I would hazard a guess that she's not actually a student in this class (possibly not even at the school), but is, at best, 'auditing' the class, and more likely just sitting in on a lecture that's open to all students (and maybe the public) because he's got all those replica skulls there as a presentation, which makes this look like it's not a normal class presentation. I sat in on a number of 'classes' like this when I was 12-13, and even was allowed (indeed encouraged) to participate in the discussions...but I knew more about science than this woman did even at that age, so it's not as outrageous as it sounds.

If I'm wrong, and that is really the level of education required to be a science student at Berkeley these days, we are totally screwed as a nation and the only smart move left is to move to New Zealand. Actually, that's a good move no matter what!

More from my favorite Satanist has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

My Favorite Californian Inventor has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

The Best (Fan Made) Hockey Video Ever! has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

One part macelet... one part mace... ARGH! has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

How Vincent Dooly starts his day... has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Yeah, I'm a little disappointed by the unnecessary misquotes and 'making up arguments' myself, sort of kills the debate. I never made excuses for the cops, and I always agreed they were in the wrong. I never said Hammond was a threat to anyone, or that I felt threatened by filming.

What I have been saying, again and again, is that he can be a tool for intentionally trying to provoke this reaction, even if the cops are completely wrong. It's not a discussion about whether or not his action was legal, but you keep on bringing up the cops reaction as though that is relevant. Which makes it sound as though your argument is: "as long as what he did was legal, he can't be a tool for doing it." Which I disagree with; see also 'open carry' protests etc.

As for what effect the first amendment audits will have on legislation, I imagine it'll be a similar scenario as when corporations exploit tax loopholes. Once somebody comes up with a clever way to remain within their legal rights but still act like an asshole, the system tries to evolve to close those loopholes. I'm all for trying to steer the system in the right direction, but I'm not going to applaud those exploiting loopholes to act like assholes.

As for the strange argument about the watch list, I don't know what you're trying to say - I already told you he's on the list and that I don't think that necessarily means anything. What more did you want to say about that?

Are you going to get back to, again, the fact that the cops were in the wrong? I think we haven't explored that angle yet, let's try going over it three or four times more.

Well then we're back to the original discussion - if you think that every behavior on the wrong side of the law is 'bad' and every behavior on the right side of the law is 'good,' then you have an astounding amount of faith in the quality of the laws. I'm arrogant (and I'm legally trained) so I believe that I have an obligation to break certain laws, and an obligation to not exercise certain rights that I technically have, because I'd just make society worse.

I don't believe that these kinds of audits, or the open carry demonstrations, are good ways to reduce police abuse. Quite the opposite - by 2013 almost half the states had stop and identify statutes, and people like this, who are intentionally pretending to be threats in order to provoke poor reactions, are pushing the remaining states to adopt similar restrictions on citizen freedom. This makes society more fearful, not freer.

(I don't know why he's on the watch list. They might think he's a Sovereign Citizen, another group of hero assholes, who happen to be classified as a domestic terror group (of heroes). I doubt he is, but I have no illusions about the effectiveness of the watch lists)

I didn't think I 'switched back' to anything. It's been my position all along that the only one in the wrong was the cop, and that his behavior of not talking, while rude in normal society, is prudent, proper behavior when dealing with law enforcement, and the advice given by numerous high priced lawyers.

Part of living in a 'free' society is we must accept the restraints it puts on law enforcement, and the loss of some ability to keep us 'safe'. The founding fathers understood that clearly, and made sure it was clear they intended it to be that way. To paraphrase Franklin, 'those that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary 'safety' deserve neither'. In a free country, in the contest between a citizen's rights and law enforcement's ability to do their job, the citizen should always come out on top, even though that's more dangerous.

Is he really on the 'watch list'? Would that be just because he's an activist? If so, that kind of inclusion is exactly what's made the 'watch list' a bad joke rather than a real tool against terrorism.

Without people putting their freedom in jeopardy to do this kind of 'audit', an audit the cops unsurprisingly failed miserably, the right to not self incriminate (and many others) would be gone...these officers believed it already WAS gone because apparently no one had ever stood up to them before. The camera was necessary because without the proof of the entire interaction, he would NEVER have been released without charges. It sucks ass that we need people to do this, but obviously we do. If we didn't need this kind of public 'testing' (because the cops act properly), this video would be pretty boring and uninteresting.
That's why I don't see him or his behavior as being a 'tool'. Others make cops 'nervous' all the time, people without the resources and knowledge to come out of the situation on top who end up in jail for not breaking any law, but just making cops nervous just because of how they look, or because of their personality, or other factors beyond their control. Hopefully this public 'shaming' will stop others from being accosted over nothing.

