And since no other company can use the term, the formula is utterly useless in comparing Apple products to those from other companies...which means that it is just a marketing term. The only way it would be anything other than a marketing term if other companies could apply it to any display that met the terms of the formula. Since that is not the case, it is nothing but a marketing term.
They can't trademark maths. The formula still holds, and can be used to gauge other devices to Apple's. The fact that it's trademarked just gives the consumer a handy term to use to describe the definition of the formula and the short accompanying sentence.
You're just looking for an excuse to call it meaningless in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. You just didn't realise that Apple actually backed up the term rather than simply coming up with it in the PR department. It's ok though, facts won't hurt you if you let them in.
It won't mean much of anything once even the most basic screens exceed the retina display criteria.
Indeed, much like "VGA" doesn't really mean anything these days. (what are we up to? WQRPFGHD3DVGA by now?)
All my point was addressing was the OP's assertion that the term was "useless and meaningless" when in fact, it is well defined with a specific meaning.
Actually, it does mean something. It has a defined meaning, from Apple, presented at the keynote based on a formula relating distance, human visual acuity and the spacing between pixels on the display.
At the point where the pixels are indistinguishable (by varying either d or h, or a combination of both), the display is termed "Retina".
This is the actual slide presented by Apple when explaining the terminology ("a" is the viewing angle subtended by the pixel spacing "h" and distance from your eye "d").
Bullshit. I'd lay down a hundred bucks in an instant betting you couldn't keep your speed under an arbitrary limit over any meaningful period of time, in traffic, without frequent references to the speedometer.
That's not what I said. You're grasping at straws. Maybe your definition of "glued to the speedometer" is different to mine, but under normal road driving conditions I can maintain a steady speed with occasional glances at the speedo *and* manage to stay under any limit I have arbitrary set (often I pick the speed limit or a few under, for no particular reason). Your assertion that hard limits being enforced caused drivers to "glue their eyes" to the speedo (ie, check it obsessively). My assertion is that if you can't stay under the limit (whatever limit that may be, 30, 35, 38, 70, 85 etc) without doing that then you're unfit to drive a car.
You're looking for an excuse to say "the cops should not ticket me for being over the speed limit if it's only by a small amount, even though I know it's within their remit to ticket me for breaking the limit."
If you can't drive safely while observing the speed limit for the road then you shouldn't be driving a car in the first place. It's hardy "micro-managing" to drive at the speed limit - it's called "driving a car on a public road".
It's called cops pulling you over for driving 2 miles over the speed limit, and speed limits frequently being set far lower than conditions allow. But you knew that already.
Any more Concerns?
Lower than the conditions allow? Who are you to make that call? Are you an expert in traffic patterns, road surfaces, road layout and accident statistics? How very arrogant of you to assume that "you know best" purely because it inconveniences you to drive at the speed limit in the presence of a cop.
If you're 2 miles over and the cop is being anal then guess what, you were 2 miles over and he is within his rights to give you a ticket. If you live in a region where 10% leeway is the law then get it challenged in court, if not then tough luck - you know the rules and how strict they are, so if you're 2 over, suck it up like a grown up. The cops are not your parents who will give in to you whining that it's not fair that they are punishing you for breaking the rules.
Whatever the speed limit is set to, if you can't safely drive at or below it then you have no business holding a driving licence. Whining that it's too low is irrelevant.
I can drive perfectly safely while observing the speed limit. "Observing the speed limit" will mean +/- 5-10km/h depending on road design, geography, other vehicles, pedestrians, animals, etc.
If you are going to try and argue that exceeding the posted limit by a single km/h has any meaningful impact on risk, then I'm just going to point out that makes you completely ineligible to have a discussion on the subject.
I'm not making that argument. If the enforcement of speed is draconian, then driving under the limit is just sensible to avoid tickets. In that case, "observing the speed limit" does not mean "+/- 5 kmh". In that case you're simply courting trouble if the police are as draconian as you say. In that case, they are treating the limit as a hard limit, so even 1 over is outside the conditions set out for the road, whether "common sense" applies or not.
