"A cable TV company... whose sole purpose is to broadcast TV..."
Uhh, no. The cable TV company has many purposes. The initial purpose was to be a community antenna system -- which meant it served to carry the signals from broadcast stations to people who could not or did not want to install their own antennas. In those days, the broadcast stations were crying for a regulation called "must carry", which meant that a cable system MUST carry a broadcast station in their area. This was designed to remove the power to limit broadcasters reaching audiences. (If a cable system serving a large area chose not to carry your station, you lost viewership because cable customers are less likely to bother with antennas to get your station.) "Must carry" included a "at no cost to the cable company" clause, so any broadcaster invoking "must carry" could not be paid for the content.
Eventually, satellite-delivered services became the majority of cable TV programming. This is now a large part of the cable purpose.
To say that the sole purpose of cable TV is to broadcast TV is simply ridiculous. Cable TV has never been a broadcast service, and it has no "sole" purpose.
"having a 'broadcast TV fee' on top of it's existing fee"
You don't understand the purpose of the broadcast fee. It is not a fee for delivering cable programming to you. It is a fee that pays the broadcast stations that have chosen to opt out of the "must carry" rule and instead choose to charge the cable company for the privilege of carrying their content. It is a fee paid to the broadcast stations, passed along to the cable subscriber. The cable companies managed to get rules in place to make that fee visible to the consumer so they would know how much the local broadcasters are charging, instead of simply hiding it in the regular service fee.
It's politics. Whenever a broadcast station tries to up the fees or get contract language that the cable operator will not agree to, you will often see a crawl on that channel saying "Call station XYZ at (123) 456-7890 and tell them you want them to be carried on your Comcast service", or words like that. By putting the broadcast fees as a line item, people can see just how much they are being required to pay for "free" broadcast TV on the cable system, and induce them to side with the cable company in the contract battle.
I'm saying the doctor is the one making the final call on the prescription being made, not you, and that's the way it should be. They're equipped to decide, you're not.
That is absurd and utter nonsense. The PATIENT makes the final call. The doctor is not equipped to decide all issues regarding quality of life for anyone except himself. I've already given one example where the doctor's "final call" was a call to berate the patient for failure to follow instructions that the "doctor" hadn't even bothered to give to the patient, and another where the doctor's "final call" would be to issue a prescription for a drug that would have been the final call for a pilot.
The doctor has information about what drugs do what things, and what drugs shouldn't go together. That doesn't mean the patient shouldn't have the same information, and shouldn't be provided current information through outside means. Banning ads would not solve your issues with "self-prescription" or whatever, since self-prescription isn't legal already. You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
If your doctor has brainwashed you into accepting his word as final, then you need to find a new doctor. You're being set up to be just another cog in the medical machinery, getting the stock answers to the stock problems and doing the same thing every other cog does because it's easiest for the doctor to write a scrip and move on to the next patient. You're being trained to do what the doc says because it is simpler for him to prescribe the same thing to you that he did to the last ten people with the same problem, and it takes time to pay attention to what you need and want and what other options there are. Cookie-cutter medicine. HMOs love it.
Bad doctors want you to say what you are saying. Good doctors don't. I've come across enough of both in the last decade to be able to tell the difference, and to differentiate based solely on the "I have the final say" attitude. What's interesting is that the bad doctors I've had were all PAs under the control of one MD, so it's hard to tell if the attitude was pushed on them from the top or was part of their PA training. I'm betting that it is a little of both. The PA worked for that MD because that MD supported the "do what I say" attitude the PA was taught.
I was thinking, "They shouldn't have the ability to self-prescribe prescription medications," but the way it was phrased it sounded like I was suggesting that everyone should place themselves at the complete mercy of the doctors. That was a failure in communication on my part.
Consumers do not have the ability to self-prescribe prescription medications currently, and advertising has nothing at all to do with that. Banning ads won't prevent it, nor will allowing ads allow it. Claiming that there ought to be a ban on advertising of drugs because people shouldn't be able to self-prescribe is like calling for a ban on advertising of airlines because consumers shouldn't be allowed to fly airplanes filled with other people.
