I used to work for a company that wrote software for police and I can tell you that "Following too close" is a pretty common citation.
If it were up to me there would be a lot more for tailgating and a lot fewer for speeding. IMO they should looking for drunks (obviously), aggressive driving, tailgating, and running red lights. Speeding a bit* is just not that dangerous unless it's accompanied by one of more of the other things I mentioned.
* obviously 60 in a 35 or something is a different story. Not that I've ever been pulled over for doing 60 in a 35. Nope.
Yeah, #2 would sure be nice, except for one thing: even though the mess that ensues is legally the other guy's fault, it still ends up ruining my day, for several days, because my car needs repaired.
What you do is jam them on hard but very very briefly, and then get back on the gas. When the guy behind thinks you might slam on the brakes at any time for no apparent reason, he'll generally back off. And he won't hit you unless he's riding a couple of feet off your bumper, in which case you should probably just pull over or turn off the road and let him by, because that's so dangerous it's not something you want to deal with.
Even with modern drives, erased data can still be recovered. It's just a lot more difficult.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but if it's possible to write data, and then write other data on top of it and still get at the previous data, why haven't drive manufacturers taken advantage of that to increase storage density?
I'll go look it up on MSNBC's site -- but my God, this is getting damn serious now. An internment camp -- unbelievable -- and frightening.
One more piece of tinfoil-hattery actually coming true. "Next they'll advocate rounding up dissidents and putting them in internment camps!" Sure, we scoffed. Go back to your conspiracy blog. And now that's exactly what's happening. So what are the conspiracy nutters saying now that's actually going to happen in five years?
those powers would mainly be concerned with the armed forces (through the commander-in-chief power) and way in which federal government officias--eg cabinet officers--fulfil their duties, and therefore would be concerned with federal employees and governmental positions, and as such their "force of law" would be limited
That's not true. The Emancipation Proclamation, for example, was an executive order, and was directed at the citizenry rather than the executive branch. There are other examples of executive orders that affect more than just the executive branch in the WP article.
So why should a reporter get to use public tax dollars (in the form of employee salaries) to further his/her own career?
To me the question is how best to promote transparency, openness, and accountability (I know, three words that are anathema to government). If public funding and public releases of FOIA responses is the best way, then we should do that regardless of who wants to further their careers. If private payment and private release is best, then fine. But private payment with public release seems the worst possible solution - which is presumably why the government wants to do it that way.
Nobody in the US would confuse an executive order with an Act of Congress.
No, but to say that executive orders are not laws is splitting hairs:
"Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation)."
Maybe it's just me, but I found this very confusing:
Last month, we wrote about an initial decision by the UK High Court to take away the private copying right that allowed people to rip their own CDs. This change in law had been sought by the public for so long...
At first I assumed "this change in law" referred to the decision by the court to take away the private copying right (since that's what the previous sentence described). That made the rest of the article make no sense, and I couldn't understand it until I realized "this change" referred to the original decision to add the private copying right. IMO some rewording is in order.