It would not. The blood test proved that he was drunk (among other things).
Most black boxes indicate several data points such as whether or not the brakes were applied and the speed at which he was traveling before the impact. It's a long story, but those do matter in my state.
For what it's worth, I'm glad that it is difficult to convict and prosecute people -- even when they've done wrong.
What I don't want to see is an ever-sliding slope to compromised (or non-existing) freedoms simply because it is expedient for the government and for the victims.
It's easy to forget that when freedom is squashed, we are -all- the victims.:-(
I hate the technology, but if it's there then people will use it.
My 7-year-old nephew was killed by a drunk driver on his way to school this year, and if the guy would have had a black box, then believe me -- we would have used it in court.
The problem with technology is that it is dangerous, and once it's out there it will be used and abused. Just like anything else (like alcohol:-( )
Do they really have a leg to stand on when it comes to objecting to cost of support?
It seems that if support were really a grave concern, that the OEMs, Incs, and ISVs -- the real Windows support folks -- would be up in arms protesting a potential "support nightmare."
The Siecor Gold fiber we have at the office is some pretty tough stuff. We cram it through cube conduit, drop desks on it, pull it (hard), push it, bend it, stretch it.
So far I haven't managed to break any of it. Not that I'm trying, mind you. But just realize that I'm not exactly being careful, either. It's quite a bit tougher than everybody thinks.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullets don't lie.
We test our double-armored cable with rifles, saws, axes, and anything else we can find. And it passes.
Forget the engineers. Get some pissed off rednecks out at the rifle range and see how YOUR products stack up. Ours will pass any day.
It would not. The blood test proved that he was drunk (among other things).
:-(
Most black boxes indicate several data points such as whether or not the brakes were applied and the speed at which he was traveling before the impact. It's a long story, but those do matter in my state.
For what it's worth, I'm glad that it is difficult to convict and prosecute people -- even when they've done wrong.
What I don't want to see is an ever-sliding slope to compromised (or non-existing) freedoms simply because it is expedient for the government and for the victims.
It's easy to forget that when freedom is squashed, we are -all- the victims.
I hate the technology, but if it's there then people will use it.
:-( )
My 7-year-old nephew was killed by a drunk driver on his way to school this year, and if the guy would have had a black box, then believe me -- we would have used it in court.
The problem with technology is that it is dangerous, and once it's out there it will be used and abused. Just like anything else (like alcohol
Such is life...
Does Microsoft really support Windows now?
Do they really have a leg to stand on when it comes to objecting to cost of support?
It seems that if support were really a grave concern, that the OEMs, Incs, and ISVs -- the real Windows support folks -- would be up in arms protesting a potential "support nightmare."
Where is the outcry? The audience is listening.
-Netanyahu
Our parent company uses Outlook, and 95% of the viruses arriving in our Notes system come from -- duh -- Outlook users within the firewall.
Non-Outlook clients simply don't propogate this garbage. It's nothing more than a Petri dish for viruses.
Parent company's response to their compromised systems? Lock down access to Hotmail, YahooMail, etc. Sigh.
What's the problem? People or software? Let's fix the software, folks.
-Netanyahu
So far I haven't managed to break any of it. Not that I'm trying, mind you. But just realize that I'm not exactly being careful, either. It's quite a bit tougher than everybody thinks.