This isn't true. Well, mostly.

Any work you create is copyrighted; however, it's unenforceable unless registered, assuming you live in the US.

Oh good, so it's already based on science. Excellent.

Speed limits need to be tied to scientific methodology on what should be the best speed. In a democracy it lies to the citizens to advocate such a change.

Yes, you do. And you're going to have to find another way to do it. By that time society will have given you plenty of warning that your behavior is unacceptable, so because of repeated conscious decision to put others at risk, you cannot be trusted and your privileges are revoked. The consequences are a result of your own actions and despite of any obligations you may have, it isn't society's obligation to help you fulfill them.

Your analogy is wrong. My analogy is saying, "Just because a policy's implementation is flawed does not mean the policy is inherently flawed."

Speed limits should be based on science, not on, "Whatever speed the driver feels is safe enough."

They should accept zero tolerance. If you don't like the law then petition to have it changed.

The only reason raising speed limits is safer is because people refuse to follow it. If you can't see that going slower is safer, then I think you need to retake physics.

Basically just fining people doesn't help.

The logical conclusion here isn't that red light cameras and speed cameras are ineffective, it's that the punishment for them is ineffective. But since TFA has a bias about wanting to speed and endanger the lives of everyone around him so he can get somewhere a few minutes faster, he has to form irrational conclusions that because the cameras aren't working, the whole policy is stupid and should be forgotten, rather than just its implementation.

Imagine if we applied the same logic to programming: "Well this program doesn't really do what we want it to, better just bin the whole thing."

Maybe speeding cameras won't be necessary when everyone has self-driving cars that follow the laws. But since there's an epidemic of breaking the law, more drastic punishments must clearly be taken. A strikes method should probably be implemented, where drivers are issued a fine, a suspension of their license, and finally if the problem persists, a total invalidation of their license. I fear this may be the only implementation that protects people.

Don't break the law if you don't wish to have your license revoked, it's basically that simple.

Good, maybe after everyone keeps getting ticketed they'll slow down.

The funny part is that the only one who looks bad is China.

Here's the things, these investors, me being one of them, aren't dumb and don't demand instant pay-offs. In fact, people who play the market expecting instant pay-offs are more than likely about to get burned.

“Imagine if Gmail users might not get through to Chinese clients. Many people outside China might be forced to switch away from Gmail.”

This isn't how the internet works.

Pretty much.

Money speaks louder than threats.

I'm more curious how superior this is to using a burner phone.

A high altitude nuclear detonation can wipe out all electronics within a fairly large area.

So then, what robots?

And they're outnumbered 99 to 1.

This is the kind of thing that causes revolution.

Yeah it's kind of actually BS that students with degrees are given a fair shake while people without degrees are shafted for programming jobs. It should be taken on merit. Why would an employer want to turn down a self-motivated candidate that spent his weekends reading documentation with a portfolio full of projects for a fresh out of college kid who spent his weekends getting drunk with a small portfolio of school projects?