The District of Columbia installed "300 acoustic sensors across 20 square miles of the city" nearly a decade ago in a project called "ShotSpotter". The system has detected 39,000 gunshots in the system's eight-year history.
According to the Washington Post,
ShotSpotter is also linked to a system of closed-circuit cameras, which police hope will capture the aftermath of shootings in real time. To guard against vandalism, officials do not publicize the sensors’ appearance or reveal their locations.
ShotSpotter information is “not frequently used at trials” but has helped prosecutors establish the number or sequence of shots, the time of gunfire and whether more than one gun was fired, said William Miller, spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office.
A
zoom-able map is also available here from the Post.
MA thought that C-25 would be damaged because I stored
ReplyDeleteit below zero for long-term storage. Such a funniest joke!
I posted a question of troubleshooting my experiments on researchgate, "We found a novel compound......", MA thought I offended his trade secret. So funny!
All research data was produced by myself. What I deleted was a old copy of my experimental data from my lab computer. So called "MCOW computer" and "protected computer" were my lab computer.
I didn’t apply for any Chinese fund about C-25.
There is no evidence that MCW has a patent of C-25. And also, MA didn’t apply for any grant of C-25.
On April 1,2013, I appeared again before Magistrate Judge Gorence and was ordered detained based on the risk of flight because I was a Chinese. No bail!
And also, in the first two weeks, jail officials deprived me of my correspondence right.
On February 22, 2013, I was summoned to a meeting with the 76-year-old full professor MA and MCW officials because of my lengthy absence. They set a schedule for me to finish my first authored manuscript about C25 before March 15, 2013. Sometime that same day, MA misplaced three pill bottle sized container s of C25 (actually only two bottles of C-25). On February 25, 2013, MCW officials sent an email to MCW employees reporting that MA had misplaced the bottles of C-25, indicating that MA believed he had left
ReplyDeletethe pill bottles in a conference room.But later MA told MCW security that he put the compound in his office.
February 27, 2013, MCW officials took my personal laptop and external drive and other personal property from me without my willing and I was suspended. On the evening of that same day, I thought that MCW officials’ action was illegal and was afraid of losing my own data including MA lab’s and my former lab’s. Also, Somebody told me that my laptop was still on my desk. So, I returned the lab. But I found that my personal property was gone, later, I found a flash drive to make a copy from my lab computer to protect my own data.This is so called “ accessing information without authorization from a protecd computer”.
ReplyDelete“There is no evidence that the defendant was attempting to commit fraud or to profit from his conduct in this case. Nor is there any evidence demonstrating that the defendant intended to cause any loss to the victim or to anyone else. It
ReplyDeleteappears that the defendant was trying to protect data which he helped compile
relating to cancer research. Additionally, he has in effect served a sentence
during the course of this case by virtue of his detention over the last 4 plus
months. Moreover, the defendant has expressed genuine remorse for his conduct and the likelihood of recidivism is extremely low. “ from Judge Charles N. Clevert.
1. No reliance can be placed on MCW’s evidence.
ReplyDelete(1) On February 22, 2013, I was summoned to a meeting with the
76-year-old full professor MA and MCW officials because of my lengthy
absence. They set a schedule for me to finish my first authored manuscript
about C25 before March 15, 2013. Sometime that same day, MA misplaced three pill bottle sized container s of C25. On February 25, 2013, MCW officials sent an email to MCW employees reporting that MA had misplaced the bottles of C-25, indicating that MA believed he had left the pill bottles in a conference room. But later MA told MCW security that he put the compound in his office. Such a typical circumvention!
(2) MA thought that C-25 would be damaged because I stored it at below zero for long-term storage. Such a funny joke!
(3) I posted a question for troubleshooting on researchgate, "We (I) found a novel compound......", MA thought I offended his trade secret about C-25.
So funny!
(4) I didn’t apply for any Chinese fund about C-25.
(5) There was no evidence that MCW had a patent of C-25. And
also, MA didn’t apply for any grant of C-25.Just a big liar!
2. Substantially, MCW and MA attempted to deprive me of my credit and contribution.
(1) February 27, 2013, MCW officials took my personal laptop and external drive and other personal property from me without my willingness and I was suspended. On the evening of that same day, I thought that MCW officials’ action was illegal and was afraid of losing my own data including MA lab’s and my former lab’s. Also, Somebody told me that my laptop was still on my desk.So, I returned the lab. But I found that my personal property was
gone, later, I found a flash drive to make a copy from my lab computer to protect my own data. This is so-called “ accessing information without authorization from a protected computer”. Have to do like this for being released.
(2) All research data was produced by myself. What I deleted was a old copy of my experimental data from my lab computer. So called "MCOW computer" and "protected computer" were my lab computer.
3. On April 1,2013, I appeared again before Magistrate Judge Gorence and was ordered detained based on the risk of flight. No bail!
4. And also, in the first two weeks, jail officials deprived me of my correspondence right.
5. “There is no evidence that the defendant was attempting to commit fraud or to profit from his conduct in this case. Nor is there any evidence demonstrating that the defendant intended to cause any loss to
the victim or to anyone else. It appears that the defendant was trying to
protect data which he helped compile relating to cancer research. “ from Judge Charles N. Clevert.