All that banning ads will do is keep information out of the hands of the consumer so they cannot as easily participate (or in many cases, know they need to participate) in the process of their own medical care. Does having that information mean that the consumer is going to run right out and buy whatever it is being advertised? Of course not, because they can't write the prescription, and the ad does nothing to change that. Does it mean the doctor is going to immediately write a prescription for whatever? Of course not. If he does, he's not doing his part in the process.
But consumers are not meant to have any say over their prescriptions, and by that I mean that the choice of what prescription you're walking out of the doctor's office with at the end of the day should still be the doctor's and not yours (obviously you should still have the right to refuse and the right to seek a second opinion, of course).
If that is what your doctor is telling you, then you need to find a new doctor IMMEDIATELY. You've been hoodwinked by a power-tripper, or someone who is scared that you'll find out he's not as current or all-powerful as he's pretending to be.
Every good doctor I've seen in the last decade has made it clear that I am an active participant in the process and what I need and want is an important part of the decision making process.I am not simply a robot showing up to be thumped and prodded and then swallow whatever pill he tells me to.
And every BAD doctor I've been to in the past decade has told me exactly the opposite. I had the "pleasure" of a PA yelling at me over the phone that she was the one who knew best about what I needed to do and that if I did exactly what she told me to do that my life would be a hundred percent better. Yes, that's what she told me, and guess what? She lied. That's the same PA who informed me of one set of test results by having a medical equipment company salesman call me to find out when he could deliver the stuff the PA had prescribed. "Yeah, you got a bad case of X", the salesman told me.
The "consumer" is called a "patient", and the patient is part of the process. Telling them they have no business being involved is just patently insane.
Simple fix: Ban drug advertisements. That's the way it used to be and the way it should've stayed, since there is no valid reason why consumers should be the target of drug marketing when they shouldn't even have any say over their prescriptions.
You truly are a fool. The patient should have final say over every medical decision concerning his body, including which prescriptions are used. The drug that the doctor tells you to take today may have any number of side effects, varying from the merely annoying to the fatally serious. It is the patient's DUTY to report those, even if they are only potential effects,. and a patient's DUTY to say "no" if there are issues that the doctor doesn't consider.
My first statin (cholesterol) caused a minor cough. I said I was willing to put up with it, the doctor wasn't, but wouldn't have known to change anything unless I spoke up. I am much happier without a permanent cough, and I'm more likely to take the drug without it.
Then I got prescribed a maintenance dose antibiotic. One of the side effects could be tendon damage. When I saw the specialist, I made an off-hand comment about this potential and she changed the prescription immediately. My actions to avoid that potential side effect were interfering with things I needed to be doing for other conditions.
But even when the decisions aren't side-effect based, the patient still has the right and the responsibility to manage his care. My glucose numbers put me at the bottom end of diabetic. The immediate response of most doctors is to start handing out prescriptions. The alternate path is to manage the problem through diet and exercise. If I had no say in the matter I would be on at least two permanent drug treadmills for the rest of my life instead of a real treadmill, and I'd kiss all hope of flying again goodbye. If I fail at the alternate treatment, at least I've given it a shot, but it's my decision.
From a practical standpoint, ignoring all other ethical or moral issues, telling someone that they have no choice in what prescriptions they will get and what pills they will take is a poor way of getting patient compliance. I know, just from my own experience, if I didn't understand and accept the three I'm currently on today, I'd be very unlikely to spend the amount of time dealing with them.
Drug advertisements aren't aimed at the doctors. They're aimed at people who may already be dealing with a problem using a different medication and, well, it just isn't working quite as well as it should, or having to take it four times a day isn't as convenient as once, or whatever, and they can ask the doctor about changing. Or to let people know that there is a medical option for some problem they are having but haven't bothered getting a doctor to deal with because they thought there was nothing that would help -- because maybe ten years ago when they started having those symptoms there wasn't -- and that they should talk to a doctor again. Or just to educate the run of the mill person who hasn't recognized the symptoms as something worth asking a doctor about that they ought to.
Louis CK is SELLING his product, not handing it out for free.
He's also not banking any of the money to produce another show, so he's going to have to rely on someone else planning to make
money off his next show, which they would not have made any this time if he was handing it out for free. So he won't hand it out
for free next time, either.
