oh, crap, and a side note. we're assuming the light turned green immediately after he was pinged at 0. if it turned green 5 seconds after that, it's even worse in his case...

i only caught the part on the pressdemocrat link. missed a whole other link :D take one thing into account now, the rough 0-60 speed of a car, that can do 0-60 in 6.8 seconds. it would travel around 300 ft if the speed was exactly the same the whole distance to 60. thats the other part we need in this equation and we're golden. if it took him 300 ft to get to 60 at 6.8 seconds. he has 23.2 seconds to continue 1700 ft. so he'd of been doing, 73 :D now figure in his car was really slower then that, but 65 would be about right in the end result. no matter the year of celica, i doubt it was doing 0-60 in 6.8, unless mommy and daddy paid a load of cash to make it go faster... he sped. i think if gps proved he wasnt speeding, it'd of been nice. but they spent all this time fighting a case, where he was speeding anyways. oy vey

The problem of this calculus you mention wasnt the speed at the end, nor even the beginning. we're missing a piece of information to properly go through this. distance. it says at a stop light, he was 0, then the next ping was 45. but the problem becomes distance covered in that 30 seconds. tie in the math, etc. if it says 45 on the ping, thats worthless. we need to know how far he traveled in 35 seconds to get an average speed, and, for the sake of argument, his vehicles 0-60 speed as well to get the stats on how quickly he could have possibly gone up to 60, nearly where they "clocked" him. obviously, his average speeds worthless, and his speed 30 seconds after his initial of 0 is worthless. we need the distance traveled in that 30 seconds. And TFA says "virtually" the same location. For all we know, he spotted the cop, hit his brakes and was doing 45 when he was pinged. Distance is key ... notice how TFA forgets that wonderful detail. And, I'm sure as a teenager, with a GPS, he knew that if he hit 70, theyd get an email alert. Heck, he probably knew that if he wanted to, he could go 69, wait for a ping, if he had timed them right, speed up to 100 and brake to 69 again, all before the second ping... I guess the parents forgot that Teenager + Technology is generally > Parents + technology

Talk about going overboard with this offshore server buisness... Jeez

When you get down to it, it is quite surprising the kinds of music my generation will listen to when given the chance. As was stated in another comment, in the past it was limited to what they wanted you to hear. You would be limited to the selection on the radio and nothing more. Now, with piracy galore and plenty of music services, such as Pandora, you get a taste of other varieties and artists you would never have heard before. I can go from listening to Heavy Metal to Techno to Country and then into Classical. My taste is open, simply because of piracy and the free services available. As time progresses, it'll be interesting to see how this shapes. Mainly because of how much the various MAFIAAs are trying to kill piracy in its whole, without an alternative, and yet refuse to decrease the price of a media that costs 1/50th to produce and distribute as they charge for it in a retail store. They continue to push and shove for people who pirate music to pay hugely outrageous fines, and yet they dont make it available at a reasonable price. Imagine having to go to a store and pay $15 for a loaf of bread, simply because they can charge that much and get away for it. It's a matter of time until fat people galore go running out of the store with 8 loaves stuffed in their pants. It stuns many of the people I talk to when they ask how I can go from one genre to another without being phased, and enjoy it all just the same, and I answer that without being forced to listen to only popular media and having the ability to open my horizons more then most, I can find more music and movies to enjoy then most people would ever dream... well, except everyone here. Not that any of us would ever pirate anything in our lives... of course not. Yayyyy Piracy! I mean ... ehh, heck with it

One of these days, I'll stop opening my trunk every time I type something

I would like a warrant for the Senates email accounts please... All of em...

But it'd always be amusing to watch...

Never know these days ... he probably just released a version on the internet by "accident" and let the hackers go from there, its probably such a minimal change that no one would care to fix/remove it

And dont forget, it's also a problem with the hosting users hardware at that. I know of 9 CoD4 and 5 servers (4 of those at 48 players nearly 24hrs a day), running on one dedicated box, that can handle said abuse, running around 8-35% cpu depending on time of day, and constantly pushing around 10mbit/s but as high as 50 when all the servers were loaded up. Top that with 4GB ram used just on those 9 servers. Thats on an 8 core server w/ 8GB ram on a 100mbit line. (Purchased with intent of using the left over ram on CoD5 servers) Now imagine this on the whim of a 15 year old who cant afford to get anything better then mommys 5 year old hp media center pc... Consoles have one thing, consistency. We lack it as we prefer to build our own pc or buy a premade one from some no name manf. This will be hell on hosting a "session" for other people if your computer cant handle it, much less network. I know that of the people I'm 100% positive who have canceled their pre orders, myself included, 12 of which could handle it system wise, 8 of those 12 could do it network wise. 8 people couldnt do it system wise at all. 20 people they arent getting money from in just one small group. I know of about 5 people who, despite hating no dedicated support, will still pay for the game. As a side note to Aim Here. CoD4 and 5 dont require excessively huge amounts of bandwidth to host a simple multiplayer dedicated. Operation Flashpoint 2, requires FIVE TIMES the amount of bandwidth as CoD4 or 5. Am I saying most home users could do 32, or even 10 player sessions ... no. But, a FIOS, or higher end cable or DSL plan, could do it. In the US, it'd be a pain to accomplish since many users are on simple 768kbit dsl or cable plans. 50 a month (around the cost of cable internet usually, and 10-15 more then a verizon dsl) will get you around 20-25 players. 65 would get you around 60 as a maximum, but higher is very possible.