Efficiency has nothing to do with it.
The reason you add two spaces is because the additional space aids your eyes in determining individual sentences. Two spaces gives the eyes an additional visual cue, and thus is far easier to parse.
Please explain why you used one space between all sentences in your post.
It's a single run-on sentence with gratuitous punctuation.
Unicorn meat is murder!
Stop the needless killing of endangered species!
We seem to have lots of chickens and cows and pigs. Maybe we should eat endangered species. Then we'd have lots of those animals, too!
I thought the USA was the sue-happy country. Don't we have a patent on it or something? Italy better start preparing for a lawsuit from the U.S.
Hey, US attorneys have to vacation somewhere.
The BSA president said, "Few if any industries could withstand the theft of $51 billion worth of their products." It's unclear whether that was a brag about the industry's robustness, or a result of the industry's low cost of goods sold.
I'd say what is clear is the proctological origin of the number.
JSo yes, SCO is still getting representation, but it is inexperienced, fresh-out-of-law-school representation... which explains a lot of what you see in their filings.
Well, it explains a little of what you see in their filings. A lot of the explanation is that reality conflicts with their assertions.
In the UK we have lots of 'speed warning' signs. When you approach them, if you are exceeding the speed limit, they light up and tell you (and anyone behind you) how fast you are going. And that's all. No penalties. They seem to make a significant difference in residuntial areas. I think they are often paid for by the local community rather than the state.
In Portugal I saw a cute system - if you pass a sensor driving faster than the speed limit, then a traffic signal 200yards/metres down the road turns red for 10 seconds, making you (and again anyone behind you) stop.
The psychology behind these systems is interesting - both rely on shaming you in front of other drivers. The Portugese system goes further and makes other drivers angry with you for speeding.
We have those in the US as well. We use them to see if our speedometers are calibrated as we fly past them.
Roadside technology that *might* work here would be randomly located (and frequently moved) strobes that flash regardless whether there's a camera attached. Every time I see *that* flash (so far I've not been the driver posing for the closeup) I do pay more attention to my speed.
We'd probably do a better job in reducing "dangerousness" by making the penalty for repeated speeding and reckless driving something more serious than it is. Maybe death
The penalty for driving drunk is often death and some people don't seem to mind much.
Quite true. But in those cases when that penalty is applied to the actual drunk driver, repeat offenses do decline somewhat. Not as great a deterrent when the penalty is arbitrarily applied elsewhere, of course.
Many aligators will be slain, but the swamp will remain.