I would doubt that is the case, I seriously doubt any cop would take a taser to a gun-fight, the range is limited, it is not as accurate, limited reload speed, etc. Tasers are normally used on the level below deadly force, the same level where bean-bag shotguns, batons or certain physical attacks might be. In theory these devices shouldn't kill, but they might. Theoretically, they are used when 'this person is actively trying to hurt someone'. But some areas might have tasers on the 'person is doing stuff to not be controlled, but it shouldn't really hurt anyone (running, balling themselves up, etc)' level.

BTW being tased isn't a big deal, it is not like on TV, after the 5 seconds, you are fine, you can hop right back up. That is the problem, a taser is a 'pain-compliance' tool, like pressure points, if someone wants to they can go right back to fighting, or at least resisting right after the 5 seconds, so the cop will use it again, etc. That is how you get stories of cops tasing someone 15 times, because (in theory) the person continued to resist 14 times.

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=43107

In Hawaii they recently passed a cellphone law, but emergency workers in the performance of their duties are except. I'm assuming that is a fairly standard practice.

The police aren't going to do anything about it. They *might* make a quick pass thru the area before relaying that they were unable to find the vehicle.

All you are doing it taking up valuable time away from the 911 call takers, police dispatchers and police officers.

[citation needed]

I don't buy it, if only for the logic behind it:

Uranium is easy enough to purchase that the tobacco company can purchase large amounts of it to add it to cigarettes. But the countries are unable to purchase the uranium directly so they are forced to purchase billions of dollars worth of cigarettes in order to be able to produce weapons.

Really? That sounds like the plot to the worst Bond movie ever.

Because I want to see what Amy's obscene tattoo is.

Whoops, I stand corrected.

Off-topic: But KFC doesn't really stand for "Kentucky Fried Chicken" anymore. They wanted to distance themselves from the bad word of 'fried' and show that they can sell other things (fish, etc). If you go to one, look around, you won't see Kentucky Fried Chicken anywhere in the store (well, one store in my area has some classic posters on the wall that say it, but nothing else).

w00t!

It's a matter of perspective. If you are the company that sells BAD_WIDGET but you make a lot of money doing so, it is a 'good' product. Just because reviewers and everyone else doesn't like it, doesn't change the fact that it is making you money.