Personally I think that is overly draconian, and doesn't really contribute much to safety, other than being a deterrent for people speeding (I think the UK's system is far more sensible - 10% margin, with up to an extra 1,2 or 3 on top of that depending on the local force), but if you're going to argue that the line being exactly on there limit of the posted signs is any more "taxing" with "eyes glued to the speedometer" than having the limit be a few over that speed then you're just looking for an excuse.
If you can't keep your car safely under the limit without your eyes "glued to the speedo" then you're not fit to drive a car. Just pretend that the limit is 5 less than the posted limit and then resume your normal "+/- 5 kmh" as you say is your normal "observing the speed limit" and you'll be able to do it safely, right?
Because you shouldn't have to micro-manage your speed. It achieves nothing except:
a)training people to drive along spending 3/4 of their time looking out for speed limit changes and watching the dash, rather than watching the road; and
b) not to use their own judgement when choosing how fast to drive. This becomes important when the speed limit is, in fact, too fast ("I was under the limit, it must have been safe!").
If you can't drive safely while observing the speed limit for the road then you shouldn't be driving a car in the first place. It's hardy "micro-managing" to drive at the speed limit - it's called "driving a car on a public road".
Posted limits also have nothing to do with your own judgement regarding the safe speed to drive. That's irrelevant - the road conditions and local traffic all need to be considered by the driver in question. The posted limit doesn't excuse you for having an at-fault accident when doing less than the sign says. Again, obeying the speed limit absolutely does not remove people's own judgement on what the safe speed it, except that it must be at or below the posted limit. You can drive more slowly as you wish.
Hey you're a moron in other parts of the thread as well! Leave your GED in law at home and save yourself some humiliation.
Hah. Nice attempt to backpedal. You just managed the forum equivalent of tripping over your own feet while walking and then looking at your watch to try and cover it up saying "I meant to do that!"
I'll take that as a sign that you've lost the argument.
If you don't break the law you can't get a ticket.
That's a mighty fine soapbox you've got there. I want to see you use it sometime where it matters:
"No, officer, you can't give me a ticket! I wasn't breaking any laws!"
(As folks seem to be fond of saying these days, good luck with that.)
Nice twisting of my argument. That's not what I said and you know it, but you don't have a valid argument to reply with so you've gone for something I didn't address.
If a cop is giving you an illegal ticket then you just take it at the time and then take it up in court. You don't argue with them.
If you're not doing anything to warrant the ticket in the first place you're unlikely to attract the ire of the cop in the first place, of course. If one of them does pull you over then you don't whine at them that "you can't give me a ticket" (is that how you say it? maybe it explains a lot), you just take a note of all the circumstances involved. The PC for being stopped for one thing.
My point still stands. It might be a pain in the ass, but a ticket issued under such circumstances is invalid and you can have it dismissed in court. My wording was less verbose than necessary to handle all the edge cases.
<sarcasm>Yeah, and judges don't count the opinion of a police officer higher than that of a defendant. Nope, that NEVER happens. </sarcasm>
I've gone to court over a traffic ticket, fought it and won, and STILL ended up paying court costs and fines that ended up being more than the original fine.
Take that up with the court - that has nothing to do with the ticket. I know many small claims court judges get annoyed when cops give out easy-to-invalidate tickets and don't cut them any slack at all - it cuts both ways.
They certainly do stop ordinary motorists if something flags you to them (impaired driving, excessive speed, tax/insurance issues etc) but they're not there to "catch you out"...
That's really weird. In the US, if an unmarked police car tries to pull me over for any of those reasons, this only means one thing, and it means that it's a criminal trying to impersonate a cop.
That varies by state, but they absolutely can pull you over in many of them.
If you don't break the law you can't get a ticket.
because speed cameras have never been found to be faulty, badly calibrated, or officers insufficiently trained in their use?
