If you set it to "85th percentile of observed traffic" you are selecting 15% to be targets of fines. Why 15 and not 20, or 10?
States with "reasonable and prudent" rather than "explicit speed limits" do a more logically consistent job here. Reasonable and prudent is what we're really looking for - everyone choose a speed that is safe for the conditions of the road, the vehicle, and the surrounding traffic.
The problem is that it's difficult to fine people for that, because it is partly subjective and different for every driver and weather conditions. It's much easier to set an explicit speed limit and then measure speeds. Explicit speed limits exist for the convenience of the courts, with safety of the road users as a distant secondary objective.
If you want to improve safety, then look into "traffic calming" measures. In particular those that cause drivers to perceive higher risk (and research into conditions where drivers falsely perceive lower risk). Even just drawing the lines narrower on a wide street can have an effect. If you design the road right, drivers will naturally choose the right speed for the environment without any need for a road nanny.
For Southern Germany, this is quite the deal, because they can now operate expensive gas turbines, and get them subsidized at least in part by electricity consumers in Northern Germany with higher energy prices, while the cheap energy generated in Northern Germany is switched off, as the energy on the books is sold already, but the electricity is generated somewhere else. But because Southern states profiteer from the situation right now, there is much resistance to changes in the law, which would make energy in the South more expensive, while Northern states would get a relief.
I for once neither like scuba diving, because I don't like the feeling of rubber on my skin, nor do I think skiing all year round is something important to do. I live in the Alps, I can go skiing whenever I feel like it anyway, but I barely do. And inhaling something from the boobs of some paid person was never a dream of mine. If that rocks your boat, why not find something who will do it because they like you, or they like the sensation of someone snorting something from their boobs? Ted Turner once said, Life was a game, and Money is how you keep score. Why in your opinion is chasing the next highscore in some computer game a worthwhile way to spend your time as a billionaire, while trying to increase your highscore in money is not?
Perhaps the simplest answer is to not assume any human is infallible.
No one seriously working in Cosmology does that. Indeed, there are a lot of theories out there trying to either displace or at least amend Einstein's General Relativity, like MoND or TeVeS. The problem: No one until now has come up with a good idea how to do it, and all the proposed alternatives don't work very well either, have to assume even more unknowns, or are outright wrong in places where GR has been shown to work. Until then, we continue to use GR, because we know, where it works fine, and we know, where it fails.
It's easy to sit in an armchair and wandwave some theories in existence which superseed General Relativity. It's really hard to actually write them down.
In short, Java was invented for a reason, and while it has become a victim of legacy cruft as well, the underlying concept of truly portable apps, with a minimum of fuss to jump from platform to platform, still ought to be the preferable path. The problem is that that true platform neutrality/ambiguity pretty much kills Microsoft in all but a few niches, like gaming, but only because hardware vendors put less effort into drivers for other operating systems.
Yes, Office is still king, although I think that crown is beginning to slip, and it may end up being Excel, with its large list of features, that may last the longest. But it isn't 1990, or even 2000 anymore. Developers have multiple ways of developing portable applications, and while MS may (for the nth time) update or swap out its toolchains, the real question is will developers really care?
While it is an enormous problem, possibly the most significant, we know how to shield against radiation, but it's going to take mass in the form of hydrogen-rich molecules like water or polyethylene (as examples). To solve that problem we are either going to have to make launches a lot cheaper, or figure out how to do it all in orbit.
It's at the edge of our technological capacity to produce such a spacecraft now, so the barrier is economic. That's a massive barrier, but in theory we definitely could, if we put a significant percentage of GDP of the wealthiest nations towards the project, produce a spacecraft that keep astronauts alive and relatively protected from ionizing radiation both on the journey and while on Mars.
As to your general assholery, I guess everyone has to have an outlet, though why Slashdot is a bit mysterious.
A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson