Good points, but you overlook one thing. You assume that collective action taken by individuals needs some institutionalised collective, which you correctly identify as identical to The State. Anarchism assumes that no such permanent body is required, but in an ideal society individuals will form such ad-hoc collectives to deal with problems that can't be dealt with individually, and that society will not stand for such a collective becoming a permanent institution with inherent authority over individuals.
As such, your 'direct democracy' is a correct description of what Anarchists might see as a good society. There are definitely different schools of thought in Anarchism as to how a perfect society ought to look, ranging from hyper-individualism to voluntary collectivism. Most Anarchists will however not accept anything that violates the two rules I posited.
Now, as to how practical ad-hoc collective action is, I leave to another discussion. It does presuppose intelligent people making a rational choice to cooperate because that is in their best interest. Even though not possible today, this is, in my view, not inherently impossible, and thus worth striving for.
Also, what you term a state is not what an Anarchist would call The State. It is nitpicking of course, but The State in Anarchist thought is a collective body that makes decisions by its assumed inherent authority. Anarchism however disavows a belief in inherent authority, therefore even if an Anarchist community may function the same as a state, it is not The State. That their behaviour looks the same to an outsider is no coincidence of course, as organisation and collective action always is capable of achieving goals beyond the power of individuals, therefore it is a logical assumption that any kind of advanced society will have some form of collective decision-making. Think of it this way: A cooperative is indistinguishable from a corporation when looking at its production process (assuming they produce the same things), yet the basis on which they organise is entirely different, cooperation between equals vs. a hierarchical power structure.
[...] you could argue that everyone should be free to do anything and not have to be responsible for guarding the equal freedoms of others (like an anarchist) [...]
I must take issue with your characterisation of Anarchism here.
All but the most fringe Anarchists would agree that all individuals are responsible for guarding the equal freedoms of others. In fact, the voluntary choice of individuals to organise to guaratee each other's freedoms is the very core of Anarchism, see the works of Proudhon, Kropotnik and Bakunin. There is no objection in mainstream Anarchism against the collective of individuals taking action against one who misuses his freedom to trample on the freedoms of others.
Most Anarchist thought rests on two pillars
All humans have the right to self-determination (and thus individual freedom)
No human is inherently superior to another and thus has the right to claim authority over others.
Note very well that the second point brings up the possibility of there being rightful authority. Even Bakunin said he'd defer to the authority of his bootmaker when it comes to mending his boots. There is a definite bent of meritocracy in Anarchist thought, but it only stretches as far as to recognise authority flowing from expertise. Me knowing something about computers gives me authority to say you are doing things suboptimally with your IT resources, but it does not give me authority to force you to do things my way.
Furthermore, extending from the first point, no human has the right to ride roughshod over the rights of others, as all others' rights have equal weight to theirs. Disregarding what crimes may exist in an ideal Anarchist society (I refer you to Enrico Malatesta for details), crime will exist nonetheless as no human is perfect, and it is right and proper for individuals to take action, both individually and collectively, against those that would abrogate their rights. What distinguishes such action from the common practice of using police forces in conventional societies is that those taking action are not seen to have inherent authority to do so. Their authority only flows from the actions of the abuser, and it ends once the abuse is stopped.
Muddling this analysis is of course that Anarchism appears to appeal to a lot of dissatisfied teenagers, who are already at a stage of life where rebellion against authority is a common mode of thought, and who are attracted to the apparent 'no responsibility' of Anarchism. They are usually the stone throwers who shout 'down with The Man' as they disrupt otherwise peaceful demonstrations. They either grow out of it (subsequently often turning to authoritarian modes of thought in reaction), or they learn more of the deeper philosophy behind Anarchism and start taking responsibility.
You give source along with the binary, your obligation ends. The receiving party is now in possession of the source, and if it redistributes, it becomes the original distributor and has the choice in which form of section 3 it will use.
You give a written offer for the source along with the binary. The receiving partner may still redistribute the binary, but if it hasn't taken you up on the written offer yet, it may pass on the offer and all those it distributes binaries to may ask the source from you.
Of course, once your original partner accepts the written offer and gets the source, you can now point to section 3(a) and refer all third parties to the second party, as you have discharged your obligation. This is where the lawyers come in: is it at all possible to invalidate the written offer under 3(b) by retroactively complying with 3(a) and referring third parties to the second party? And more practically, is it not easier to just comply with 3(b) and give third parties the source anyway?
At first blush one would say no, as the written offer is to all third parties, and they are not parties to your agreement with the second party. What if the original first party has divested its activities though, and does not want to keep the source? Or what if the second party agrees to take over the obligations under 3(b)? This might get hairy fast, especially considering that the second party may be considered a party to all further recipients downstream, as it is their decision as to which section to use to redistribute.
The Bible has been translated and re-translated and edited by different people so many times that it's hard to believe everything in it or know what it originally said and what the original writers meant.
Which is why in all the sects of Protestant Christianity I have experience with, a Masters degree in theology is a requirement to be a Reverend. Of the prerequisites of this degree is a decent grounding in Classical Hebrew, Greek and Latin, so that the Reverend is at least conversant with the untranslated texts. To study for a full doctorate may even entail courses in more obscure languages such as Aramaic.
Now, I understand that Christian sects in the U.S. have less stringent requirements, but that does definitely not mean that all Christians have no contact at all with the untranslated texts.
In most cases, I think what appears to be hostility is merely ignorance of the particular dangers motorcyclists are exposed to by sharing the road with cars. In vanishingly small cases I think there is some resentment against motorcycles and their riders, but I do not want to ascribe to malice what is due to mere ignorance.
Of course, there is the philosophical point whether or not the ignorance is willful, and therefore malicious. I think it would matter a lot if car drivers were obligated to get their motorcycle license as well, preferably before they got their car license.
Perhaps that might also get some of those that use a car for a single person commute to consider the alternatives. Using good gear, the only downside to commuting by motorbike is the 10 minutes getting in and out of gear. Which is nicely offset by not being stuck in jams and always having a parking space (filtering and parking anywhere, as long as you are not obstructing other traffic, is legal in most of Europe).
A partial answer to this and various other problems would be better communication among drivers. Wouldn't it be helpful if you could tell the guy behind you that he's too close and making you nervous?
I think you are right. I ride a motorcycle (I have no license for a car) daily, and therefore I can use signs to communicate more easily. I find that a short wave backwards to a tailgater makes them back off, whereas tapping my brakes (the usual 'back off!' signal) just tends to make things worse.
Then again, riding defensively also means things like being courteous and moving over as soon as possible, not hogging the passing lanes. If after getting a friendly back off signal the tailgater sees me moving out of his way, or even just speeding up so I can merge out of his way a couple of cars further down, they'll usually keep their distance.
I do however find myself occasionally behind a middle or left lane hogger, and these are really irritating people. Even if there is enough room on the right, they won't move, and they'll hog the lane for kilometers at a time. Usually these are the same idiots that want to pass trucks at 90 km/h (national speed limit is 120km/h with lots of stretches of motorway at 100, 80 for trucks nationwide). Even a short friendly flash of the high beam (and I mean a single short flash) won't make them move over. I'd still prefer passing on the right over tailgating, even though that is illegal here, that usually gets the point across.
Perhaps the Kremlin want to repair some of that damage and get back to what they believe Russia should be doing, which is running the world
Go read up on your Russian history. For most of its existence, Russia just wanted to be left alone. The Soviet Union was one of the most expansionist phases in Russian history, and even a part of that is understandable as a paranoid reaction to the bloody Nazi invasion. Russia always has had a strong isolationist streak in its foreign policies, up to and including Stalin's policy of 'Socialism in one country'.
And I am getting sick and tired of this ignorant bullshit.
Yes, alpha particales are massive enough to get stopped by the first mm of the epidermis, if the radiation source is outside your body. The problem is that an ingested alpha emitter will emit particles that get stopped by the first few mm of sensitive tissue, like the inside cells of the colon. The havoc that is wreaked when a high energy alpha particles are stopped by human cells is lethal.
There is rather a difference between alpha particles transmitting their energy to dead matter (outer skin), and living, dividing cells inside the body.
Give me a break, this kind of thinking is why 3 year olds die from food posioning every year because its a political impossibility to get irradiated meat on shelves sans a gigantic radiation symbol.
No, your 3 year olds die because your food industry uses unsanitary methods, and has a powerful lobby to stop any and all legislation trying to get them to clean up.
Sure, irradiating your meat will kill the bacteria, but that is like taking a painkiller instead of seeing a doctor to inquire why you're in pain.
Read Fast Food Nation for more info. About the only fault I can find in Schlosser's book is that he is far too light on the European industry. Our cattle and chicken may be relatively clean compared to U.S. standards, but I've worked in pork processing, and I've seen every horror he describes in the U.S. cattle industry.
Considering that you can build equivalent-functionality systems of all their different versions at no cost, that is empathically not the exact same thing.
I also noticed you didn't deign to address my challenge to show that Red Hat tries to forbid using their software in certain ways using their license. Why would that be?
Care to quote the relevant bits of a Red Hat EULA? What do you say? Red Hat has no EULA? Well then it is not exactly the same thing, is it?
And as for Red Hat support contracts, tough titty, not the same thing either. Red Hat might pull your support if they find out you installed more copies than you paid for, but they won't sic the BSA on you.
So put up or shut up, you Microsoft sycophant. Quote relevant parts of RH licenses, then we'll talk.
I think blaming the online test for the polarisation in Dutch politics is a bit short-sighted.
As some commentators remarked (for our Dutch readers, Rob Oudkerk among them), and consistent with what I hear around me, it is the waffling and trying to be everyone's friend of the centrist parties that drove voters to vote for politician that were actually willing to stand up for their beliefs.
A nice example is the centre-left PvdA (Labour party) waffling on the Armenian genocide. At first they were willing to go along with a hard line pushed by the (centre-)right that requiring a positive affirmation of the genocide by Turkish-descended politicians was a good idea, and when Turkish organisations made it abundantly clear that that would cost votes, the head honcho suddenly started waffling about whether or not the genocide would qualify as a genocide per se.
Disclosure: I voted for the definitely left-wing Socialist Party, so my view of Labour's waffling may be a bit biased.
Actually, Jesus told the Jews that they worship the Devil, and their own salvation could be through him. It's in John, New Testament.
I assume you speak of John 8:44?
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (King James translation)
A little context would have been nice. This is the famous story of the adulteress being brought in judgment before Jesus, and he is not berating the Jews, but that particular crowd.
And your mention of the Declaration of Independence is similarly selective. Note the very definite wording in the original text that inalienable rights are endowed unto Man by the Creator.
If you are going to attack (organised) Christianity, please become more informed before you make an ass of yourself in public.
Switching from WoW to a desktop app is amazingly fast and painless. Major difference from Windows.
That does not surprise me at all. From what I understand, Windows both gives high priority to the current interactive process, and you don't get more interactive than a full-screen game, and it aggressively swaps out unused processes. So switching from your game session to your desktop means Windows has to hit the swap immediately.
The Linux kernel's VM subsystem seems te be slightly more sane. Although I guess you have adequate physical RAM, because in low-RAM situations you might see some hiccups when switching too. I know my HP Omnibook laptop gets hit sometimes by slowdowns when switching desktops, but it's only 512M anyway, and it has a slow harddisk
Unfortunately, Sawyer's Hominids series suffers from heavy-handed moralising, cardboard characters and railroad plotting. About the only book worth reading is the first, the other two are extremely disappointing.
Which is a shame, because I like his other work. I don't know what went wrong in the Hominids series.
That last link does not quite seem to say what you say it does. Gtk# and Tomboy are only provisionally accepted in the Gnome Desktop release, and definitely not as required dependencies.
I stand by my contention that that does not make them part of the core desktop.
I wasn't getting you wrong, don't worry. I'm a provincial boy myself, and the atmosphere can be a bit stifling at times, but I much prefer it to living in the big cities. As you say, the people are nice, it is quiet and restful, and that makes up for a lot.
Could I get work in my native province (Zeeland, in case you're wondering), I'd go back in a shot.
thanks to the Dutch love of tailgating (especially when it's wet), there are regularly huge traffic jams on the major highways.
Tell me about it. I am Dutch, and it is one of my pet peeves. And of course, government seems to think that putting down more asphalt seems to help against the jams, while one ride on the Ring Amsterdam will show you that there is plenty of space for all the cars, if only they'd let each other merge instead of trying to hog every cm of asphalt between them and the car in front of them.
And of course the police will not patrol the motorways and actually ticket tailgaters and left-hangers, but instead put down speed cameras.
As for your remarks on Sundays, I see in another post that you live in Lunteren, Gelderland. Enjoy your stay, that's smack dab in the middle of the Dutch Bible Belt. The Western provinces are a bit more easy going on the Sunday rest issue, but the downside is that people in Holland proper are downright rude.
Slashdot Mirror
Now try spreading 2lbs. of botulin toxin across the entire planet.
Hmmm. You seem to have come up with a new concept: homeopathic bioweapons. Congratulations!
MartPeople would take you a lot more seriously if you would do your homework before making bold statements.
Hint: try reading the SPEWS FAQ and looking at the database before spouting off.
MartI tend to hear that a lot. Funnily enough everyone posting these kind of complaints about SPEWS never seem to add any examples.
So, care to give examples?
MartGood points, but you overlook one thing. You assume that collective action taken by individuals needs some institutionalised collective, which you correctly identify as identical to The State. Anarchism assumes that no such permanent body is required, but in an ideal society individuals will form such ad-hoc collectives to deal with problems that can't be dealt with individually, and that society will not stand for such a collective becoming a permanent institution with inherent authority over individuals.
As such, your 'direct democracy' is a correct description of what Anarchists might see as a good society. There are definitely different schools of thought in Anarchism as to how a perfect society ought to look, ranging from hyper-individualism to voluntary collectivism. Most Anarchists will however not accept anything that violates the two rules I posited.
Now, as to how practical ad-hoc collective action is, I leave to another discussion. It does presuppose intelligent people making a rational choice to cooperate because that is in their best interest. Even though not possible today, this is, in my view, not inherently impossible, and thus worth striving for.
Also, what you term a state is not what an Anarchist would call The State. It is nitpicking of course, but The State in Anarchist thought is a collective body that makes decisions by its assumed inherent authority. Anarchism however disavows a belief in inherent authority, therefore even if an Anarchist community may function the same as a state, it is not The State. That their behaviour looks the same to an outsider is no coincidence of course, as organisation and collective action always is capable of achieving goals beyond the power of individuals, therefore it is a logical assumption that any kind of advanced society will have some form of collective decision-making. Think of it this way: A cooperative is indistinguishable from a corporation when looking at its production process (assuming they produce the same things), yet the basis on which they organise is entirely different, cooperation between equals vs. a hierarchical power structure.
MartI must take issue with your characterisation of Anarchism here.
All but the most fringe Anarchists would agree that all individuals are responsible for guarding the equal freedoms of others. In fact, the voluntary choice of individuals to organise to guaratee each other's freedoms is the very core of Anarchism, see the works of Proudhon, Kropotnik and Bakunin. There is no objection in mainstream Anarchism against the collective of individuals taking action against one who misuses his freedom to trample on the freedoms of others.
Most Anarchist thought rests on two pillars
Note very well that the second point brings up the possibility of there being rightful authority. Even Bakunin said he'd defer to the authority of his bootmaker when it comes to mending his boots. There is a definite bent of meritocracy in Anarchist thought, but it only stretches as far as to recognise authority flowing from expertise. Me knowing something about computers gives me authority to say you are doing things suboptimally with your IT resources, but it does not give me authority to force you to do things my way.
Furthermore, extending from the first point, no human has the right to ride roughshod over the rights of others, as all others' rights have equal weight to theirs. Disregarding what crimes may exist in an ideal Anarchist society (I refer you to Enrico Malatesta for details), crime will exist nonetheless as no human is perfect, and it is right and proper for individuals to take action, both individually and collectively, against those that would abrogate their rights. What distinguishes such action from the common practice of using police forces in conventional societies is that those taking action are not seen to have inherent authority to do so. Their authority only flows from the actions of the abuser, and it ends once the abuse is stopped.
Muddling this analysis is of course that Anarchism appears to appeal to a lot of dissatisfied teenagers, who are already at a stage of life where rebellion against authority is a common mode of thought, and who are attracted to the apparent 'no responsibility' of Anarchism. They are usually the stone throwers who shout 'down with The Man' as they disrupt otherwise peaceful demonstrations. They either grow out of it (subsequently often turning to authoritarian modes of thought in reaction), or they learn more of the deeper philosophy behind Anarchism and start taking responsibility.
MartI read section 3 as follows:
Of course, once your original partner accepts the written offer and gets the source, you can now point to section 3(a) and refer all third parties to the second party, as you have discharged your obligation. This is where the lawyers come in: is it at all possible to invalidate the written offer under 3(b) by retroactively complying with 3(a) and referring third parties to the second party? And more practically, is it not easier to just comply with 3(b) and give third parties the source anyway?
At first blush one would say no, as the written offer is to all third parties, and they are not parties to your agreement with the second party. What if the original first party has divested its activities though, and does not want to keep the source? Or what if the second party agrees to take over the obligations under 3(b)? This might get hairy fast, especially considering that the second party may be considered a party to all further recipients downstream, as it is their decision as to which section to use to redistribute.
MartWhich is why in all the sects of Protestant Christianity I have experience with, a Masters degree in theology is a requirement to be a Reverend. Of the prerequisites of this degree is a decent grounding in Classical Hebrew, Greek and Latin, so that the Reverend is at least conversant with the untranslated texts. To study for a full doctorate may even entail courses in more obscure languages such as Aramaic.
Now, I understand that Christian sects in the U.S. have less stringent requirements, but that does definitely not mean that all Christians have no contact at all with the untranslated texts.
MartIn most cases, I think what appears to be hostility is merely ignorance of the particular dangers motorcyclists are exposed to by sharing the road with cars. In vanishingly small cases I think there is some resentment against motorcycles and their riders, but I do not want to ascribe to malice what is due to mere ignorance.
Of course, there is the philosophical point whether or not the ignorance is willful, and therefore malicious. I think it would matter a lot if car drivers were obligated to get their motorcycle license as well, preferably before they got their car license.
Perhaps that might also get some of those that use a car for a single person commute to consider the alternatives. Using good gear, the only downside to commuting by motorbike is the 10 minutes getting in and out of gear. Which is nicely offset by not being stuck in jams and always having a parking space (filtering and parking anywhere, as long as you are not obstructing other traffic, is legal in most of Europe).
MartAre you seriously so bloody arrogant that you won't even give someone the respect of reading what they actually wrote?
Parent poster stated clearly that going slower than the right lane was the issue.
Too bad I am posting in this thread, you deserve several -1, Troll mods.
MartI think you are right. I ride a motorcycle (I have no license for a car) daily, and therefore I can use signs to communicate more easily. I find that a short wave backwards to a tailgater makes them back off, whereas tapping my brakes (the usual 'back off!' signal) just tends to make things worse.
Then again, riding defensively also means things like being courteous and moving over as soon as possible, not hogging the passing lanes. If after getting a friendly back off signal the tailgater sees me moving out of his way, or even just speeding up so I can merge out of his way a couple of cars further down, they'll usually keep their distance.
I do however find myself occasionally behind a middle or left lane hogger, and these are really irritating people. Even if there is enough room on the right, they won't move, and they'll hog the lane for kilometers at a time. Usually these are the same idiots that want to pass trucks at 90 km/h (national speed limit is 120km/h with lots of stretches of motorway at 100, 80 for trucks nationwide). Even a short friendly flash of the high beam (and I mean a single short flash) won't make them move over. I'd still prefer passing on the right over tailgating, even though that is illegal here, that usually gets the point across.
MartGo read up on your Russian history. For most of its existence, Russia just wanted to be left alone. The Soviet Union was one of the most expansionist phases in Russian history, and even a part of that is understandable as a paranoid reaction to the bloody Nazi invasion. Russia always has had a strong isolationist streak in its foreign policies, up to and including Stalin's policy of 'Socialism in one country'.
MartAnd I am getting sick and tired of this ignorant bullshit.
Yes, alpha particales are massive enough to get stopped by the first mm of the epidermis, if the radiation source is outside your body. The problem is that an ingested alpha emitter will emit particles that get stopped by the first few mm of sensitive tissue, like the inside cells of the colon. The havoc that is wreaked when a high energy alpha particles are stopped by human cells is lethal.
There is rather a difference between alpha particles transmitting their energy to dead matter (outer skin), and living, dividing cells inside the body.
MartNo, your 3 year olds die because your food industry uses unsanitary methods, and has a powerful lobby to stop any and all legislation trying to get them to clean up.
Sure, irradiating your meat will kill the bacteria, but that is like taking a painkiller instead of seeing a doctor to inquire why you're in pain.
Read Fast Food Nation for more info. About the only fault I can find in Schlosser's book is that he is far too light on the European industry. Our cattle and chicken may be relatively clean compared to U.S. standards, but I've worked in pork processing, and I've seen every horror he describes in the U.S. cattle industry.
