vkg boldly declares: Working a job, doing research - some scholar may have called these Jihad and tried to make a justification for it, but the president (sic) is the life of Muhammad, isn't it?
And continues: Or do you have some entirely other explanation for the theology (i.e. directly going to heaven if killed in battle - common among religions, but present without a doubt in Islam) and rhetoric?
Go directly to heaven if killed in a just cause, or battle (the word which you unequivocally use). Killing civilians is a ticket the other way.
Expansion of the religion through war occurred after the life of the Prophet, and as long as the Caliphs were rightly guided, the "war" was conducted in such a way that preserved not only people's lives, but also their livelihoods (ie. their crops, orchards, etc.). During the life of the Prophet, early battles were fought in self defence, only when necessary (he even had all of his followers leave Mecca, due to persecution, rather than fight). Later episodes involved tribes which had signed agreements with the Prophet for protection (because tribal Arabia was a very dangerous place to live at the time, and a strong central power was very much needed to bring order -- one of the reasons why the time was right for someone such as him to gain power).
One such agreement was with a Jewish tribe, and it was one of mutual protection. But rather than protecting the Muslims, they double crossed them. After successfully defending themselves from the resultant attack, the Muslims attacked the tribe which had broken its agreement. To do otherwise would have been both dangerous and unwise. That is the precedent which I think you are speaking of. That is also what I would call a just cause.
And no, I am not Muslim, but I was once, and I am probably as cynical as you are (which is why I now prefer to say "I don't know" when people ask me about God). However, it should be realised that the history which I have given to you now is the one which Muslims learn, and that matters more than what is true. After all, neither of us can know for certain what happened 100 years ago, let alone 1400 years ago, but we do tend to act on what we learn or generally accept to be true. Regardless of the veracity (or lack thereof) of your statements about the Prophet, your statements do not reflect the history that Muslims learn, and your interpretation of the Prophet's life is not the precedent that Muslims follow.
I do carry one last vestige of belief from my days in Islam. I believe that people universally desire peace, and it is somehow inhuman to desire other than peace. That is why I still say "Salamu 'Alaikum," which means "peace be upon you," and is the universal greeting recognised and used by Muslims all over the world.
Someone said: 'Terrorists' would not exist if it wasn't for crappy foreign policy that pisses people off.
thales said: That sound's just like the wifebeater's claim that the "bitch" deserved a good beating.
Not to me it doesn't. For several reasons:
The original poster is probably not a terrorist. So the original poster is not analogous to the "wifebeater".
The countries that suffer from "terrorism" are hardly the same as defenseless women. They are highly militarily active, aggressive countries. The USA in particular seems to require war as part of its modus operandi. By creating an amorphous, unknowable, unstoppable target ("terrorists"), the state of war can be preserved indefinitely. (In case you miss my implication, I think that the leadership behind the USA, more than anyone else, stood to benefit from the terrorist attacks. Therefore I think that they either participated in organising the attacks, or willfully allowed the attacks to occur.)
So it's actually like a big bully who needs to fight with little kids to maintain his reputation, but still wants the ladies to feel sorry for him, so he gives himself a black eye.
Quoth vkg: I'm not convinced that terrorism (or more correctly jihad) is really a product of our foreign policy - the wars between Muslims and Christians predate the foundation of the United States by around a millennium - and the issues have not changed much: control of the Holy Land.
You don't seem to know what you're talking about. Jihad is the struggle to improve one's condition, and there are two kinds. One is the lesser jihad, which is working to improve one's external condition by working or fighting just wars (which by definition do not include attacks on civilians). The greater jihad involves improving one's morals and personal conduct.
Terrorism is not supported by the Islamic creed in any way. Nor is there any way to "root out" the kind of terrorists which we are seeing these days. These are not plane hijackers looking for some money or a brand new 747. They are people who have been directly harmed by Western foreign policies, to the point where they have nothing to lose. They are literally like upset bees whose last assault results in their deaths. The terrorists that the USA is "rooting out" are dead. But don't worry: You can always make more terrorists by oppressing more people. A certain percentage will always fight back.
Have you had any success with screen resolutions other than 1600x1200 with XFree86 4.2? Due to lack of modelines (or SOMETHING) I am having lots of trouble getting any other resolutions at all!