My point still stands. It might be a pain in the ass, but a ticket issued under such circumstances is invalid and you can have it dismissed in court. My wording was less verbose than necessary to handle all the edge cases.
Why not brake gradually before the sign? Just because the limit changes at the sign doesn't mean you have to go at that speed right up until that point.
If there's a radar-equipped car on that stretch it is just even more prudent to do it that way, especially if there's a 10% tolerance on Australia's tickets.
I never claimed that walking at night, in a hoodie, in a gated community at night wasn't suspicious. I said it wasn't a crime. Maybe that makes me retarded because you lack reading comprehension? Probably.
This case is absolutely about Stand Your Ground. George Zimmerman himself (you know, the guy who shot the kid) has requested a hearing based on those provisions, so I'm not sure how this "isn't a stand your ground issue ffs". Maybe you can enlighten me?
I ask again. Why did Zimmerman confront him? If Martin was as dangerous-looking and suspicious as he claims then why get out of the car at all? He may have had the right to do so, and even the right to go up and confront him, but he had no reason to other than the belief that he would "get away" before the police showed up. In this "higher than average" crime area, Zimmerman put himself into a situation that he had no full idea about. What if Martin had been one of the burglars who had been seen a few weeks before, and armed with a weapon themselves? What if there had been more than one of them? He had no idea. As it turns out he got lucky - it was just an innocent guy with some skittles walking home to the house that he was staying at *in the community*. Martin had every right to be there too - and just "looking suspicious" is not a criminal act.
The wounds on zimmerman's head are irrelevant - I'd expect both of them to be bloodied if the situation happened as described by Zimmerman - a human fighting for his life is a pretty tenacious thing. As it happens I don't think things happened exactly as described - Martin doesn't have many offensive or defensive wounds based on the autopsy report, and neither does Zimmerman, other than the superficial head wounds (he was examined and treated at the scene by a paramedic and not hospitalised - his head wounds were nothing overtly serious).
I have no idea what happened that night, other than the fact that Zimmerman got out of his car and shot Martin. Whether he was justified in doing so depends on what he did in between those two facts. He should never have put himself in that position in the first place.
I see that you've already made up your mind though, that Marin deserved it, given your description of him (you'll note carefully that I have not judged Zimmerman's character based on his appearance, race, or personality, merely questioned some of the choices he made that night), so I think this discussion is ultimately pointless. You've made up your mind that this "underaged, tattoo'd (sic) delinquent" got what was coming to him because he was walking down the street at night in the neighbourhood where he was staying and had the nerve to try and run away from a guy following him in a car, and then on foot, who was armed with a gun.
So what if he "tried to keep it real" - surely that's self defence against a man coming at you on a dark street at night, on a school night, with a gun - that's suspicious and dangerous behaviour, as you pointed out! Martin would have to be retarded not to believe that wasn't suspicious! It was only logical that he defend himself, right?!
It's nice that you've completely ignored the article in question, so I'll try and clarify.
This article is about Australian unmarked police cars, whose only purpose pretty much is to pull over speeding cars.
Because any police car can pull over any car for a random alcohol or drug test, they don't need to be in an unmarked car or have reason (ie, impaired driving). They're legally entitled to do it to anyone, any time, if they are driving a car.
Because in Australia there are no tax/insurance issues, because that's covered by the road authority and police have no authority to even ask you about it.
Because in most states of Australia there is no 10% leeway any more, it's a fixed leeway. You can and do get fined for being 5km/h over the signed limit. I once got fined for being 5km/h over because the road change from a 60 zone to a 50 zone and the unmarked police car behind me thought I didn't adjust me speed fast enough.
In Australia the unmarked cars really are there to catch people speeding, it's their primary purpose.
So perhaps you should pay attention to the context of the story, especially when every other reason you've listed as a purpose for unmarked police cars do not exist in Australia.
Then we fall back to the first point I made - people going "whaaaaaaa! I got a ticket for doing 5 over! How unfair! I couldn't see the police car! waaaaa!"
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. It's not suddenly "unfair" because you don't think a cop can see you. If you don't break the law you can't get a ticket.
No they are not. Dispatchers do not have a badge and cannot issues lawful orders. He was under no more scrutiny than if you or I had told him to stop. Stanford police stated as much early in the investigation and said he was under no obligation to do so.
"I advise you not to get out and approach the man you've told us is suspicious and dangerous, but you are free to do so if you want to. Oh, and that gives you a free pass to shoot him if you get yourself into more trouble than you were expecting".
Being legally allowed to do something and actually doing it are two separate issues. Common sense should have told Zimmerman to stay in the car if his story is going to add up. Why would he put himself in danger unnecessarily if he believed Martin was/could be a threat to him?
Just because a 911 dispatcher can't force you not to get out and approach the kid does not mean that he should have done it in the first place.
Your opinion is less than worthless if you had any questions about it
Wow. What are you even doing on a discussion forum? You have a very high opinion of yourself indeed. I'm amazed you can even stand it for five minutes slumming it with us proles.
Slashdot Mirror
And since no other company can use the term, the formula is utterly useless in comparing Apple products to those from other companies...which means that it is just a marketing term. The only way it would be anything other than a marketing term if other companies could apply it to any display that met the terms of the formula. Since that is not the case, it is nothing but a marketing term.
They can't trademark maths. The formula still holds, and can be used to gauge other devices to Apple's. The fact that it's trademarked just gives the consumer a handy term to use to describe the definition of the formula and the short accompanying sentence.
You're just looking for an excuse to call it meaningless in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. You just didn't realise that Apple actually backed up the term rather than simply coming up with it in the PR department. It's ok though, facts won't hurt you if you let them in.
It's also a marking term that apple has trademarked. http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html
It won't mean much of anything once even the most basic screens exceed the retina display criteria.
Indeed, much like "VGA" doesn't really mean anything these days. (what are we up to? WQRPFGHD3DVGA by now?)
All my point was addressing was the OP's assertion that the term was "useless and meaningless" when in fact, it is well defined with a specific meaning.
Are you joking? $329 will be £329 most likely.
On what evidence? The base retina iPad is $499 in the US and £399 in the UK. Why would that be different for the iPad mini?
Actually, it does mean something. It has a defined meaning, from Apple, presented at the keynote based on a formula relating distance, human visual acuity and the spacing between pixels on the display.
At the point where the pixels are indistinguishable (by varying either d or h, or a combination of both), the display is termed "Retina".
This is the actual slide presented by Apple when explaining the terminology ("a" is the viewing angle subtended by the pixel spacing "h" and distance from your eye "d").
http://www.melamorsicata.it/mela/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/formula-Retina-display.jpg
Just because you *think* it's bullshit doesn't mean it actually is. Your ignorance of a fact doesn't make it untrue.
Bullshit. I'd lay down a hundred bucks in an instant betting you couldn't keep your speed under an arbitrary limit over any meaningful period of time, in traffic, without frequent references to the speedometer.
That's not what I said. You're grasping at straws. Maybe your definition of "glued to the speedometer" is different to mine, but under normal road driving conditions I can maintain a steady speed with occasional glances at the speedo *and* manage to stay under any limit I have arbitrary set (often I pick the speed limit or a few under, for no particular reason). Your assertion that hard limits being enforced caused drivers to "glue their eyes" to the speedo (ie, check it obsessively). My assertion is that if you can't stay under the limit (whatever limit that may be, 30, 35, 38, 70, 85 etc) without doing that then you're unfit to drive a car.
You're looking for an excuse to say "the cops should not ticket me for being over the speed limit if it's only by a small amount, even though I know it's within their remit to ticket me for breaking the limit."
It's called cops pulling you over for driving 2 miles over the speed limit, and speed limits frequently being set far lower than conditions allow. But you knew that already.
Any more Concerns?
Lower than the conditions allow? Who are you to make that call? Are you an expert in traffic patterns, road surfaces, road layout and accident statistics? How very arrogant of you to assume that "you know best" purely because it inconveniences you to drive at the speed limit in the presence of a cop.
If you're 2 miles over and the cop is being anal then guess what, you were 2 miles over and he is within his rights to give you a ticket. If you live in a region where 10% leeway is the law then get it challenged in court, if not then tough luck - you know the rules and how strict they are, so if you're 2 over, suck it up like a grown up. The cops are not your parents who will give in to you whining that it's not fair that they are punishing you for breaking the rules.
Whatever the speed limit is set to, if you can't safely drive at or below it then you have no business holding a driving licence. Whining that it's too low is irrelevant.
It's arrogance whether it is "warranted" or not.
Like I said, it seems you don't understand what the word means. You also forgot to log in - try to be more careful next time.
no cop stops you for 5 over
Bullshit. I've been stopped for going 72 mph in a 70 zone. I didn't get a ticket, but I was pulled over and delayed.
Of course, you most likely have not driven the two million miles I have driven. Amateur!!
Cool story bro.
I can drive perfectly safely while observing the speed limit. "Observing the speed limit" will mean +/- 5-10km/h depending on road design, geography, other vehicles, pedestrians, animals, etc.
If you are going to try and argue that exceeding the posted limit by a single km/h has any meaningful impact on risk, then I'm just going to point out that makes you completely ineligible to have a discussion on the subject.
I'm not making that argument. If the enforcement of speed is draconian, then driving under the limit is just sensible to avoid tickets. In that case, "observing the speed limit" does not mean "+/- 5 kmh". In that case you're simply courting trouble if the police are as draconian as you say. In that case, they are treating the limit as a hard limit, so even 1 over is outside the conditions set out for the road, whether "common sense" applies or not.
Personally I think that is overly draconian, and doesn't really contribute much to safety, other than being a deterrent for people speeding (I think the UK's system is far more sensible - 10% margin, with up to an extra 1,2 or 3 on top of that depending on the local force), but if you're going to argue that the line being exactly on there limit of the posted signs is any more "taxing" with "eyes glued to the speedometer" than having the limit be a few over that speed then you're just looking for an excuse.
If you can't keep your car safely under the limit without your eyes "glued to the speedo" then you're not fit to drive a car. Just pretend that the limit is 5 less than the posted limit and then resume your normal "+/- 5 kmh" as you say is your normal "observing the speed limit" and you'll be able to do it safely, right?
Because you shouldn't have to micro-manage your speed. It achieves nothing except:
a)training people to drive along spending 3/4 of their time looking out for speed limit changes and watching the dash, rather than watching the road; and
b) not to use their own judgement when choosing how fast to drive. This becomes important when the speed limit is, in fact, too fast ("I was under the limit, it must have been safe!").
If you can't drive safely while observing the speed limit for the road then you shouldn't be driving a car in the first place. It's hardy "micro-managing" to drive at the speed limit - it's called "driving a car on a public road".
Posted limits also have nothing to do with your own judgement regarding the safe speed to drive. That's irrelevant - the road conditions and local traffic all need to be considered by the driver in question. The posted limit doesn't excuse you for having an at-fault accident when doing less than the sign says. Again, obeying the speed limit absolutely does not remove people's own judgement on what the safe speed it, except that it must be at or below the posted limit. You can drive more slowly as you wish.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Speeding isn't a crime, it's a misdemeanour.
Figure of speech is figure of speech.
Hey you're a moron in other parts of the thread as well! Leave your GED in law at home and save yourself some humiliation.
Hah. Nice attempt to backpedal. You just managed the forum equivalent of tripping over your own feet while walking and then looking at your watch to try and cover it up saying "I meant to do that!"
