when did loitering become an arrestable offence...I thought it was just a fine...

While this may appear as over-zealous'ness of the officer, who knows what they were thinking. I mean, there's a whole lot of unsolved crime in New York, maybe the officer thought this group of people were responsible for it. But coming back to reality, I do think it's funny that the A.D.A. even went ahead with charges. I use a phrase on a daily basis that I think needs to be said..."Are you retarded?"

Wait a tick...didn't they just announce this week that they were seriously considering scrapping the penny because they cost too much to produce?

And Steven, to add to the comment by Gloria...Toronto is about 1/2 billion dollars short in the budget. They have cut out a lot of pork from the budget, about 83 Million. Is there more that could be done...yes, of course there is, but Canada's largest city cannot afford to make serious cuts to much at this point. Watermains and Sewers are on average about 50 years old. They soon need to be replaced, or risk cave-ins and personal injuries.
Years of provincial cuts under the previous conservative government have left Toronto (as well as other cities) paying for things that they have not needed to in the past. Even with rising taxes and the like, the amount going out never came back to the amount coming in. The reserve money is gone, and BOTH provincial and Federal governments have surpluses. It's not that we want MORE money (though we do), we want our FAIR share of the tax money brought in provincially and federally.

I'm not saying the cops are lying, but there's a few phrases in the newest release (4:03 today) that seem to cause me some concern. The added the additional info that it was the chain(24 inches) from the shackles that was around (sorry, 'IN FRONT OF') her neck. Said chain was attached to her handcuffs and an eyehook on or near the bench she was on. So, I guess the cuffs were left on in the holding cell so they could use the shackles. The line that really got me in the press release was "I hope this helps". That seems to be a pretty non-standard phrase for a seemingly official release.

Personally, I do agree with the arrest (actually, I would say with her detainment, if it was a medical condition, she likely wouldn't be charged after all was said and done). I think that its possible she was de-toxing (it can have strange effects), or some other medical condition. I think we can forget about Quincy here (didn't he die?) Maybe Dr. House...

Other Activities

You are prohibited from engaging in any other activity, illegal or not, that AT&T determines in its sole discretion, to be harmful to its subscribers, operations, network(s), reputation, goodwill, or customer relations.

This appears to the the part of the AUP were talking about.
Methinks this may backfire on them. Once they do start kicking people out for criticizing them, those people will end up at another ISP...and THEN they will be FREE to say whatever they please. Speaking of which, do you think they have the technology to trace a posting back to you, if you post from say work or someone elses computer?
Would they be able to terminate you, even if you used another ISP to complain?

I think those who said that the prosecution is wrong are correct. I think the police acted almost appropriatly. Personally, I think "Down on the ground" for something like this is wrong. Not for any reason other than if it IS a bomb, how do you know there isn't a pressure switch or some other device that will set it off when your on the ground?
"Hands in the air, don't move" - that would work too.

And the officers comments AFTER the fact. That was wrong for him to say, it also doesn't fit the law. Basically he said "If she didn't do what we said, we would have shot her". What? No need for an escalation of violence, just for NOT doing what she's told (bomb or not, this is wrong).

@Ethan

I've had the same idea for a while, mainly because as a pedestrian, I see a lot of cops to a lot of stupid things. Recently I saw a group of cops surround a car guns drawn, no one decided to stop traffic in the area, so the cops made the cars turn around...fair enough. The downside to this was that they made them turn around NEXT to the car they had stopped. Of course, there was also the hotdog stand with about 10 people just out of the line of fire.

This of course it topped by a "Parking Enforcement Officer" - pronounced jerk. 3 mins before your free to park on the street, an officer in a car comes to give tickets. I saw about 7 traffic charges he could have had in the process of writing the 2 parking tickets. He almost got into 3 accidents in the span of those 3 minutes.

But of course, not all cops are bad...