I'll also point out that his opinion of how much money is "enough" applies only to himself, and it wouldn't be enough
if he wasn't planning on having others pay to take a chance on his next show. Backing which he hasn't tried lining up, much less actually
done so, so we don't know if anyone is going to back his next show without some guarantee of getting paid back.
I.e., we don't know if it worked for Louis CK because he hasn't gone a full cycle yet. And even if he does, one person being successful at
something isn't proof the idea is good. I mean, Bernie Madoff was pretty successful at what he did, until he got caught.
I think entertainment producers will one day be paid in advance for proposed entertainment in a kickstarter fashion. They will leverage whatever following they have based on their past performances. The more popular, although not necessarily best, themes will be capable of demanding the most.
From whom? Where does the money come to pay someone in advance if the product they are making is handed out for free? Do you want your music to follow the current smartphone app model, where you get ads inserted into the music at random points?
Because the fashion industry uses trademarks. People selling copies of Gucci bags aren't prosecuted for selling copies, they are prosecuted for selling copies that claim to be from Gucci.
Its the region now called Israle stolen form its owners in 1948, as most people with a scrap of knowledge of history would know.
Yeah, as if that part of the planet sprang into existence in 1947 owned by whomever it was and those awful Jews just walked in and took over.
Ummm, wait. An awful lot of people who are defending the UN and UNESCO here seem to be forgetting that Israel was created by the UN in 1948. And that the land was occupied by the Jews for many centuries prior to the existence of the UN, them being thrown out during the years following about 0 BCE. That the Muslims didn't come in until 620 or so, so they are relative newcomers to the property. That almost as soon as the UN created the place, the neighbors decided to try to wipe them off the map.
Of course, you can discount this Zionist propaganda fluff piece.
The only truth of the matter is, that part of the world has been through so many changes of hands and has so much religious significance to so many people that there will never be peace there. It is simply impossible for two sides to come to terms, especially when one of them has made it clear their only acceptable solution is to remove not only the country but the people from the earth.
Bob was the quintessential curmudgeon and he had the chops and credentials to do it well. But he was never spiteful or hateful.
He truly did dislike engineers who didn't make smoke and relied on Spice simulations to design things, but he knew what he was talking about.
His floobydust stories were spot on. I just had the pleasure of rereading his take on the Taguchi method.
I never got to meet him, but I did manage once or twice to exchange mail. His column was the first thing I looked for, and his books are legend.
Goodbye Bob. Thank you Pease family for sharing him with us.
As well as the other replies you've already gotten, there's another factor here. When you're accused of a crime in a court of law, it has to be SPECIFIC. You're never issued a citation simply for "speeding", right? The officer puts down a specific speed. So the issue is; are you or aren't you guilty of the specific crime you're being accused of (which is driving X number of miles per hour in a Y speed limit zone).
No. In all the jurisdictions of the US I'm familiar with, the crimes are not exclusive, they are inclusive. If you are charged with 60 is a 35, for example, that also includes 50 in a 35 and even 40 in a 35. You can't get off by claiming that you were "only going 55" in that 35 zone, because that's an admission of guilt to a violation and your charge can be modified to "55 in a 35" on the spot and you'll pay that fine. They won't charge you with "speeding", but they will charge you with "excessive speed: X in a Y", and the fact that X might be too high or too low isn't a remedy.
They'd never charge you with "Theft of a car stereo valued at $239.95." They'd charge you with "Theft of a car stereo valued at under $500.")
You're mistaking charges with specifications. The charge would be "misdemeanor larceny from a vehicle". The specifics would be "theft of a car stereo valued at less than X$ from..."
they should be calibrated to the MPH. if they can't be then they should never be used.
They are calibrated and accurate to better than that. All this nonsense about +-5MPH is ridiculous.
The grace speeds are there because cops know that speedometers aren't that well calibrated, and they'd be spending a lot of time writing mechanical cites that would just get thrown out after the owner fixed the problem.
QED, folks. Can someone prove me wrong, or improve the proof? *GRIN*
Yes. A fine "proof", except for one thing. Well, maybe several that all point to one big problem.
For the sensor to measure speed in a specific speed zone, the sensor has to be IN the zone.
For the speed zone to be valid, it has to be marked.
