Welcome to Criminal Justice 101.

Your first homework assignment is to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_evidence_rule

Spoiler alert: Doing it is possible, but only in certain circumstances and it raises questions that you'd rather avoid as a prosecution. So they don't do it if they don't have to.

(If it sounds snarky, I didn't mean to be. Trying to be funny but also informative...)

No. That's why the standard for conviction is "reasonable doubt".

Did you miss the part where I said: "the Iraq war is a grossly egregious waste of money"?

I don't see how you don't understand the difference between government (money is taken from me at gunpoint without me having any choice in the matter) and private industry (money is given by me to a private party only in the case where the transaction is mutually beneficial). You're darn tootin' in the former case I'm going to care a lot more if the money is wasted.

It's that thinking that perpetuates the problem. A whole lot of "it's not as bad as..." adds up quickly, no different than all of those little incidentals on a day-to-day cumulatively impact your budget more than most people realize. Just because the Iraq war is a grossly egregious waste of money doesn't mean that we ignore waste elsewhere.

Private industry (with a few notable exceptions) that wastes too much money will go out of business because its products will be too expensive. The government has no such economic pressures; it simply taxes more or borrows more. In government, it's OUR money being wasted.

I believe it's perfectly consistent to be outraged at the waste of tax money while simultaneously not condemning a similar waste in the private sector. (Taxpayer-funded bailouts, government-supported monopolies, etc. notwithstanding)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL135uL2XZA

:)

I stand slightly corrected; that is not the official Ron Paul website. It still accurately describes his position.

Oh, I think "leave it to the states" is a perfectly constitutional opinion.

From his own position description at http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/:

Even if you only count one apartment building demolished, the F-18 still has a better combat record than the F-22.

(I only joke because there were no fatalities!)

The slashdot staff DOES know better. If you think this doesn't bother them, you're dead wrong.

Like many of us, they're sitting around on corporate telecons hearing about how they're going to "monetize blah blah corporatespeak". About their only choice is to quit and take another job. I certainly don't think we want that, because eventually those who fill their shoes will be selected as ones who are much more in-line with corporate philosophy, and NO ONE will be left to at least voice concerns.

This "story" is repugnant, and I'm all about the anger, but aim it somewhere other than the editors.

So you'd never investigate anomalous network activity on your network because clearly your perimeter defenses would keep the hackers out?

C'mon now; I loathe the TSA as much as anybody else, but if you don't get the concept of defense in depth you're probably not qualified to throw stones...

So is relativity, but your GPS wouldn't work if it didn't compensate for relativistic effects.

(Not that I am in any way defending or condemning AGW. I just hate seeing misuse of terms.)

Laurel, Delaware gave me a ticket for 30 in a 25. I was talking in terms of certainty. I wouldn't put it past my own town's police to give me a ticket for less than 10 over. I generally try to drive SLOWER than the speed limit when I know they're around. (Particularly when they're stuck behind me. Yeah, I'm that guy.)

Also, your use of percentages is kinda pointless here. If I set a speed limit of 2 and you're going 4, that's 200% of the maximum speed, but kinda irrelevant from a safety perspective. (Unless you're driving the crawler-transporter at Kennedy Space Center...)

Now 55 vs 80, that's a different matter altogether.

Usually, perhaps. Not for me. Again; it's the way my brain works. Digital clocks since like age 11. Trust me, I put a lot of thought into it. When you're losing 1,000 feet per 6 seconds, it's important to chose your instrumentation wisely. :)

More to your point about the GPS, I'm generally not reading text. I'm looking at a 3D graphical representation of the road, and occasionally an arrow with a number indicating which direction I will turn at what distance. At least for me, it's pretty easy to perceive useful information from it relatively quickly.

We're entering circular argument territory here, but I'll re-iterate: When you're legally compelled to operate your vehicle at or below a specific speed, you are obligated to be very aware of the actual speed at which you are operating it. Guesswork isn't acceptable at that point. That means keeping an eye on the speedometer. No, not staring at it. But consulting it periodically. (Apropos to the subject, I usually just glance over at the digital readout on my window-mounted GPS. For me, it's much safer and easier that way.) Personally, I'd far prefer to just be able to operate the vehicle at a reasonable speed and ignore the speedometer, and often that's exactly what I do. But when there's heavy enforcement, I'll comply with their demands, even if it means decreasing my safety margin a little bit by diverting my attention. *shrug*

The point being, there are all sorts of distractions related to operating the vehicle. Navigation (GPS-based or otherwise) is one of them. Dashboard gauges are another. It's just something that must be accepted as a part of driving.

Bottom line is that GPS helps make me safer. Risk trade-off, yes; it's a slight distraction. But it also helps me avoid having to do crazy "oh, crap, I need to turn left here" lane changes by giving me plenty of warning about where I need to be, it keeps me from having to look at a map or try to read my handwriting on a post-it note, and even gives me my vehicle's speed without having to look down at the dash. Relative risk.

I'm going to bed now. :)

Nope. I'm exactly the opposite. For instance, I'm a skydiver who actually switched to a digital altimeter because I would find myself staring at a needle trying to figure out what the pointy thing was telling me about my altitude. Glancing at my altimeter now I see "5.8" and know what it means immediately. Otherwise, I need to scan the face, determine what numbers the needles is near, get a sense of how close it is to the number, etc. etc. It's just the way my brain works.

Eh. Two out of 3 of my vehicles are manuals. It's hilly around there, it's tough to maintain a constant speed, and I don't trust my own assessment of my current speed (especially when I switch between a sport bike and an F-250.) I find it humorous the number of folks who have replied to my post essentially telling me that I shouldn't be looking at my speedometer, but instead should just "feel" how fast I'm going. IME that doesn't work so well in court; the judges don't take kindly to the "I didn't THINK I was going that fast" defense. And somehow *I* am the bad driver for not overestimating my ability to maintain at or below a specific speed. *chuckle*

My understanding is that exactly the opposite happens. Because of adiabatic heating, the air being compressed into an aircraft cabin actually needs to be cooled (it's bled off of compressors for the jet engine). At least, that's what I've been told by a few people.