Please don't keep switching back to saying that what the cops did was wrong and making it seem like that's what we're in disagreement about. I'm fully in agreement with you that what they did was wrong and illegal in Virginia, and would be in a little more than half the country. In all the 24 states with stop and identify requirements, their actions would have been legal, but not in VA. I'm not arguing that what they did was correct, professional, or legal - I've never said that. This is why I asked you to consider what this guy would be like if he hadn't been arrested, to take their behavior out of the equation for just a sec.

(to be fair, if we take the extreme opposite scenario into consideration - if somebody had driven a truck full of explosives into the FBI building the day after, and the media finds out that a lone white man with a gun holster and a camera, who's on the terrorist watch list*, had been standing in full sight and filming the federal reserve and the FBI all day before, the cops would most likely get pilloried for not detaining him)

The only place thing that we disagree is on his personality, which I aver leans towards the 'tool' end of the spectrum. He can be right and a tool. He went out of his way to provoke a reaction, in what he and his peers call a "first amendment audit," and tried to make cops nervous to see if he could catch them overreacting. That kind of behavior is what drives the implementation of harsher anti-citizen legislation.

*I doubt he's actually a terrorist; he's just on the watch list.

*dead since http://movieclips.com/watch/embed/mulholland-dr-2001/bettys-audition/ is gone.

Your video, Game of Thrones Audition Reel, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

My own take on this is that I shouldn't just buy more expensive clothes...

I can do things to make my clothes last longer and that they aren't treated as a disposable commodity by reducing the number of washes (always bugs me when people wear a pair of trousers for a day or even just a few hours and then chucks them in the washing machine) as well as picking appropriate clothing for whatever task I'm currently doing.

I can help recycle clothes by making better use of charity shops, both in giving clothes to them and by purchasing from them.

I can buy clothes from retail stores that audit their entire supply chain. I'm fed up of retailers who have one or two lines of responsibly sourced clothing that they use for marketing and advertising purposes, but the rest of their stock does not receive such diligence. It doesn't seem right that they can paint a fair image of themselves by only selling one or two garments of clothing that come from sources where employees are treated and paid decently.

Most importantly I can do something simple like ignoring fashion trends. I am comfortable with my choice of clothing, I don't need to buy what everyone else is wearing. Unfortunately it's hard to make this point stick with others when our culture is so heavily dominated by consumerism and we're made to feel 'uncool' because we're not buying into the latest trends.

Totally understand your cynicism @deathcow, in all likelihood it's what'll probably happen. I guess I'm just gonna focus on what little I can do to make a difference

Super combative terminal jokey from the winning team is on camera saying he can't close IE On a system that is supposed to be secure ... I'm guessing CTF at DEF CON would wipe the floor with these folks.

Claiming to have "won" against the NSA at the end, more like failed less than the others.

These exercises are fine in themselves, but anybody who knows what they are doing and has been tasked to comply with NIST security controls ( the ones the US Gov requires) will notice that many of the requirement unambiguously reduce the security of the system, and the folks who audit these projects don't care how bad it is as long as it's checked on the list.

The problem for the military is that regimentation, "sailor proof" instructions and other necessities of running a massive organization that has to assume the lowest common denominator just don't work in computer security. If people don't know what they are doing no amount of check-listing is going to solve the problem.

Anybody who really knows what they are doing -- as some of these students may one day -- will realize that you have to choose one or the other optimal security or regulation compliance.

disclaimer: my rant may be excessive, I just wasted 18mo building a server cluster that needed to pass gov audit - so I'm bitter

Your video, Robert Trujillo auditions to become next Metallica bassist, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The correct phrase is "beat out". This is commonly used when describing the winner/winning of an audition. Examples from Google: "She eventually beat out 3000 other girls for the role" and "Here's a look at the actresses she beat out".

No kidding. The audition is notable because he nailed the American accent so well that the director forgot/didn't realize that it was Hugh Laurie, but he was quite well known before that. In fact he was on location filming a movie, and he apologises as that being the reason for his haggard appearance. Another happy coincidence, as they decided such a look was great for House.

Yes, count me in the list of people bumped by the inaccurate title. Several of those were auditions for actors when they were already well-known and some of those people never became stars.