The marking has to be visible prior to entering the zone.
Thus, the driver is aware of the change of speed limit prior to the entrance to the speed zone, and well before he reaches the sensor.
He has plenty of time to react to the new speed zone prior to realizing there is a speed camera in operation.
The correct point to begin measuring the reaction time/distance is not when he passes the sensor, but when he first realizes that there is a speed zone which requires him to slow down. That may be quite a distance before the sensor.
Further, the devices are installed only in school zones, according to TFA. School zones are usually well known, especially by local drivers. In other words, they know about them and where they are in advance of seeing the speed limit posting.
Is it possible for someone to start slowing from, say, 60 MPH before reaching the speed zone, cross the sensor at 50MPH, and then be going 35 MPH fifty feet later? I would think so.
A great deal has been made about the lack of taillights, but TFA says that they "typically" aren't on. That means they sometimes are on.
And finally, the problem of slowing down a truck has been raised. Most diesel trucks I know of can make use of engine-assisted braking. I.e., you don't have to step on the brakes to slow down, you let the diesel engine compression do it for you.
For those who would argue that the timestamps make the system defective, just how accurate must a timestamp be before you'll accept the system as valid? Millisecond? Microsecond? Tenth of second? Does a picture that is intended only to show the presence of a vehicle in the target zone at a particular time have to be more accurate than one second? How many people have been arguing about how short a time there is between sensor and camera as proof that the vehicle couldn't have been going 50, and yet demand microsecond resolution for determining which vehicle was being measured?
I'm going to steal your car and drive through a speed trap 3-400 hundred times at 20 or 30mph over the limit. Then Judge can explain to you that you are responsible for any offenses that happen in your car.
Don't be an idiot. What you propose is against every principle of our constitution. I'm not responsible for what another person does even if they are using my property to do it as long as I'm not helping, participating or covering it up. Next you will suggest we start punishing children for their parents actions. Your Father was a thief, slavery for you!
You've stolen the car, and thus are not using it with the permission and approval of the owner. The owner isn't responsible.
If you loan your car to someone and they go out and drive through photo speed sites 400 times, you are responsible for the tickets. If they get stopped for speeding, being able to ID them makes them responsible. If they go park in a no parking zone, YOU get to pay the tow fee if you want your car back. If they go out and start delivering drugs with the car, you are responsible, and if your area has civil forfeiture, you can kiss your car goodbye.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh, no. The cable TV company has many purposes. The initial purpose was to be a community antenna system -- which meant it served to carry the signals from broadcast stations to people who could not or did not want to install their own antennas. In those days, the broadcast stations were crying for a regulation called "must carry", which meant that a cable system MUST carry a broadcast station in their area. This was designed to remove the power to limit broadcasters reaching audiences. (If a cable system serving a large area chose not to carry your station, you lost viewership because cable customers are less likely to bother with antennas to get your station.) "Must carry" included a "at no cost to the cable company" clause, so any broadcaster invoking "must carry" could not be paid for the content.
Eventually, satellite-delivered services became the majority of cable TV programming. This is now a large part of the cable purpose.
To say that the sole purpose of cable TV is to broadcast TV is simply ridiculous. Cable TV has never been a broadcast service, and it has no "sole" purpose.
"having a 'broadcast TV fee' on top of it's existing fee"
You don't understand the purpose of the broadcast fee. It is not a fee for delivering cable programming to you. It is a fee that pays the broadcast stations that have chosen to opt out of the "must carry" rule and instead choose to charge the cable company for the privilege of carrying their content. It is a fee paid to the broadcast stations, passed along to the cable subscriber. The cable companies managed to get rules in place to make that fee visible to the consumer so they would know how much the local broadcasters are charging, instead of simply hiding it in the regular service fee.
It's politics. Whenever a broadcast station tries to up the fees or get contract language that the cable operator will not agree to, you will often see a crawl on that channel saying "Call station XYZ at (123) 456-7890 and tell them you want them to be carried on your Comcast service", or words like that. By putting the broadcast fees as a line item, people can see just how much they are being required to pay for "free" broadcast TV on the cable system, and induce them to side with the cable company in the contract battle.
I'm saying the doctor is the one making the final call on the prescription being made, not you, and that's the way it should be. They're equipped to decide, you're not.