But 1600x1200 works nice and stable, so at least there's that.
May 22 2002: AP is reporting that several major motion picture industry companies have
launched a class-action lawsuit against...
Garvey Products which sells felt markers that can be used to circumvent a digital rights managed compact disk...
Exotic Birds which has been teaching children the mechanisms by which felt markers leave an indelible mark, which is the key to defeating the copy protection on a number of protected devices.
Instrument Sales which in addition to standard felt markers, sells lumber crayons, which can be used to circumvent even HEAVY DUTY copyright protection!
All over the country, newspapers and TV news stations are running stories about
inhalant abuse, saying that "Inhalants are the third most abused substances among 12 to 14-year-olds in the United States, coming in right behind alcohol and tobacco." (emphasis in original)
Shop owners are being interviewed for upcoming movies which depict them as being devastated by marker graffiti on their shop windows...
And parents are complaining (on national television news, every day) that their kids are coming home covered in marks from classroom marker fights!
heh.. it wouldn't be THAT easy to detect. Probably, some organisation that does not seem to be directly related to Microsoft would have to write the check, for exactly the reason that you state: people might check Microsoft's financial record.
So what I think is happening here is the equivalent of what happened to encyclopedia salesmen with encarta. {...snip...}
The analogy here of technology hitting an established high premium sales network is pretty tight.
Actually, that analogy doesn't really seem very good at all, since ENCARTA IS NOT MADE BY COPYING BRITANICA'S ARTICLES, which is what in effect Napster and other music sharing programs do.
However, your analogy *would* work for Windows XP vs. Linux, so why not repost it in one of those discussions?
although the piece of UI in question is a relatively stupid and worthless piece of *h*t, that doesn't change the fact that what they're doing is essentially obvious to professionals in the field of UI design. This is pretty much going to be true of almost everything the patent office touches, except possibly compression algorithms or computation algorithms. Those things, I actually agree that the patent office could be involved in those where they are non-obvious, since they can have a significant effect on the speed of simulations or calculations, which can often be weeks or months long, involving several computers.
On the other hand, a great deal of algorithm work and research comes from universities, and I would hope that companies are not permitted to take the work of others and then go and patent it as their own. That wouldn't be fair.
The other thing is that software patents don't really need to be as long as physical object patents, since it is much easier to recoup costs which ought to be lower, and since manufacture and distribution can take place extremely rapidly where the product is information or software.
Other than that, I think that software patents could be beneficial to society as they provide inventors incentive to release their methodology to the public domain in exchange for temporary legal protection from competitors disassembling the product and using ideas which cost research money to find.
I've been using mine as a portable mp3/ogg player for quite a while now by leaving the laptop on while on the move. this might be a bit dangerous because of the risk of the hard drive head crashing, but I haven't had any trouble so far (fingers crossed). I take extra care not to bang or jostle the laptop while it is on, and in addition the laptop is contained in a soft carrying case. This case has been modified to make it easier for the laptop's fan to push air out of the carrying case to keep heat down. meanwhile, I'm saving up for an iPod or something similar (or maybe a Zaurus) , so that i won't have to do this anymore.
You can find out all kinds of interesting stuff about him on his Home Page [mit.edu]
I went there. Among numerous other (dubiously) personal accomplishments:
Dr. Madnick is a prolific writer and is the author or co-author of over 250 books, articles, or reports including the classic textbook, Operating Systems (McGraw-Hill)
I've read this book, and the new edition has chapters which extol the Windows operating system as being innovative, and different from all the others. Makes me wonder, if he has no experience with the others, whether he is really just some guy who pays ghostwriters to do all the research and learning for him.
There's no way to distinguish between the two guests.
well... there is still the hardware address of the ethernet card.
Assuming you have a bunch of ports on a switch {...snip...} And what happens when one guest has a hard-coded gateway that happens to be the IP address of another guest?
i'm guessing you probably re-read that and started to feel pretty silly, since you obviously know something about networking. the other guest's ip address would not be interfered with, due to using the switch (which keeps channels separate so clients can't sniff each other's traffic). the other problem, which is how the gateway would be able to distinguish between clients, i answered above.
the problem is that in order for your firewall/router to be able to route dhcp from any arbitrary ip address, it has to bind all ip addresses. this would be problematic if a laptop wants to have that address, or if you want to assign that address using dhcp. of course, you could just bind the popular "server" addresses for the popular internal network addresses, so that 95% of people do not have to reconfigure their laptops. (see another post which provides a clue how to do this)
eg. you don't have to bind 0.0.0.0/0, since you could bind 192.168.0.0/16, 10.0.0.0/8, etc. separately.
Laptops with really strange(tm) configurations can be told to use dhcp with any one of a dozen server addresses, or else given static addresses. As long as you don't promise that your network will work with 100% of all configurations, you can probably make these hotel contracts work.
As a start, try playing around with ifconfig in your internal linux network to see what tricks you need depending on the ip address your internal computers are trying to use.
also, depending on how many client ports are needed, make sure to not put them all on the same router & firewall ethernet card. the more clients are on the same network, the higher the likelihood that they will have ip address collisions. This is especially true of the 192.168.0.x range, since it is very very common. The bright side is that since these are laptops, most or all of them should be using dhcp anyway, so the whole (you don't have to reconfigure) feature would basically boil down to having your firewall bind to the common server addresses, and set up dhcp servers bound to each address, allocating different ip address ranges.
...might be that your router has to listen to every packet that comes in through the ethernet port that is connected to all those laptops, so you want a router where all packets are available to everyone (or at least to you).
Another part of the answer is probably that tcp/ip packets from these laptops have to have a return ip address, so WHATEVER the return address is, you'll be masquerading in the address of the server, and remembering who to send it back to. This is pretty much analogous to what happens already.
The DHCP part is easy. just have a dhcp server running, and it ought not to matter what it gives back.
My point is: In response to the earlier poster, the very power of the broadcasters is their ability to control viewers. That is why politicians probably like having the broadcasters around. Since the politicians need broadcasters to sedate the population, broadcasters can probably convince legislators that not watching advertisements is stealing and technologies which enable citizens to skip commercials (harming broadcasters indirectly) should be suppressed.
(And don't forget that Bush & team probably owe the broadcasters big-time for their solid support during 911, and want to receive the same support in the future.)
Actually, broadcasters have a tremendous amount of power, since they can talk to so many people at once. Given enough time, they could probably bring most people around through putting their messages in their programming. They are not above doing this; just watch CNN for proof that broadcasters are willing to use their position to influence viewers.
In addition, while you are watching TV, you are not doing hundreds of subversive things that you COULD be doing. You could be writing to the newspapers, organising rallies, attending demonstrations, researching into the latest scandals that affect you, going to school and learning about alternatives to the current political/economic system, talking to your friends about the latest assault on personal freedom, making a website that exposes immorality in government, or even posting on slashdot!;-) But instead, you watch Buffy, or Star Trek, and drink the broadcaster's message.
Television is not about satisfying viewer's needs. It is about making it harder for you to satisfy your needs by sucking your time, and your life, away from you. When people have a hard enough time satisfying their own needs, they will not have the energy to participate in the political system, and the few people who are still paying attention will control everything.
Television, as it exists today, is actually an agent against free speech, and against individual rights, because
while people watch TV, they are not speaking out
while people watch TV, they are paying attention to what the broadcasters want them to, which is probably not individual rights (especially if the broadcasters decide that individual rights do not help them)
while people watch TV, their attention raises money from advertisers which gets funneled mostly to Hollywood, which has a very strong (lobbying) interest in suppressing individual freedoms
You start circumventing everyway to avoid advertiseing and soon you all of the free content will be gone.
that is because the word "free" doesn't really mean the content providers are making it out of the goodness of their hearts. they are creating content for money, because they need money, just like everyone else does. i would prefer to see a community of hobbyists who create interesting content because they WANT to, much like what we see on the internet (aside from the junky commercial sites). of course, most world "leaders" seem to prefer a coercive, debt-based economic system, which means that this kind of sharing is subversive and must be minimized and eliminated if possible.
Well... normally I'm all yahoo for linux and unix, but if your solution happens to require NT, then what's the big deal? Access licenses? You won't need Access, since - and I'll be Frank - GIS mapping software usually runs on SQL Server, and it really is better to support the commercial software, which is much safer and more virus free than open source, which I hear is currently infested with a nasty vires called gepeelle, or something like that...
hahaha.. nice try, but i wonder what the fine is for vandalizing city property? and isn't there a default speed limit, like 50 or so, faster than which you had better not go without permission from a sign?
