The point is not to say 'don't protect people who create things, wheter they are material or immaterial', the point is to say 'tiny bits of immaterial creations cannot be protected under the patent legislation, for it would be just like confiscating words instead of protecting books'.
As far as i know, software are protected by copyrights, or 'droit d'auteurs' in French. There are several differences between national legislations on that point, but hey, this is another problem.
Eventually, your example is extreme, because you imply that a set of algorithms could, without any physical intermediary, produce physical impact. This is, IMO, impossible. If you create a software that takes care of the spare energy of your computer to animate two wings, then ok, but your innovation isn't physical, since you didn't create a new way of using elements, let's say. Your program calculates something and brings this something into a very physical instrument (here, wings, that may have been, though I really don't know, patented).
MR borrows Einstein's idea ; maths cannot be patented ; they belong to the common pool.
This is precisely what MR tries to fix here, by introducing a finely tuned distinction barring the EPO from implementing a 'free-market' patenting policy.
If this memorandum is pushed forward hard enough, then the EPO will have to reassert its 50,000 patents, and won't be able anymore nor to assign others nor to pressure, by its existence, the harmonization of legislations towards a recognization of software patents.
Don't mix things up, software patents, for now, mean nothing when brought up in courts. This is what is at stake now.
Computer controlled technical inventions are, for instance, the different types of monitors (LCD, plasma, whatever), optical, wireless mouses, motherboards switches... All these devices present technical innovations, and then, should be, in MR's mind, patentable.
Computer programs, on the other hand, are the internal immaterial parts of logic that, assembled in some way (whether good or bad), make the former tools work together....
Well, you got the picture, don't you ?
IMO, this is not a bad distinction. Software patents is such a quagmire when it comes to law. At least, I could endure such a bill. And, still IMO, MR in one of our most intelligent and honest politicians still alive, despite his irritating fatalism.
It's your bet. If they made up something that would look like an OO-oriented SGML thing, it would remain simple for basic stuff, basically HTML, but could be expanded into more complicated things.
Again, I'm more on trusting de Icaza than you. It's not that I don't like you, but I'm not using the desktop you've made !
Apparently, XAML is a complete replacement for HTML. So, it means that you have the ease of use and flexibility of every web development language, plus the markup, in one single language.
Furthermore, did you work with XAML ? do you know how the internals work ? I don't, and I'm pretty sure you don't either ; and I think it's quite relevant to trust Miguel de Icaza on that point.
And then you answer me, yeah yeah you trust too easily. And then I say : trusting trust, boy !
Plus a nice {counterinsult} with plenty of web apps just in your forehead.
Honestly, De Icaza is one of the few free software/OSS activist with really clear ideas on the subject and some objectivity.
He acknowledges that the Microsoft replacement for HTML is a rich user experience to come, despite the fact it certainly is dangerous to a certain extent.
Do realize that, GNU/Linux zealots : you can say something is good from a certain point of view (usability), and bad from another (interoperability). Isn't that incredible ?
I've heard of Microsoft referred to, I've heard Windows referred to, but rarely in the same sentence outside a press release.
Yeah, and this is RMS's point : he doesn't give a shit about friends saying Linux, he wants the OS to be publicly acknowledged as GNU/Linux.
The way I'm seeing it : I'm not a huge FSF follower, but I do think that RMS, GNU, and the FSF do deserve some credit for what they did. Hence the scheme. If we take the problem in the reverse way, calling it GNU would have been similarly scandalous. The few essential pieces come from two different places ; C library, C compiler, productivity tools and licence come from the GNU ; the kernel comes from the hacker community gathered around L. Torvalds.
To reuse your comparison with FreeBSD (or more recently X ?), you remember the fuss around the 'advertising licence' ? Well, demanding to have your organization's name inside a product (arguably, in my opninion), is nothing more than asking people to remember who did it in an impersonal way. It is a credit, but far less outrageous than the licence changes made by BSD and X teams. So what's wrong with GNU when people haev been upgrading to X 4.4 before distros came back on 4.3 ? What's wrong with those people that keep using FreeBSD ? Why aren't we bashing them ? I guess it's because there is no reason to bash them ; it's the same for GNU. There are other reasons to bash GNU, but not this one in my opinion.
As regards Emacs, I really don't know what you have against it. I guess it's another point, but as far as I've used it, it fits. Let's just not enter into it, it smells like a troll subject.
Anyway it was nice to have some constructed opinion about that subject. Kudos.
Of course not. This is why my "oh wait..." is here.