That is absurd and utter nonsense. The PATIENT makes the final call. The doctor is not equipped to decide all issues regarding quality of life for anyone except himself. I've already given one example where the doctor's "final call" was a call to berate the patient for failure to follow instructions that the "doctor" hadn't even bothered to give to the patient, and another where the doctor's "final call" would be to issue a prescription for a drug that would have been the final call for a pilot.
The doctor has information about what drugs do what things, and what drugs shouldn't go together. That doesn't mean the patient shouldn't have the same information, and shouldn't be provided current information through outside means. Banning ads would not solve your issues with "self-prescription" or whatever, since self-prescription isn't legal already. You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
If your doctor has brainwashed you into accepting his word as final, then you need to find a new doctor. You're being set up to be just another cog in the medical machinery, getting the stock answers to the stock problems and doing the same thing every other cog does because it's easiest for the doctor to write a scrip and move on to the next patient. You're being trained to do what the doc says because it is simpler for him to prescribe the same thing to you that he did to the last ten people with the same problem, and it takes time to pay attention to what you need and want and what other options there are. Cookie-cutter medicine. HMOs love it.
Bad doctors want you to say what you are saying. Good doctors don't. I've come across enough of both in the last decade to be able to tell the difference, and to differentiate based solely on the "I have the final say" attitude. What's interesting is that the bad doctors I've had were all PAs under the control of one MD, so it's hard to tell if the attitude was pushed on them from the top or was part of their PA training. I'm betting that it is a little of both. The PA worked for that MD because that MD supported the "do what I say" attitude the PA was taught.
I was thinking, "They shouldn't have the ability to self-prescribe prescription medications," but the way it was phrased it sounded like I was suggesting that everyone should place themselves at the complete mercy of the doctors. That was a failure in communication on my part.
Consumers do not have the ability to self-prescribe prescription medications currently, and advertising has nothing at all to do with that. Banning ads won't prevent it, nor will allowing ads allow it. Claiming that there ought to be a ban on advertising of drugs because people shouldn't be able to self-prescribe is like calling for a ban on advertising of airlines because consumers shouldn't be allowed to fly airplanes filled with other people.
All that banning ads will do is keep information out of the hands of the consumer so they cannot as easily participate (or in many cases, know they need to participate) in the process of their own medical care. Does having that information mean that the consumer is going to run right out and buy whatever it is being advertised? Of course not, because they can't write the prescription, and the ad does nothing to change that. Does it mean the doctor is going to immediately write a prescription for whatever? Of course not. If he does, he's not doing his part in the process.
But consumers are not meant to have any say over their prescriptions, and by that I mean that the choice of what prescription you're walking out of the doctor's office with at the end of the day should still be the doctor's and not yours (obviously you should still have the right to refuse and the right to seek a second opinion, of course).
If that is what your doctor is telling you, then you need to find a new doctor IMMEDIATELY. You've been hoodwinked by a power-tripper, or someone who is scared that you'll find out he's not as current or all-powerful as he's pretending to be.
Every good doctor I've seen in the last decade has made it clear that I am an active participant in the process and what I need and want is an important part of the decision making process.I am not simply a robot showing up to be thumped and prodded and then swallow whatever pill he tells me to.
And every BAD doctor I've been to in the past decade has told me exactly the opposite. I had the "pleasure" of a PA yelling at me over the phone that she was the one who knew best about what I needed to do and that if I did exactly what she told me to do that my life would be a hundred percent better. Yes, that's what she told me, and guess what? She lied. That's the same PA who informed me of one set of test results by having a medical equipment company salesman call me to find out when he could deliver the stuff the PA had prescribed. "Yeah, you got a bad case of X", the salesman told me.
The "consumer" is called a "patient", and the patient is part of the process. Telling them they have no business being involved is just patently insane.
Simple fix: Ban drug advertisements. That's the way it used to be and the way it should've stayed, since there is no valid reason why consumers should be the target of drug marketing when they shouldn't even have any say over their prescriptions.
