06-28-2006, 06:33 PM
asteele2 Wrote:Oh, and RJ, the theoretical scenario hinges on the fallibility of breathalyzers, not their infallibility. Further, it again was not the point of the example. But if we wanted to address their fallibility we could point out that in at least 5 states if you even bring up the fact that breathalyzers use an average population partition ratio (which actually changes person to person during the day) for estimation you'll be held in contempt of court.
Every time your argument gets closer and closer to this:
![[Image: chewbacca.jpg]](http://www.connect-dots.com/Poofs/chewbacca.jpg)
Might as well quit while you're behind.
Quote:average population partition ratio
what the fuck is that one supposed to mean? I googled that phrase and came up with a bunch of hits about Genetics.... surely you can do better than copy and paste from some website.
You keep reaching
![[Image: KineAssist%20reaching%20for%20ballW.jpg]](http://www.ncsu.edu/IEEE-RAS/RAS/RASimages/icorr/KineAssist%20reaching%20for%20ballW.jpg)
And grasping at straws trying to come up with some sensible argument that backs up your claim that we should not be pulled over unless there's a valid reason - and from what I gather, running your plates or telling you that you have a turn signal out (or in your case, fell off) is completely unacceptable.
Quote:But, you're right, it's OK to avoid the idea of statistical reliability because you're a fucktard in the first place.... right?
If you're drunk, and you're on a vehicle, and you blow anywhere close to .08 then you're going to go back to the station for a little talk and a blood test. Even if you had one beer, and you're at .02 - they cant do any thing to you. .02 isnt magically going to error or misrepresent itself into .20. Follow the rules (i.e. dont drink and drive, dont steal someone's vehicle, dont hide illegal mexicans in your trunk), and you dont have a problem. No statistical reliability needed.