... Wow, curiosity is really not your forte, is it? Yes, this is a direct ad hominem, but hey it's more justified than calling someone out on their penis (funny joke right there, btw, classy.).

"Because it's there and we haven't been/know close to nothing about it" is a _perfectly_ good answer. This is science we're talking about, and raw research and exploration don't need another reason.

What's the solution? Not chase after him? Chase after him following speed limits and thus losing him?

The OP has a good point, it's technically better to deploy a helicopter. The problem is how long will it take to call for and have that helicopter chasing the car, and will you have lost all traces of it by then? Assuming the car stops on the side of the road then, without a car chasing it, are you going to then land the helicopter and arrest him, and how many people are in that helicopter in the first place? How much does it cost to field a helicopter, how many were available, and what were the chances of a real high-speed pursuit?

Those are just questions I have, but with my current lack of knowledge and information, I assume a car chase is the most practical thing they can do if they don't want to let a criminal go, even if they have to call in reinforcements (flying or otherwise).

Not to disagree with you, but in the eventuality of a revolution, I'm pretty the a right or not to a revolution given by a piece of paper written a couple hundred years ago is pretty meaningless. If it's a revolution, people don't need permission. Frankly, they don't necessarily even need weapons (that only determines whether you call your revolution peaceful or a civil war.. granted your chances of "success" are greater with weapons, all depending on your government).

Arguably the US does, it just doesn't know it yet. :)

Look, pretty much all cars split in half when they hit a pole at 100 MPH.

http://articles.latimes.com/20...
http://www.autoevolution.com/n...
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news...

How much are you betting that in that last article, the driver of the Maxima wasn't driving 100 MPH? Most highway limits are 65 MPH, you're talking 50% faster, which is perhaps not a "huge difference" but it's not negligible. It also doesn't matter if the car splits in half, as long as the driver is protected within the cage (look at how F1 cars crumple when they crash, without a pole, but protect the driver). What matters more is someone probably not wearing a seat belt...

Considering he stole the car from a Tesla service center, I'm pretty sure the police doesn't need to call Tesla to have them disable the car, so I doubt that kill switch exist. What do you think this is, a cellphone?

No, the door was open, and it's broadcasting because most users have no technical ability and don't know much about Wifi security.

But hey, even if the door says "open", it's a private house. The "normal" thing to do is knock, go "hey is anyone home?", enter, say hi and state your business. Else why the heck are you entering that door? Because if you enter, take pics of everything, read their documents ("Street View cars were accessing email, web history and other data"), and store it into your database for further investigation, that's CIA-level invasion of privacy. I don't even care if it's legal, it's just scummy.

Not everything that's possible should be done, and good job blaming the victim. I love Google as much as the next person, but hey, "Do no evil." Remember to be civil.

It feels nicer, smoother. It works better. Great for playing games. I never need a mousepad if I'm working, but it sure came in handy while trying to headshot across the map in CS.

Freedom. If she makes a mistake, she gets to pay for her abortion. Worse, if a woman gets raped and gets pregnant, she also gets to pay for her abortion

You were a retard during the weekend, drank yourself into oblivion and fell down a flight of stairs? Yep, covered.

I thought the debate on abortion was over, but I guess not. All in the name of religion, because religion is Righteous. It's not about freedom, it's about religion imposing its rule on the state and the law. If it's not about religion, then tell me why a clinical legal act should not be covered?

Wait. Isn't Slashdot supposed to link me to articles? I know no one RTFA, but if there isn't any link at all and just a blurb, what's the point?

Well then, I guess it's time we pass a new law, ain't it.

Or maybe "oh here's a door. I wonder if it's locked. Newp. Well then, I guess I better go inside, take some photos and read some of their documents. And then use that information for presumably commercial purposes. It's got to be legal and right, the door was unlocked."

I wouldn't, and never have, but I think at least part of it has to do with hardware sales and partners.

I'm dreading the day my laptop dies, and I know people who don't know what to do now and turned to Mac because they couldn't stand Windows 8 (the mother-in-law preferred learning Mac rather than deal with Win8, seriously. She bought a Win8 laptop when her old HP from like 2005 died, and returned it within the week.) That probably doesn't sit well with partners like Intel, Dell, etc, and limits sales of both hardware and software.

Gold actually is very useful, but because it's so expensive it's not used for a lot of things. Example, blocking X-rays (you know that piece of lead armor you have to wear at the dentist when they're taking a photo of your teeth?). Sure, a lot of the price is the inflated feel of "gold is gold", but if it ever became dirt-cheap, it would be used more.

Actually, I'd like to see everyone resort to gun. Have a full-on civilian militia (isn't that why you have the right to bear arms?) vs SWAT/police. I know in some places it's called civil war, but hey, if a non-governmental agency is sending armed forces to break into a civilian house, to me that sounds like it's already started.

If civilians actually defended themselves against those non-regulated "cops" and you ended up with a few (dozens, hundreds?) of dead people, maybe one or two good things could happen:
-Revisiting the second amendment
-Regulating the use of police