Slashdot Mirror
vkg boldly declares: Working a job, doing research - some scholar may have called these Jihad and tried to make a justification for it, but the president (sic) is the life of Muhammad, isn't it?
And continues: Or do you have some entirely other explanation for the theology (i.e. directly going to heaven if killed in battle - common among religions, but present without a doubt in Islam) and rhetoric?
Go directly to heaven if killed in a just cause, or battle (the word which you unequivocally use). Killing civilians is a ticket the other way.
Expansion of the religion through war occurred after the life of the Prophet, and as long as the Caliphs were rightly guided, the "war" was conducted in such a way that preserved not only people's lives, but also their livelihoods (ie. their crops, orchards, etc.). During the life of the Prophet, early battles were fought in self defence, only when necessary (he even had all of his followers leave Mecca, due to persecution, rather than fight). Later episodes involved tribes which had signed agreements with the Prophet for protection (because tribal Arabia was a very dangerous place to live at the time, and a strong central power was very much needed to bring order -- one of the reasons why the time was right for someone such as him to gain power).
One such agreement was with a Jewish tribe, and it was one of mutual protection. But rather than protecting the Muslims, they double crossed them. After successfully defending themselves from the resultant attack, the Muslims attacked the tribe which had broken its agreement. To do otherwise would have been both dangerous and unwise. That is the precedent which I think you are speaking of. That is also what I would call a just cause.
And no, I am not Muslim, but I was once, and I am probably as cynical as you are (which is why I now prefer to say "I don't know" when people ask me about God). However, it should be realised that the history which I have given to you now is the one which Muslims learn, and that matters more than what is true. After all, neither of us can know for certain what happened 100 years ago, let alone 1400 years ago, but we do tend to act on what we learn or generally accept to be true. Regardless of the veracity (or lack thereof) of your statements about the Prophet, your statements do not reflect the history that Muslims learn, and your interpretation of the Prophet's life is not the precedent that Muslims follow.
I do carry one last vestige of belief from my days in Islam. I believe that people universally desire peace, and it is somehow inhuman to desire other than peace. That is why I still say "Salamu 'Alaikum," which means "peace be upon you," and is the universal greeting recognised and used by Muslims all over the world.
thales said: That sound's just like the wifebeater's claim that the "bitch" deserved a good beating.
Not to me it doesn't. For several reasons:
So it's actually like a big bully who needs to fight with little kids to maintain his reputation, but still wants the ladies to feel sorry for him, so he gives himself a black eye.
Quoth vkg: I'm not convinced that terrorism (or more correctly jihad) is really a product of our foreign policy - the wars between Muslims and Christians predate the foundation of the United States by around a millennium - and the issues have not changed much: control of the Holy Land.
You don't seem to know what you're talking about. Jihad is the struggle to improve one's condition, and there are two kinds. One is the lesser jihad, which is working to improve one's external condition by working or fighting just wars (which by definition do not include attacks on civilians). The greater jihad involves improving one's morals and personal conduct.
Terrorism is not supported by the Islamic creed in any way. Nor is there any way to "root out" the kind of terrorists which we are seeing these days. These are not plane hijackers looking for some money or a brand new 747. They are people who have been directly harmed by Western foreign policies, to the point where they have nothing to lose. They are literally like upset bees whose last assault results in their deaths. The terrorists that the USA is "rooting out" are dead. But don't worry: You can always make more terrorists by oppressing more people. A certain percentage will always fight back.
someone should mod the parent up, since this person really seems to know what he or she is talking about.
You people take the cake. I can't believe the stuff you're suggesting! Hrmmff!
on the a22p
Have you had any success with screen resolutions other than 1600x1200 with XFree86 4.2? Due to lack of modelines (or SOMETHING) I am having lots of trouble getting any other resolutions at all!
But 1600x1200 works nice and stable, so at least there's that.
In other news, CNN is reporting that a Waste Minimization Assessment for a Manufacturer of Felt Tip Markers has just been published, highlighting the many environmental dangers behind the production of Felt Tip Markers...