You truly are a fool. The patient should have final say over every medical decision concerning his body, including which prescriptions are used. The drug that the doctor tells you to take today may have any number of side effects, varying from the merely annoying to the fatally serious. It is the patient's DUTY to report those, even if they are only potential effects,. and a patient's DUTY to say "no" if there are issues that the doctor doesn't consider.
My first statin (cholesterol) caused a minor cough. I said I was willing to put up with it, the doctor wasn't, but wouldn't have known to change anything unless I spoke up. I am much happier without a permanent cough, and I'm more likely to take the drug without it.
Then I got prescribed a maintenance dose antibiotic. One of the side effects could be tendon damage. When I saw the specialist, I made an off-hand comment about this potential and she changed the prescription immediately. My actions to avoid that potential side effect were interfering with things I needed to be doing for other conditions.
But even when the decisions aren't side-effect based, the patient still has the right and the responsibility to manage his care. My glucose numbers put me at the bottom end of diabetic. The immediate response of most doctors is to start handing out prescriptions. The alternate path is to manage the problem through diet and exercise. If I had no say in the matter I would be on at least two permanent drug treadmills for the rest of my life instead of a real treadmill, and I'd kiss all hope of flying again goodbye. If I fail at the alternate treatment, at least I've given it a shot, but it's my decision.
From a practical standpoint, ignoring all other ethical or moral issues, telling someone that they have no choice in what prescriptions they will get and what pills they will take is a poor way of getting patient compliance. I know, just from my own experience, if I didn't understand and accept the three I'm currently on today, I'd be very unlikely to spend the amount of time dealing with them.
Drug advertisements aren't aimed at the doctors. They're aimed at people who may already be dealing with a problem using a different medication and, well, it just isn't working quite as well as it should, or having to take it four times a day isn't as convenient as once, or whatever, and they can ask the doctor about changing. Or to let people know that there is a medical option for some problem they are having but haven't bothered getting a doctor to deal with because they thought there was nothing that would help -- because maybe ten years ago when they started having those symptoms there wasn't -- and that they should talk to a doctor again. Or just to educate the run of the mill person who hasn't recognized the symptoms as something worth asking a doctor about that they ought to.
He's also not banking any of the money to produce another show, so he's going to have to rely on someone else planning to make money off his next show, which they would not have made any this time if he was handing it out for free. So he won't hand it out for free next time, either.
I'll also point out that his opinion of how much money is "enough" applies only to himself, and it wouldn't be enough if he wasn't planning on having others pay to take a chance on his next show. Backing which he hasn't tried lining up, much less actually done so, so we don't know if anyone is going to back his next show without some guarantee of getting paid back.
I.e., we don't know if it worked for Louis CK because he hasn't gone a full cycle yet. And even if he does, one person being successful at something isn't proof the idea is good. I mean, Bernie Madoff was pretty successful at what he did, until he got caught.
I think entertainment producers will one day be paid in advance for proposed entertainment in a kickstarter fashion. They will leverage whatever following they have based on their past performances. The more popular, although not necessarily best, themes will be capable of demanding the most.
From whom? Where does the money come to pay someone in advance if the product they are making is handed out for free? Do you want your music to follow the current smartphone app model, where you get ads inserted into the music at random points?
It is :-/
The fashion industry has no copyright yet still manages to make a profit.
http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html
Because the fashion industry uses trademarks. People selling copies of Gucci bags aren't prosecuted for selling copies, they are prosecuted for selling copies that claim to be from Gucci.
Its the region now called Israle stolen form its owners in 1948, as most people with a scrap of knowledge of history would know.
Yeah, as if that part of the planet sprang into existence in 1947 owned by whomever it was and those awful Jews just walked in and took over.
Ummm, wait. An awful lot of people who are defending the UN and UNESCO here seem to be forgetting that Israel was created by the UN in 1948. And that the land was occupied by the Jews for many centuries prior to the existence of the UN, them being thrown out during the years following about 0 BCE. That the Muslims didn't come in until 620 or so, so they are relative newcomers to the property. That almost as soon as the UN created the place, the neighbors decided to try to wipe them off the map.
Of course, you can discount this Zionist propaganda fluff piece.
The only truth of the matter is, that part of the world has been through so many changes of hands and has so much religious significance to so many people that there will never be peace there. It is simply impossible for two sides to come to terms, especially when one of them has made it clear their only acceptable solution is to remove not only the country but the people from the earth.