I'll take that as a sign that you've lost the argument.
It's only arrogance when unwarranted, but I wouldn't trust someone such as yourself to make that judgment.
Actually, it's not.
Being arrogant and being right are not mutually exclusive positions.
If you think it is, I'm not sure you understand what arrogance actually means.
Neither is being a moron, but you insist on it.
Where do I insist on it? Apropos of nothing it might be time to point out that I'm not the OP in this thread.
Calling you a moron for not spotting that would just be gauche though; we'll just call it unfortunate instead.
That's a mighty fine soapbox you've got there. I want to see you use it sometime where it matters:
"No, officer, you can't give me a ticket! I wasn't breaking any laws!"
(As folks seem to be fond of saying these days, good luck with that.)
Nice twisting of my argument. That's not what I said and you know it, but you don't have a valid argument to reply with so you've gone for something I didn't address.
If a cop is giving you an illegal ticket then you just take it at the time and then take it up in court. You don't argue with them.
If you're not doing anything to warrant the ticket in the first place you're unlikely to attract the ire of the cop in the first place, of course. If one of them does pull you over then you don't whine at them that "you can't give me a ticket" (is that how you say it? maybe it explains a lot), you just take a note of all the circumstances involved. The PC for being stopped for one thing.
My point still stands. It might be a pain in the ass, but a ticket issued under such circumstances is invalid and you can have it dismissed in court. My wording was less verbose than necessary to handle all the edge cases.
<sarcasm>Yeah, and judges don't count the opinion of a police officer higher than that of a defendant. Nope, that NEVER happens. </sarcasm>
I've gone to court over a traffic ticket, fought it and won, and STILL ended up paying court costs and fines that ended up being more than the original fine.
Take that up with the court - that has nothing to do with the ticket. I know many small claims court judges get annoyed when cops give out easy-to-invalidate tickets and don't cut them any slack at all - it cuts both ways.
They certainly do stop ordinary motorists if something flags you to them (impaired driving, excessive speed, tax/insurance issues etc) but they're not there to "catch you out"...
That's really weird. In the US, if an unmarked police car tries to pull me over for any of those reasons, this only means one thing, and it means that it's a criminal trying to impersonate a cop.
That varies by state, but they absolutely can pull you over in many of them.
Trying to educate people about shitty SYG laws.
Maybe try a less antagonistic approach?
Acting like an arrogant ass is not usually effective.
If you don't break the law you can't get a ticket.
because speed cameras have never been found to be faulty, badly calibrated, or officers insufficiently trained in their use?
My point still stands. It might be a pain in the ass, but a ticket issued under such circumstances is invalid and you can have it dismissed in court. My wording was less verbose than necessary to handle all the edge cases.
Why not brake gradually before the sign? Just because the limit changes at the sign doesn't mean you have to go at that speed right up until that point.
If there's a radar-equipped car on that stretch it is just even more prudent to do it that way, especially if there's a 10% tolerance on Australia's tickets.
My goodness. Such vitriol.
I never claimed that walking at night, in a hoodie, in a gated community at night wasn't suspicious. I said it wasn't a crime. Maybe that makes me retarded because you lack reading comprehension? Probably.
This case is absolutely about Stand Your Ground. George Zimmerman himself (you know, the guy who shot the kid) has requested a hearing based on those provisions, so I'm not sure how this "isn't a stand your ground issue ffs". Maybe you can enlighten me?
I ask again. Why did Zimmerman confront him? If Martin was as dangerous-looking and suspicious as he claims then why get out of the car at all? He may have had the right to do so, and even the right to go up and confront him, but he had no reason to other than the belief that he would "get away" before the police showed up. In this "higher than average" crime area, Zimmerman put himself into a situation that he had no full idea about. What if Martin had been one of the burglars who had been seen a few weeks before, and armed with a weapon themselves? What if there had been more than one of them? He had no idea. As it turns out he got lucky - it was just an innocent guy with some skittles walking home to the house that he was staying at *in the community*. Martin had every right to be there too - and just "looking suspicious" is not a criminal act.
