In case you'd care to check, the discussion was about defeating law enforcement systems that catch people who are breaking existing laws.
Yes, the laws are wrong, and stupid. I don't argue that. Albeit I do take exception to you equating me to a nut-job. That's Thompson's job. What I argue is, how stupid do you have to be to walk up and spit in the face of a guy who's three times your size, has a gun and a club, and is authorized by the prince to use them on you?
OK, so work towards changing the laws. Admittedly, it's not speed that kills, it's stupidity and negligence.
But in the interim, going and being all in their face isn't the action that gets them to change their mind, is it?
Well, I was talking about an experiment conducted on real roads in real life here. Yeah, if you're on a race track, faster == faster. But if you're breezing through some backwater whistlestop, there are kids who have not yet been trained to stay off the road wif da prose.[sic] And I did say that I had read a "study." The one guy went balls-to-the-walls, the other guy drove gently, and the fast guy only beat the slow guy by a matter of a few minutes - less time than it takes you to finish your beer.
Why do they put speed traps where they put speed traps?
I've even heard that the cops DON'T MIND when the locations of the speed traps are revealed, because "officially" their purpose is to reduce risk; if people slow down to a sane speed during the speed trap, the cops are "officially" just as happy as can be.
Now, given that, if you're up in arms about entrapment, then I'm with you a hunnert[sic] percent. They shouldn't hang out in speedy spots just to nail people. They also shouldn't dress nazis up in drag to entrap lonely old men who are only looking for some companionship. Unfortunately, they _can_ do that, wrong as it is.
In the interim, the pigs are only doing their job, and we all know that jobs are scarce these days, expecially[sic] jobs that pay like a union cop job. And they still have guns and clubs.
AND, now that I proofread, you're not a very good proofreader. "100 MPH would add two days..." um I think you got that ass- backwards. I personally have driven from Minneapolis, MN to Biloxi, MS, in three days, at a rather leisurely pace. I've also driven from So. Cal. to Minneapolis (or its suburbs) more than once - AND BACK! - and an extra mile or two per hour really didn't make all that much of a difference. I once even submitted a "safety slogan": "Strive to Drive to Arrive Alive."
My point is, why go to such great lengths to defeat a system that's intended to deter lawbreakers, when you could back off a little, get there within MINUTES of the target time, and not endanger innocent bystanders - and not set yourself up to get accosted by troops of uniformed goons, each of which is armed with guns, clubs, and mace?
Well, notwithstanding I don't know what "Whay" means, this would resolve to the kind of question that's "baiting", AKA "trolling". I drive my car, but I don't drive my car a thousand miles an hour. I drive, at a sane speed, so there's no need for me to be paranoid about speed traps.
Checkpoints, however...
Cheers! Rich