I'm not American, so I'm not the best judge of the situation. But the striking bipolarization of American politics leads to numerous questions, and is to be related with how the public opinion has been specifically influenced to achieve that result.
Just as an example, more and more essayists are complaining about the fact that both rep and dem are forgetting middle class workers... Despite of that fact, no third political party is able to rise with that line (work for the middle-class), although the middle class indeed is the majority of the population. I just find it strange.
Anyway, it was nothing more than a not-so-innocent joke.
To start with something that sounds trivial yet annoying for many of us, GNU (Guh-new) is perhaps the worst acronym in the software world. It sounds harsh, and the thought of an infinite recursion point wrankles a lot of us.
This is your opinion. GNU is not a nice word, but I find infinite recursion quite witty.
English speakers, as a generality, hate having a common term with more than three syllables. GNU/Linux brings it up to 4. There's a reason we don't always call it "Microsoft Windows."
No argument about that. During daily life, it's Windows. But when you are talking to corporate people, or making press statements, you are always mentioning (or at least shoud, but my feeling is that it is respected) Microsoft... and for good reason...
Many of us also get annoyed with this sense of self-importance. The build system is a big deal, but it only bought us a few years of time. Three years later and Linux would have been built using the BSD tools. (Or perhaps Torvalds would have helped fix up 386BSD... who knows?)
Some things disturb me in your point. Who is that 'us' ? And furthermore, the BSD tools are using GCC, a GNU tool. It's not that simple.
Hence the point of GNU : GNU gave the collection of absolutely necessary tools, and the legal foundations to create a free software operating system. X, Qt, GTK are irrelevant in that context, since they are not essential to create a functional OS. They help people migrating, but you can use your computer without them. Then, I find it quite normal that GNU, as the provider of the set of tools required to make your free OS work, and as the placeholder of the juridical legitimacy of free software (which is, actually, the real achievement of GNU/FSF), ask for some gratefulness from the rest of the community, through a name. And that's it.
I'm not defending GNU against everything. They have bad points too. The fundamental thing to keep in mind is that RMS is the root node of free software as an organized movement. This is something he for sure is immensely proud, and that he wants to maintain in a way he judges sound. His definition of 'sound' can lead to mistakes, sometimes. Firing people making criticisms, being arrogant, sometimes. But as regards that name, I definitely don't see your point. What would be any free OS without GCC nor GLIBC ? Without the GPL (that led to other free licenses afterwards) ? You answer, because I'm not able to do it.
The socialists, the communists, the social-democrats, the conservatives, the libertarians, the absenteists.. I have to agree that its getting kind of ridiculous.
Ok, choice is nice and all, but this duplication of thinking and criticism is probably extremely unproductive as a whole for the progress of democracy. It should be enough with 2-3 choices for political parties instead of 20: one or two lightweight ones as the libertarians, and one or two "fully featured" like the democrats and the republicans.
A beowulf cluster of anxious computers deny the previous assumption:
BC1 : "We should be trusted because of our supposed human attributes ?"
BC2 : "For Bill Gates's sake, we are not the ones opening *.pif.exe files, or even answering to those two lesbian chicks asking for hard cock right now !"
Sorry if it may seem offensive, but you are completely missing the point.
The very interest of that subject is that we don't rationnally have enough element to scientifically assess the situation. Hence the Wager (thanks for the vocabulary, BTW).
If various factors are to influence the consequences, but if unfortunately we know only one of this factor, it is safe to bet on it, because the cost of opportunity of betting is far lower than the one of not betting. If any other factors have some influence, then we will have bet for nothing. But in the case human activities did have an influence, the outcome is really different. The logical implication of that bet is that the benefit of betting is far superior than the one you could have without betting.
From a more philosophical standpoint, you should know that Pascal's Wager was a counterargument to those trying to assess the existence of God scientifically.
So the analogy is relevant ; since, despite the fact that global warming has indeed scientific implications (more than god, for sure), we won't be able to know the truth before something actually happens, it is safe to bet.
Get it ?
In the end, even though Pascal's argument can be perceived as a fallacy, it is one of the most brilliant fallacy ever uttered. At, that time when people could invent calctools and still be poetic...
So, sorry, but we are nowhere near the same 'semantic axis'. Arg... Semantic axis... or how to profess complicated vocabulary to let the people think you are clever. My God ! (Am I betting, anyway ?)
that it's more likely that you'll spend eternity in Hell if you don't believe in God than if you do. That's wrong. A concile of high ranked christians said so in the 9th century (I'll find the precise date if you want). I'm not saying it's true, but it was worth a logical implication at that time.