The wounds on zimmerman's head are irrelevant - I'd expect both of them to be bloodied if the situation happened as described by Zimmerman - a human fighting for his life is a pretty tenacious thing. As it happens I don't think things happened exactly as described - Martin doesn't have many offensive or defensive wounds based on the autopsy report, and neither does Zimmerman, other than the superficial head wounds (he was examined and treated at the scene by a paramedic and not hospitalised - his head wounds were nothing overtly serious).
I have no idea what happened that night, other than the fact that Zimmerman got out of his car and shot Martin. Whether he was justified in doing so depends on what he did in between those two facts. He should never have put himself in that position in the first place.
I see that you've already made up your mind though, that Marin deserved it, given your description of him (you'll note carefully that I have not judged Zimmerman's character based on his appearance, race, or personality, merely questioned some of the choices he made that night), so I think this discussion is ultimately pointless. You've made up your mind that this "underaged, tattoo'd (sic) delinquent" got what was coming to him because he was walking down the street at night in the neighbourhood where he was staying and had the nerve to try and run away from a guy following him in a car, and then on foot, who was armed with a gun.
So what if he "tried to keep it real" - surely that's self defence against a man coming at you on a dark street at night, on a school night, with a gun - that's suspicious and dangerous behaviour, as you pointed out! Martin would have to be retarded not to believe that wasn't suspicious! It was only logical that he defend himself, right?!
Jo ham is a fucking idiot. Just my personal estimation.
My username begins with a small letter and has an underscore in it. Just my personal estimation.
Also, I'm sorry about your speeding fine. Maybe take more care next time, eh? Log in too - more carelessness!
It's nice that you've completely ignored the article in question, so I'll try and clarify.
This article is about Australian unmarked police cars, whose only purpose pretty much is to pull over speeding cars.
Because any police car can pull over any car for a random alcohol or drug test, they don't need to be in an unmarked car or have reason (ie, impaired driving). They're legally entitled to do it to anyone, any time, if they are driving a car.
Because in Australia there are no tax/insurance issues, because that's covered by the road authority and police have no authority to even ask you about it.
Because in most states of Australia there is no 10% leeway any more, it's a fixed leeway. You can and do get fined for being 5km/h over the signed limit. I once got fined for being 5km/h over because the road change from a 60 zone to a 50 zone and the unmarked police car behind me thought I didn't adjust me speed fast enough.
In Australia the unmarked cars really are there to catch people speeding, it's their primary purpose.
So perhaps you should pay attention to the context of the story, especially when every other reason you've listed as a purpose for unmarked police cars do not exist in Australia.
Then we fall back to the first point I made - people going "whaaaaaaa! I got a ticket for doing 5 over! How unfair! I couldn't see the police car! waaaaa!"
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. It's not suddenly "unfair" because you don't think a cop can see you. If you don't break the law you can't get a ticket.
No they are not. Dispatchers do not have a badge and cannot issues lawful orders. He was under no more scrutiny than if you or I had told him to stop. Stanford police stated as much early in the investigation and said he was under no obligation to do so.
"I advise you not to get out and approach the man you've told us is suspicious and dangerous, but you are free to do so if you want to. Oh, and that gives you a free pass to shoot him if you get yourself into more trouble than you were expecting".
Being legally allowed to do something and actually doing it are two separate issues. Common sense should have told Zimmerman to stay in the car if his story is going to add up. Why would he put himself in danger unnecessarily if he believed Martin was/could be a threat to him?
Just because a 911 dispatcher can't force you not to get out and approach the kid does not mean that he should have done it in the first place.
Your opinion is less than worthless if you had any questions about it
Wow. What are you even doing on a discussion forum? You have a very high opinion of yourself indeed. I'm amazed you can even stand it for five minutes slumming it with us proles.