All over the country, newspapers and TV news stations are running stories about inhalant abuse, saying that "Inhalants are the third most abused substances among 12 to 14-year-olds in the United States, coming in right behind alcohol and tobacco." (emphasis in original)
Shop owners are being interviewed for upcoming movies which depict them as being devastated by marker graffiti on their shop windows...
And parents are complaining (on national television news, every day) that their kids are coming home covered in marks from classroom marker fights!
heh.. it wouldn't be THAT easy to detect. Probably, some organisation that does not seem to be directly related to Microsoft would have to write the check, for exactly the reason that you state: people might check Microsoft's financial record.
So what I think is happening here is the equivalent of what happened to encyclopedia salesmen with encarta. {...snip...} The analogy here of technology hitting an established high premium sales network is pretty tight.
Actually, that analogy doesn't really seem very good at all, since ENCARTA IS NOT MADE BY COPYING BRITANICA'S ARTICLES, which is what in effect Napster and other music sharing programs do.
However, your analogy *would* work for Windows XP vs. Linux, so why not repost it in one of those discussions?
although the piece of UI in question is a relatively stupid and worthless piece of *h*t, that doesn't change the fact that what they're doing is essentially obvious to professionals in the field of UI design. This is pretty much going to be true of almost everything the patent office touches, except possibly compression algorithms or computation algorithms. Those things, I actually agree that the patent office could be involved in those where they are non-obvious, since they can have a significant effect on the speed of simulations or calculations, which can often be weeks or months long, involving several computers.
On the other hand, a great deal of algorithm work and research comes from universities, and I would hope that companies are not permitted to take the work of others and then go and patent it as their own. That wouldn't be fair.
The other thing is that software patents don't really need to be as long as physical object patents, since it is much easier to recoup costs which ought to be lower, and since manufacture and distribution can take place extremely rapidly where the product is information or software.
Other than that, I think that software patents could be beneficial to society as they provide inventors incentive to release their methodology to the public domain in exchange for temporary legal protection from competitors disassembling the product and using ideas which cost research money to find.
A flac player already exists, and your link (if you had followed it yourself) says so at the top.
I've been using mine as a portable mp3/ogg player for quite a while now by leaving the laptop on while on the move. this might be a bit dangerous because of the risk of the hard drive head crashing, but I haven't had any trouble so far (fingers crossed). I take extra care not to bang or jostle the laptop while it is on, and in addition the laptop is contained in a soft carrying case. This case has been modified to make it easier for the laptop's fan to push air out of the carrying case to keep heat down. meanwhile, I'm saving up for an iPod or something similar (or maybe a Zaurus) , so that i won't have to do this anymore.
Whoring themselves out for Microsoft Money. Man, what a shitty program. I think I'd be happier if MS just gave me cash.
;-)
hehe... that's what the next version will be called..
You can find out all kinds of interesting stuff about him on his Home Page [mit.edu]
I went there. Among numerous other (dubiously) personal accomplishments: Dr. Madnick is a prolific writer and is the author or co-author of over 250 books, articles, or reports including the classic textbook, Operating Systems (McGraw-Hill)
I've read this book, and the new edition has chapters which extol the Windows operating system as being innovative, and different from all the others. Makes me wonder, if he has no experience with the others, whether he is really just some guy who pays ghostwriters to do all the research and learning for him.
There's no way to distinguish between the two guests.
well... there is still the hardware address of the ethernet card.
Assuming you have a bunch of ports on a switch {...snip...} And what happens when one guest has a hard-coded gateway that happens to be the IP address of another guest?
i'm guessing you probably re-read that and started to feel pretty silly, since you obviously know something about networking. the other guest's ip address would not be interfered with, due to using the switch (which keeps channels separate so clients can't sniff each other's traffic). the other problem, which is how the gateway would be able to distinguish between clients, i answered above.
the problem is that in order for your firewall/router to be able to route dhcp from any arbitrary ip address, it has to bind all ip addresses. this would be problematic if a laptop wants to have that address, or if you want to assign that address using dhcp. of course, you could just bind the popular "server" addresses for the popular internal network addresses, so that 95% of people do not have to reconfigure their laptops. (see another post which provides a clue how to do this)
;-P
eg. you don't have to bind 0.0.0.0/0, since you could bind 192.168.0.0/16, 10.0.0.0/8, etc. separately.
