For the harshness now: If after a YEAR AND A HALF of "nights out at her local bar with friends and short getaways to sun destinations" [rtfa] on IBMs dime doesn't cure you then you should probably kill yourself, because nothing makes you happy and your a waste of space.
From TFA:
Blanchard said that on her doctor's advice, she tried to have fun, including nights out at her local bar with friends and short getaways to sun destinations, as a way to forget her problems.
(a) "short getaways to sun destinations" - there's nothing in the article that says she's spent the last year and a half on a beach. (Or even at the bar.)
(b) "on her doctor's advice" means that she was *told* to do so, as *part of her recovery*.
Put it together, and she's being punished for taking her doctor's advice.
I've been depressed for a while now - I won't take meds at all for it, and I never took meds for depression before.
Now, I'm no doctor, and even if I was I couldn't diagnose you from here anyway, but...
There's "depressed" (a.k.a. "bummed out"), and then there's Depression.
I get bummed out sometimes; I'll have a quiet day, work on some hobbies.. pretty much what you're describing. Mental Health Days.
I know people who suffer from Depression - they can't function socially (or put a great deal of effort into faking it for a few hours, and then have to retreat). Some days they can't find a reason to get out of bed at all. It's actually a little frightening to see - their minds are actively screwing with them. They're tired and afraid and sad - and they know there's no reason for them to be any of those things, but their brains are pumping out all the wrong chemicals, and there's nothing they can do about it.
It's an entirely different league of suck, compared to what normal people go through. (And I just know this from observation - I hope I never find out first-person what it's like.)
My point is that insurance companies shouldn't be compelled to pay out large sums over abstracts like a person's "frame of mind," especially since it seems a rather prevailing notion is to treat depression as a "get out of work" card.
Then why do insurance companies offer coverage for it?
That's the crux - insurance companies will happily take your money for coverage for this, that, and the other. They just don't like actually *providing* said coverage when the time comes. If they don't want to pay LTD payments, then don't offer that service. Simple as that.
How long will she continue to be treated for "depression?" This is not something easily quantified because it's entirely reliant on the patient actually wanting to be treated, but if they do that, their claim is canceled and they have to go back to working for a living.
Then why do they sell us coverage for this? (My work-provided insurer actually tiers coverage, based on how long you want to be paid out - anything from 12-months and they wash their hands of you, up to covered-until-retirement.) If they don't want to risk a long-term payout, then they simply shouldn't offer it.
Who wouldn't be "depressed" over facing that?
To put this gently, you don't know anyone suffering from depression. I know a few, and there's not one of them you wouldn't happily go to work if they could be.. well.. happy, on a regular basis.
Depression is a chemical imbalance of the *brain* - it's damned hard to just "suck it up" when your mind itself is rebelling against you. (From what I've observed, most anti-depressives don't "make you happy", they just balance out your internal chemicals so that you *can* feel happy.)
Wait a minute!! She is a Quebec resident- doesn't Canada have government provided health care???
Yes, but it doesn't cover everything. Running from memory, it covers pretty much everything that's acute care - broken bones, cuts, bruises, heart attacks - and most routine things as well - doctor's visits, etc. Works pretty well in my experience.
Things like long-term disability aren't covered - we pay for that through private insurance.
How thick do you have to be to think that:
a) you should receive "long-term benefits" for being depressed, yet find the strength to go out to the beach and to parties (why can't you find the strength to go to work - the rest of us are depressed and go...)
Not that thick at all - there's a mountain of difference between putting on a brave face for one day and doing it day-in, day-out for weeks/months on end. Being happy at the beach for a day is far easier than being happy in the cubicle for the next year.
(And to those who subscribe to the "if you can do it for one minute, you can do it for ten minutes, then a day, etc." motivational theory - here's your challenge - you can hold your breath for a minute. Why can't you do it for the next year?)
Listen, public healthcare could not, even theoretically, be run any more than about 15% more efficiently than private (profit margins minus administrative costs).
Most businesses would kill (and I mean that, literally, *kill*) for a 15% increase in overall efficency. Or, to put it another way, that's 15% more services that could be provided without raising fees. Without the need to pay a profit margin, public insurance can do things cheaper if run properly. (And since private insurance doesn't run things properly either, it's not like we're losing anything here.)
now now, no one wants to destroy the Canadian healthcare system
No-one except American owned insurance companies. And American fan-boy politicians. And locally, the rednecks who figure that since they've never been sick a day in their 20-year-old lives, they shouldn't have to pay taxes for healthcare.
Do those stats include the people in the US who don't have coverage? Or just those with coverage?
I can't speak for most of the countries, but Canada does have waiting lists. And that's simply because we're servicing the entire population. My understanding of America was that the waits were shorter because people without $X,000 simply couldn't get on the lists in the first place.
You know, I was thinking the exact same thing - the lady should put up a mess of pictures of her crying and depressed, being comforted by loved ones, etc., then submit that as proof that her depression has relapsed.
(And to those yelling "fraud" - I pay my premiums, I expect service when I need it. Otherwise, don't take my money.)
So my fendangled point was, it is not fair for Apple, or any computer company to have to honor warranty claims for computers that were subjected to the abuse of a smoker, as the hardware was subjected to environmental conditions that was not in any of the designed intended use. For example, if I put my computer through a dish washer, they would have the equal right to not honor my warranty claim, as I 'intentionally damaged' it in much the same way.
I would like to see other companies start doing this too.. Buy a car? Did you smoke in it ? Oh, now it has no resale value, sorry.
Problem is, "being exposed to ambient air" is part of it's intended use. If you void your warranty by having it exposed to cigarette smoke (and if so, how much is "too much"?), what about smoke from stovetops? Fireplaces? Smog? Poupourri?
Until the day comes when they ban smoking (and personally, I'm OK with that being tomorrow), smoke is part of the "ambient air" - people are allowed to smoke in their homes, which makes it part of "intended use" for home electronics.
Not to mention that I've yet to meet any teacher worth his/her salt that only works 40 a week.
And there is the problem, a teacher that is worth his/her salt is paid exactly the same as one who isn't. Additionally, a teacher that isn't worth his/her salt has the same job security as a teacher that is. I believe that many of the things that make you think teachers are underpaid are the sorts of things that should be fixed, not the pay scale.
If you think that teacher's are underpaid, I would assume you would like to pay them more. You want to increase the tax burden on people who currently earn less than teachers, in order to pay teachers even more.
Well, that's a lovely stretch of logic. Because I disagree with "teachers are overpaid", I must want to increase taxes?
Ignoring the (offtopic) fact that there are plenty of places any government could save money that could go to education, and a general belief that there are few places governments can spend money that are more important than education...
... let's reiterate the previous point - a teacher makes $50K a year, which is also the median household wage. Do we really want the educators of our youth to be the average college grad? Shouldn't we expect more?
have parents who whine and cry whenever their little darling get's less than a 100
and this:
I've spoken with college professors who say they get calls from parents complaining about kid's grades
But then:
Maybe if parents actually took an active interest in their kid's education things could get better; but I've come to the conclusion most parent's simply don't care.
Well, which is it? Parents don't care, or they care too much? Ever stop to consider the possibility that maybe it's not all the parents in the world who are screwed up, but you?
Read it again: the parents care that their kids aren't getting 100%, but don't care that their kids aren't doing the homework, paying attention in class, or otherwise *earning* that 100%.
Do something else in your spare time if you want to make a yearly amount thats higher.
They are - they're writing educational resource material. It's a popular side business for university professors (I think because they then get to use it as required reading in their courses - guaranteed sales!), so it's about time primary/secondary school teachers get in on the fun.
Teachers make on average about $51,000 a year for working nine months out of 12 and you think they are underpaid?
Nine months of the year? Most teachers I know work a few weeks into the summer vacation. All are back at least a week or two before the new year starts. While your kids are off, they're generally in meetings or mandatory development courses.
Not to mention that I've yet to meet any teacher worth his/her salt that only works 40 a week. Between marking assignments at home, all the various "extracurricular" activities they're expected to volunteer for, etc, etc, it's likely fairer to say that they work 12 months worth of hours - they just do it over 9-10 months instead.
Not necessarily - if the sum of hours required justifies a full-time position (35-40 hours a week), then you would be better served getting an admin assistant @ 35K than paying the teachers at 50K.
Also, it raises the question - what could the teachers be doing instead of paperwork?
Robing Peter to pay Paul is pointless and stupid. Obviously lesson plans produced at government funded public schools should be kept free and open so that they can be effectively refined and tailored for specific environments. A shared resource granting a community benefit in creating and maintaining the best possible lesson plans.
The only thing greed ever feeds is more greed.
This is a dangerous precedent - you probably learned at least some of your skills in the workplace. Does your employer now own the rights to everything you do that uses those skills?
Teachers don't get paid to produce lesson plans - they get paid to teach. Lesson plans are the equivalent of daytimers and Gantt diagrams - a byproduct of the intended result. Teachers already keep and reuse their lesson plans year to year (and even if they change schools or districts), in the same way we keep and reuse code snippets. I can't imagine a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to profit from this.
Let's also hope that they won't license it to others, so we'll never see this technology in action. Seriously, do they expect anyone to appreciate this technology? (Anyone that is not in the marketing business, of course)
Actually, licensing it out is probably the best tactical move Apple can make - they make money from their idea, but get none of the bad publicity.
(Yeah, I personally hope they just bury it somewhere, but that's not likely.)
Once again, Facebook verified what multiple REAL PEOPLE were telling the cops. It wasn't the only piece of evidence.
The part I found amusing/interesting is that while the police didn't want to believe him, his father, and all the various witnesses, but Facebook was apparently the clincher for his innocence.
(My personal suspicion is that the cops decided at that point that trying to prove "he robbed the store, and got all these people to be alibis, plus arranged a secure proxy and VPN to spoof a Facebook posting..." would stretch credibility. My personal thought is, if you've gone through all the effort, wouldn't you use it for more than a generic robbery?)
If this was: www.didmichelleobamagangbangacollegefootballteamandgetpregnant.org people would be furious with the decision that it was legal.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I do look for a certain level of intellectual honest on/. After all, this isn't the Huffington Post.
I suspect the difference is that Michelle Obama (AFAIK) doesn't have a reputation for that sort of thing, whereas Beck has a reputation for throwing strawman arguments around.
As a counterexample, I could see variations on www.howmanypeopledidclintonbanginthewhitehouse.org (Bill, not Hillary)
The only reason I can see for long timeframes is that the artists are not at the top of their game and hence should not expect as much as the get... or expect everything they get.
Sanity check: how much money have you made selling your music?
But anyways back to the main point- the article is talking about giving Colleges a blanket license for music, and being able to prevent the students from being liable. That just makes no sense to me. What could they possibly gain out of that?
Depends which "they" you're referring to:
The universities gain because it (theoretically) lets them off the hook for infringement on their systems (as opposed to now, where they get the C&D letters). Also, I wouldn't put it past them to put surcharges on the fee to give themselves a new revenue stream as well.
The record companies gain because they get a flat fee from each and every student at that school, regardless of whether they infringe, or how much. And that will add up to a tidy sum. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if the lawyers are camped out at graduation when the "covenent" expires.
That was the part of the story that bothered me - that TDS upgraded their system while the locals sat helplessly. I suspect there was some internal politics that prevented something being done here. (From the top of my mind - it's hard to do any construction/installation work if you can't get a permit to block traffic...)
And I noticed, you've never answered, have you ever, in your life, purposefully blocked someone by, say, remaining longer than you personally thought necessary in the fast lane after passing, because they were tailgating and you wanted to teach them a lesson?
Well, then let me fix that omission. As I do my best to drive the legal speed limit, it is entirely possible that people have had to slow down to the speed limit while I wait for a break to move right. And judging from your attitude in this thread, I would suspect at least some of them believe I was "blocking" or otherwise preventing them from driving at their preferred illegal speed.
Or more plainly, no, but I've been tailgated by idiots who think I do because I didn't accelerate or otherwise get out of their way as fast as they'd prefer.
And since the topic was supposed to be using HERF guns, not a debate on traffic safety, I'm going to let it rest now.
Simply put, I care because in your world, it's everyone else's job to get out of your way,
Damn straight it is. That's the safest course. That's the law.
Just so everyone is clear, you're saying that you have the right, by law, to travel as quickly as you like, and everyone else is required, by law to clear the road for you? And this applies at all times in all situations?
I call the local police hotline to report your licence plate for reckless driving.
How's that work for you?
*shrug* Hit and miss. But there's been enough times that I've passed Mr. Asshole Driver getting written up on the side of the road that it's worth the minute of my time. (Maybe he just got caught by the local radar trap, maybe a bored cop went out and watched them blaze down the highway. Either way, he got caught and that's the point.)
But, as you say, I'm sure you always have a perfectly reasonable reason for speeding each time you go on the road. Saving five seconds on your commute, being the first to reach the next red light... oh yeah, and justifying your compensating sports car.
There isn't a single fact-like object in your statement that is correct. Not one.