He truly did dislike engineers who didn't make smoke and relied on Spice simulations to design things, but he knew what he was talking about. His floobydust stories were spot on. I just had the pleasure of rereading his take on the Taguchi method.
I never got to meet him, but I did manage once or twice to exchange mail. His column was the first thing I looked for, and his books are legend.
Goodbye Bob. Thank you Pease family for sharing him with us.
As well as the other replies you've already gotten, there's another factor here. When you're accused of a crime in a court of law, it has to be SPECIFIC. You're never issued a citation simply for "speeding", right? The officer puts down a specific speed. So the issue is; are you or aren't you guilty of the specific crime you're being accused of (which is driving X number of miles per hour in a Y speed limit zone).
No. In all the jurisdictions of the US I'm familiar with, the crimes are not exclusive, they are inclusive. If you are charged with 60 is a 35, for example, that also includes 50 in a 35 and even 40 in a 35. You can't get off by claiming that you were "only going 55" in that 35 zone, because that's an admission of guilt to a violation and your charge can be modified to "55 in a 35" on the spot and you'll pay that fine. They won't charge you with "speeding", but they will charge you with "excessive speed: X in a Y", and the fact that X might be too high or too low isn't a remedy.
They'd never charge you with "Theft of a car stereo valued at $239.95." They'd charge you with "Theft of a car stereo valued at under $500.")
You're mistaking charges with specifications. The charge would be "misdemeanor larceny from a vehicle". The specifics would be "theft of a car stereo valued at less than X$ from ..."
they should be calibrated to the MPH. if they can't be then they should never be used.
They are calibrated and accurate to better than that. All this nonsense about +-5MPH is ridiculous.
The grace speeds are there because cops know that speedometers aren't that well calibrated, and they'd be spending a lot of time writing mechanical cites that would just get thrown out after the owner fixed the problem.
QED, folks. Can someone prove me wrong, or improve the proof? *GRIN*
Yes. A fine "proof", except for one thing. Well, maybe several that all point to one big problem.
The correct point to begin measuring the reaction time/distance is not when he passes the sensor, but when he first realizes that there is a speed zone which requires him to slow down. That may be quite a distance before the sensor.
Further, the devices are installed only in school zones, according to TFA. School zones are usually well known, especially by local drivers. In other words, they know about them and where they are in advance of seeing the speed limit posting.
Is it possible for someone to start slowing from, say, 60 MPH before reaching the speed zone, cross the sensor at 50MPH, and then be going 35 MPH fifty feet later? I would think so.
A great deal has been made about the lack of taillights, but TFA says that they "typically" aren't on. That means they sometimes are on.
And finally, the problem of slowing down a truck has been raised. Most diesel trucks I know of can make use of engine-assisted braking. I.e., you don't have to step on the brakes to slow down, you let the diesel engine compression do it for you.
For those who would argue that the timestamps make the system defective, just how accurate must a timestamp be before you'll accept the system as valid? Millisecond? Microsecond? Tenth of second? Does a picture that is intended only to show the presence of a vehicle in the target zone at a particular time have to be more accurate than one second? How many people have been arguing about how short a time there is between sensor and camera as proof that the vehicle couldn't have been going 50, and yet demand microsecond resolution for determining which vehicle was being measured?
I'm going to steal your car and drive through a speed trap 3-400 hundred times at 20 or 30mph over the limit. Then Judge can explain to you that you are responsible for any offenses that happen in your car.
Don't be an idiot. What you propose is against every principle of our constitution. I'm not responsible for what another person does even if they are using my property to do it as long as I'm not helping, participating or covering it up. Next you will suggest we start punishing children for their parents actions. Your Father was a thief, slavery for you!
You've stolen the car, and thus are not using it with the permission and approval of the owner. The owner isn't responsible.
If you loan your car to someone and they go out and drive through photo speed sites 400 times, you are responsible for the tickets. If they get stopped for speeding, being able to ID them makes them responsible. If they go park in a no parking zone, YOU get to pay the tow fee if you want your car back. If they go out and start delivering drugs with the car, you are responsible, and if your area has civil forfeiture, you can kiss your car goodbye.