Laptops with really strange(tm) configurations can be told to use dhcp with any one of a dozen server addresses, or else given static addresses. As long as you don't promise that your network will work with 100% of all configurations, you can probably make these hotel contracts work.
As a start, try playing around with ifconfig in your internal linux network to see what tricks you need depending on the ip address your internal computers are trying to use.
also, depending on how many client ports are needed, make sure to not put them all on the same router & firewall ethernet card. the more clients are on the same network, the higher the likelihood that they will have ip address collisions. This is especially true of the 192.168.0.x range, since it is very very common. The bright side is that since these are laptops, most or all of them should be using dhcp anyway, so the whole (you don't have to reconfigure) feature would basically boil down to having your firewall bind to the common server addresses, and set up dhcp servers bound to each address, allocating different ip address ranges.
probably easier to say than to do though...
Good luck.
Here's something that might help
/sbin/ifconfig eth0 add 192.168.0.3 /sbin/ifconfig
[root@localhost network-scripts]#
[root@localhost network-scripts]#
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:03:47:6D:8B:3D
inet addr:192.168.4.8 Bcast:192.168.255.255 Mask:255.255.0.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:95 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:158 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
Interrupt:11 Base address:0x8000
eth0:0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:03:47:6D:8B:3D
inet addr:192.168.0.3 Bcast:192.168.255.255 Mask:255.255.0.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
Interrupt:11 Base address:0x8000
...might be that your router has to listen to every packet that comes in through the ethernet port that is connected to all those laptops, so you want a router where all packets are available to everyone (or at least to you).
Another part of the answer is probably that tcp/ip packets from these laptops have to have a return ip address, so WHATEVER the return address is, you'll be masquerading in the address of the server, and remembering who to send it back to. This is pretty much analogous to what happens already.
The DHCP part is easy. just have a dhcp server running, and it ought not to matter what it gives back.
CW: Have you had any pressure from advertisers?
;-)
JK: Our business is so much better this year than it was last year--it's remarkable. Rates are higher.
They _always_ have to say that. Whether or not it's true.
My point is: In response to the earlier poster, the very power of the broadcasters is their ability to control viewers. That is why politicians probably like having the broadcasters around. Since the politicians need broadcasters to sedate the population, broadcasters can probably convince legislators that not watching advertisements is stealing and technologies which enable citizens to skip commercials (harming broadcasters indirectly) should be suppressed.
(And don't forget that Bush & team probably owe the broadcasters big-time for their solid support during 911, and want to receive the same support in the future.)
In addition, while you are watching TV, you are not doing hundreds of subversive things that you COULD be doing. You could be writing to the newspapers, organising rallies, attending demonstrations, researching into the latest scandals that affect you, going to school and learning about alternatives to the current political/economic system, talking to your friends about the latest assault on personal freedom, making a website that exposes immorality in government, or even posting on slashdot!
Television is not about satisfying viewer's needs. It is about making it harder for you to satisfy your needs by sucking your time, and your life, away from you. When people have a hard enough time satisfying their own needs, they will not have the energy to participate in the political system, and the few people who are still paying attention will control everything.
Television, as it exists today, is actually an agent against free speech, and against individual rights, because
You start circumventing everyway to avoid advertiseing and soon you all of the free content will be gone.
that is because the word "free" doesn't really mean the content providers are making it out of the goodness of their hearts. they are creating content for money, because they need money, just like everyone else does. i would prefer to see a community of hobbyists who create interesting content because they WANT to, much like what we see on the internet (aside from the junky commercial sites). of course, most world "leaders" seem to prefer a coercive, debt-based economic system, which means that this kind of sharing is subversive and must be minimized and eliminated if possible.
Well... normally I'm all yahoo for linux and unix, but if your solution happens to require NT, then what's the big deal? Access licenses? You won't need Access, since - and I'll be Frank - GIS mapping software usually runs on SQL Server, and it really is better to support the commercial software, which is much safer and more virus free than open source, which I hear is currently infested with a nasty vires called gepeelle, or something like that...
hahaha.. nice try, but i wonder what the fine is for vandalizing city property? and isn't there a default speed limit, like 50 or so, faster than which you had better not go without permission from a sign?
we heard you the first time...