That hasn't stopped you from accusing everyone else in your lane of intentionally blocking you. If you're going to throw straw-man rhetoric around, don't bitch when some comes back your way.
Slashdot Mirror
For the harshness now: If after a YEAR AND A HALF of "nights out at her local bar with friends and short getaways to sun destinations" [rtfa] on IBMs dime doesn't cure you then you should probably kill yourself, because nothing makes you happy and your a waste of space.
From TFA:
(a) "short getaways to sun destinations" - there's nothing in the article that says she's spent the last year and a half on a beach. (Or even at the bar.)
(b) "on her doctor's advice" means that she was *told* to do so, as *part of her recovery*.
Put it together, and she's being punished for taking her doctor's advice.
I've been depressed for a while now - I won't take meds at all for it, and I never took meds for depression before.
Now, I'm no doctor, and even if I was I couldn't diagnose you from here anyway, but...
There's "depressed" (a.k.a. "bummed out"), and then there's Depression.
I get bummed out sometimes; I'll have a quiet day, work on some hobbies.. pretty much what you're describing. Mental Health Days.
I know people who suffer from Depression - they can't function socially (or put a great deal of effort into faking it for a few hours, and then have to retreat). Some days they can't find a reason to get out of bed at all. It's actually a little frightening to see - their minds are actively screwing with them. They're tired and afraid and sad - and they know there's no reason for them to be any of those things, but their brains are pumping out all the wrong chemicals, and there's nothing they can do about it.
It's an entirely different league of suck, compared to what normal people go through. (And I just know this from observation - I hope I never find out first-person what it's like.)
My point is that insurance companies shouldn't be compelled to pay out large sums over abstracts like a person's "frame of mind," especially since it seems a rather prevailing notion is to treat depression as a "get out of work" card.
Then why do insurance companies offer coverage for it?
That's the crux - insurance companies will happily take your money for coverage for this, that, and the other. They just don't like actually *providing* said coverage when the time comes. If they don't want to pay LTD payments, then don't offer that service. Simple as that.
How long will she continue to be treated for "depression?" This is not something easily quantified because it's entirely reliant on the patient actually wanting to be treated, but if they do that, their claim is canceled and they have to go back to working for a living.
Then why do they sell us coverage for this? (My work-provided insurer actually tiers coverage, based on how long you want to be paid out - anything from 12-months and they wash their hands of you, up to covered-until-retirement.) If they don't want to risk a long-term payout, then they simply shouldn't offer it.
Who wouldn't be "depressed" over facing that?
To put this gently, you don't know anyone suffering from depression. I know a few, and there's not one of them you wouldn't happily go to work if they could be.. well.. happy, on a regular basis.
Depression is a chemical imbalance of the *brain* - it's damned hard to just "suck it up" when your mind itself is rebelling against you. (From what I've observed, most anti-depressives don't "make you happy", they just balance out your internal chemicals so that you *can* feel happy.)
Wait a minute!! She is a Quebec resident- doesn't Canada have government provided health care???
Yes, but it doesn't cover everything. Running from memory, it covers pretty much everything that's acute care - broken bones, cuts, bruises, heart attacks - and most routine things as well - doctor's visits, etc. Works pretty well in my experience.
Things like long-term disability aren't covered - we pay for that through private insurance.
How thick do you have to be to think that: a) you should receive "long-term benefits" for being depressed, yet find the strength to go out to the beach and to parties (why can't you find the strength to go to work - the rest of us are depressed and go...)
Not that thick at all - there's a mountain of difference between putting on a brave face for one day and doing it day-in, day-out for weeks/months on end. Being happy at the beach for a day is far easier than being happy in the cubicle for the next year.
(And to those who subscribe to the "if you can do it for one minute, you can do it for ten minutes, then a day, etc." motivational theory - here's your challenge - you can hold your breath for a minute. Why can't you do it for the next year?)
Listen, public healthcare could not, even theoretically, be run any more than about 15% more efficiently than private (profit margins minus administrative costs).
Most businesses would kill (and I mean that, literally, *kill*) for a 15% increase in overall efficency. Or, to put it another way, that's 15% more services that could be provided without raising fees. Without the need to pay a profit margin, public insurance can do things cheaper if run properly. (And since private insurance doesn't run things properly either, it's not like we're losing anything here.)
now now, no one wants to destroy the Canadian healthcare system
No-one except American owned insurance companies. And American fan-boy politicians. And locally, the rednecks who figure that since they've never been sick a day in their 20-year-old lives, they shouldn't have to pay taxes for healthcare.