Considering that you can build equivalent-functionality systems of all their different versions at no cost, that is empathically not the exact same thing.
I also noticed you didn't deign to address my challenge to show that Red Hat tries to forbid using their software in certain ways using their license. Why would that be?
MartCare to quote the relevant bits of a Red Hat EULA? What do you say? Red Hat has no EULA? Well then it is not exactly the same thing, is it?
And as for Red Hat support contracts, tough titty, not the same thing either. Red Hat might pull your support if they find out you installed more copies than you paid for, but they won't sic the BSA on you.
So put up or shut up, you Microsoft sycophant. Quote relevant parts of RH licenses, then we'll talk.
MartI think blaming the online test for the polarisation in Dutch politics is a bit short-sighted.
As some commentators remarked (for our Dutch readers, Rob Oudkerk among them), and consistent with what I hear around me, it is the waffling and trying to be everyone's friend of the centrist parties that drove voters to vote for politician that were actually willing to stand up for their beliefs.
A nice example is the centre-left PvdA (Labour party) waffling on the Armenian genocide. At first they were willing to go along with a hard line pushed by the (centre-)right that requiring a positive affirmation of the genocide by Turkish-descended politicians was a good idea, and when Turkish organisations made it abundantly clear that that would cost votes, the head honcho suddenly started waffling about whether or not the genocide would qualify as a genocide per se.
Disclosure: I voted for the definitely left-wing Socialist Party, so my view of Labour's waffling may be a bit biased.
MartAnd those mentions of the darkness with the wailing and gnashing of teeth? Sounds like Hell to me.
MartI assume you speak of John 8:44?
A little context would have been nice. This is the famous story of the adulteress being brought in judgment before Jesus, and he is not berating the Jews, but that particular crowd.
And your mention of the Declaration of Independence is similarly selective. Note the very definite wording in the original text that inalienable rights are endowed unto Man by the Creator.
If you are going to attack (organised) Christianity, please become more informed before you make an ass of yourself in public.
MartCorrection: he just described every Wintel toy server on the market.
Those of us who manage more serious servers get to enjoy things like hot-swap and redundant parts on hot stand-by.
Mart(on running WoW under Wine)
That does not surprise me at all. From what I understand, Windows both gives high priority to the current interactive process, and you don't get more interactive than a full-screen game, and it aggressively swaps out unused processes. So switching from your game session to your desktop means Windows has to hit the swap immediately.
The Linux kernel's VM subsystem seems te be slightly more sane. Although I guess you have adequate physical RAM, because in low-RAM situations you might see some hiccups when switching too. I know my HP Omnibook laptop gets hit sometimes by slowdowns when switching desktops, but it's only 512M anyway, and it has a slow harddisk
MartUnfortunately, Sawyer's Hominids series suffers from heavy-handed moralising, cardboard characters and railroad plotting. About the only book worth reading is the first, the other two are extremely disappointing.
Which is a shame, because I like his other work. I don't know what went wrong in the Hominids series.
MartThat last link does not quite seem to say what you say it does. Gtk# and Tomboy are only provisionally accepted in the Gnome Desktop release, and definitely not as required dependencies.
I stand by my contention that that does not make them part of the core desktop.
MartNo they bloody have not. Some utilities, such as Beagle or F-Spot are written in C# and depend on the Mono runtime, but the core desktop is Mono-free.
MartI wasn't getting you wrong, don't worry. I'm a provincial boy myself, and the atmosphere can be a bit stifling at times, but I much prefer it to living in the big cities. As you say, the people are nice, it is quiet and restful, and that makes up for a lot.
Could I get work in my native province (Zeeland, in case you're wondering), I'd go back in a shot.
MartTell me about it. I am Dutch, and it is one of my pet peeves. And of course, government seems to think that putting down more asphalt seems to help against the jams, while one ride on the Ring Amsterdam will show you that there is plenty of space for all the cars, if only they'd let each other merge instead of trying to hog every cm of asphalt between them and the car in front of them.
And of course the police will not patrol the motorways and actually ticket tailgaters and left-hangers, but instead put down speed cameras.
As for your remarks on Sundays, I see in another post that you live in Lunteren, Gelderland. Enjoy your stay, that's smack dab in the middle of the Dutch Bible Belt. The Western provinces are a bit more easy going on the Sunday rest issue, but the downside is that people in Holland proper are downright rude.
Mart