Not arguing, just questioning...
Do those stats include the people in the US who don't have coverage? Or just those with coverage?
I can't speak for most of the countries, but Canada does have waiting lists. And that's simply because we're servicing the entire population. My understanding of America was that the waits were shorter because people without $X,000 simply couldn't get on the lists in the first place.
You know, I was thinking the exact same thing - the lady should put up a mess of pictures of her crying and depressed, being comforted by loved ones, etc., then submit that as proof that her depression has relapsed.
(And to those yelling "fraud" - I pay my premiums, I expect service when I need it. Otherwise, don't take my money.)
So my fendangled point was, it is not fair for Apple, or any computer company to have to honor warranty claims for computers that were subjected to the abuse of a smoker, as the hardware was subjected to environmental conditions that was not in any of the designed intended use. For example, if I put my computer through a dish washer, they would have the equal right to not honor my warranty claim, as I 'intentionally damaged' it in much the same way. I would like to see other companies start doing this too.. Buy a car? Did you smoke in it ? Oh, now it has no resale value, sorry.
Problem is, "being exposed to ambient air" is part of it's intended use. If you void your warranty by having it exposed to cigarette smoke (and if so, how much is "too much"?), what about smoke from stovetops? Fireplaces? Smog? Poupourri?
Until the day comes when they ban smoking (and personally, I'm OK with that being tomorrow), smoke is part of the "ambient air" - people are allowed to smoke in their homes, which makes it part of "intended use" for home electronics.
Not to mention that I've yet to meet any teacher worth his/her salt that only works 40 a week.
And there is the problem, a teacher that is worth his/her salt is paid exactly the same as one who isn't. Additionally, a teacher that isn't worth his/her salt has the same job security as a teacher that is. I believe that many of the things that make you think teachers are underpaid are the sorts of things that should be fixed, not the pay scale. If you think that teacher's are underpaid, I would assume you would like to pay them more. You want to increase the tax burden on people who currently earn less than teachers, in order to pay teachers even more.
Well, that's a lovely stretch of logic. Because I disagree with "teachers are overpaid", I must want to increase taxes?
Ignoring the (offtopic) fact that there are plenty of places any government could save money that could go to education, and a general belief that there are few places governments can spend money that are more important than education...
... let's reiterate the previous point - a teacher makes $50K a year, which is also the median household wage. Do we really want the educators of our youth to be the average college grad? Shouldn't we expect more?
Ok, we have this:
and this:
But then:
Well, which is it? Parents don't care, or they care too much? Ever stop to consider the possibility that maybe it's not all the parents in the world who are screwed up, but you?
Read it again: the parents care that their kids aren't getting 100%, but don't care that their kids aren't doing the homework, paying attention in class, or otherwise *earning* that 100%.
Do something else in your spare time if you want to make a yearly amount thats higher.
They are - they're writing educational resource material. It's a popular side business for university professors (I think because they then get to use it as required reading in their courses - guaranteed sales!), so it's about time primary/secondary school teachers get in on the fun.
Teachers make on average about $51,000 a year for working nine months out of 12 and you think they are underpaid?
Nine months of the year? Most teachers I know work a few weeks into the summer vacation. All are back at least a week or two before the new year starts. While your kids are off, they're generally in meetings or mandatory development courses.
Not to mention that I've yet to meet any teacher worth his/her salt that only works 40 a week. Between marking assignments at home, all the various "extracurricular" activities they're expected to volunteer for, etc, etc, it's likely fairer to say that they work 12 months worth of hours - they just do it over 9-10 months instead.
Not necessarily - if the sum of hours required justifies a full-time position (35-40 hours a week), then you would be better served getting an admin assistant @ 35K than paying the teachers at 50K.
Also, it raises the question - what could the teachers be doing instead of paperwork?
Robing Peter to pay Paul is pointless and stupid. Obviously lesson plans produced at government funded public schools should be kept free and open so that they can be effectively refined and tailored for specific environments. A shared resource granting a community benefit in creating and maintaining the best possible lesson plans.
The only thing greed ever feeds is more greed.
This is a dangerous precedent - you probably learned at least some of your skills in the workplace. Does your employer now own the rights to everything you do that uses those skills?
Teachers don't get paid to produce lesson plans - they get paid to teach. Lesson plans are the equivalent of daytimers and Gantt diagrams - a byproduct of the intended result. Teachers already keep and reuse their lesson plans year to year (and even if they change schools or districts), in the same way we keep and reuse code snippets. I can't imagine a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to profit from this.
Let's also hope that they won't license it to others, so we'll never see this technology in action. Seriously, do they expect anyone to appreciate this technology? (Anyone that is not in the marketing business, of course)
Actually, licensing it out is probably the best tactical move Apple can make - they make money from their idea, but get none of the bad publicity.
(Yeah, I personally hope they just bury it somewhere, but that's not likely.)
Once again, Facebook verified what multiple REAL PEOPLE were telling the cops. It wasn't the only piece of evidence.
The part I found amusing/interesting is that while the police didn't want to believe him, his father, and all the various witnesses, but Facebook was apparently the clincher for his innocence.
(My personal suspicion is that the cops decided at that point that trying to prove "he robbed the store, and got all these people to be alibis, plus arranged a secure proxy and VPN to spoof a Facebook posting..." would stretch credibility. My personal thought is, if you've gone through all the effort, wouldn't you use it for more than a generic robbery?)
If this was: www.didmichelleobamagangbangacollegefootballteamandgetpregnant.org people would be furious with the decision that it was legal.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I do look for a certain level of intellectual honest on /. After all, this isn't the Huffington Post.
I suspect the difference is that Michelle Obama (AFAIK) doesn't have a reputation for that sort of thing, whereas Beck has a reputation for throwing strawman arguments around.
As a counterexample, I could see variations on www.howmanypeopledidclintonbanginthewhitehouse.org (Bill, not Hillary)
Unfortunately, it's likely to be a mandatory fee, regardless of whether you agree to the license terms or not.
The only reason I can see for long timeframes is that the artists are not at the top of their game and hence should not expect as much as the get... or expect everything they get.
Sanity check: how much money have you made selling your music?
But anyways back to the main point- the article is talking about giving Colleges a blanket license for music, and being able to prevent the students from being liable. That just makes no sense to me. What could they possibly gain out of that?
Depends which "they" you're referring to:
The universities gain because it (theoretically) lets them off the hook for infringement on their systems (as opposed to now, where they get the C&D letters). Also, I wouldn't put it past them to put surcharges on the fee to give themselves a new revenue stream as well.
The record companies gain because they get a flat fee from each and every student at that school, regardless of whether they infringe, or how much. And that will add up to a tidy sum. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if the lawyers are camped out at graduation when the "covenent" expires.
That was the part of the story that bothered me - that TDS upgraded their system while the locals sat helplessly. I suspect there was some internal politics that prevented something being done here. (From the top of my mind - it's hard to do any construction/installation work if you can't get a permit to block traffic...)
And I noticed, you've never answered, have you ever, in your life, purposefully blocked someone by, say, remaining longer than you personally thought necessary in the fast lane after passing, because they were tailgating and you wanted to teach them a lesson?
Well, then let me fix that omission. As I do my best to drive the legal speed limit, it is entirely possible that people have had to slow down to the speed limit while I wait for a break to move right. And judging from your attitude in this thread, I would suspect at least some of them believe I was "blocking" or otherwise preventing them from driving at their preferred illegal speed.
Or more plainly, no, but I've been tailgated by idiots who think I do because I didn't accelerate or otherwise get out of their way as fast as they'd prefer.
And since the topic was supposed to be using HERF guns, not a debate on traffic safety, I'm going to let it rest now.
Simply put, I care because in your world, it's everyone else's job to get out of your way, Damn straight it is. That's the safest course. That's the law.
Just so everyone is clear, you're saying that you have the right, by law, to travel as quickly as you like, and everyone else is required, by law to clear the road for you? And this applies at all times in all situations?
I call the local police hotline to report your licence plate for reckless driving. How's that work for you?
*shrug* Hit and miss. But there's been enough times that I've passed Mr. Asshole Driver getting written up on the side of the road that it's worth the minute of my time. (Maybe he just got caught by the local radar trap, maybe a bored cop went out and watched them blaze down the highway. Either way, he got caught and that's the point.)
But, as you say, I'm sure you always have a perfectly reasonable reason for speeding each time you go on the road. Saving five seconds on your commute, being the first to reach the next red light... oh yeah, and justifying your compensating sports car.
There isn't a single fact-like object in your statement that is correct. Not one.
That hasn't stopped you from accusing everyone else in your lane of intentionally blocking you. If you're going to throw straw-man rhetoric around, don't bitch when some comes back your way.