If only the average/.er could get out of his/her (yes ! her !) parents' basement, then he/she could notice that it's getting hotter and hotter year after year.
More seriously though, have any of you heard about Blaise Pascal ? He didn't invented French Fries, but come from the same country. This guy just had a revelation once, during a late night studying. The revelation of God.
To persuade other people to actually give faith into his idea of christianity, he gave us a cunning scientific principle : bet (based on both probabilities and cost of opportunity). If you bet on the existence of God, and if indeed it exists, you are ready for a happy millenar fucking angel chicks. If he doesn't exist, it's all the same. If you refuse to believe, and he does exist, just bring a cooler with you. If he doesn't exist, you're dead the same way.
The analogy is relevant in the sense that global warming does exist, but the causality with human activities is not proven. Hence the bet. Of course there are a lot of people saying that it would cost us our life standards. Answer : bip ! bullshit. Go on civil nuclear (just catch up your late, Sam !), spend less oil, learn to walk, get out of your fucking basement and take the streetcar.
You know, I've been interested myself in climatic changes. I may have red at least 2 sets of contradictory reports, and when digging with the figures, the experimental methods, it's really hard to say who's right or wrong.
Some scientists rejected the first conclusions of global warming, since the data were apparently voluntarily flawed, refusing to show evidence that temperature was higher during the 15th century.
So, as a citizen that tries to use its common sense, from that point, I'm just stuck, because I have no way to know whether the former or the later lie.
Anyway the questions you ask are not that separate, since the definition of major global climate change is closely tied with its possible implications on mankind. The scientific vocabulary is really imprecise when this very matters come into light, because the adjective 'major' is not quantifiable. So the first question stems from the last two ones, and not the reverse.
And this is still why scientists argue about it.
Dont get me wrong ; I'm not negating your point. I know the sensitive areas are the two points you mentionned, but there has been such a mix between scientific/business/media vocabulary in this story, on one hand, and such silly arguments, on the other hand, that it's really unlikely that we will ever have ('we' as the non-scifi people) a clue before the North Pole begins to melt at quick pace and make the level of the sea rise by 6 meters a year...:)
First thing to say, we'll only know if it is true when a massive change will occur. So far, the massive battle between scientists does not permit the average non-scientific reader to make up his/her mind about the question.
Anyway, call me a psycho, but I'm eagerly waiting for it. A good big old climate change would just be the necessary step to understand that, definitely, mankind is not eternal.
God of climate, of the raging seas, of the crushing sky, you 0wn us. Even if I am to die, give us the chance to realize that now is the time to act !
I know it's not good to feed the trolls, but I can't resist it.
Especially since you are new here, and your future is assured since you appear to be a girl, I'm gonna teach you the basic principles of civil life.
/. has been made to exchange opinions. Not always in a very fashionable way, but the slow donwgrading of the site (as seen on Usenet, for instance) is due to the very posts like 'nazi regime', and petty attacks on one's nationlity. Trolls, basically. Anyway, exchange means the very minimum of respect you don't seem to have yet ; waiting for you to grow up, I guess.
Concerning the particular problem ; you will be surprised by the fact that more people die driving fast to answer emergency situations than waiting for proper services to arrive and rescue them. This is seen everywhere, and I'm gonna dig into my archives to find the report, just for you.
With time you will learn that intelligence often doesn't need violence to prevail over other opinions. Apart for rants, that are welcomed because they are explicitly humorous in a way, this has been true for more than 3000 years.
So please, do yourself a service. Read, inform yourself, think.
You can do it.
Well, saying it's stupid is a judgement I wouldn't allow myself to make.
To take the two examples you gave me : if your wife is pregnant, call 911. Emergency services are here for that, I guess. And they are allowed to drive fast, because the drivers are experimented to do so.
I can understand the necessity, since the american emergency services doesn't take care of injured people on the go, but instead wait for reaching the hospital. In France where I live, it's the other way around. Whatever.
And I'm not speaking about 30mphs. More something like 140 kms/h. This is way enough to give you possibilities to be fast without endangering too much you and other people.
And then you tell me : what's the point ? 140 kms/h is fast enough to kill someone downtown. Sure thing, but that will at least prevent some motherfuckers to kill entire groups of people by driving at 120 mphs on the highway...
Slashdot Mirror
The point is not to say 'don't protect people who create things, wheter they are material or immaterial', the point is to say 'tiny bits of immaterial creations cannot be protected under the patent legislation, for it would be just like confiscating words instead of protecting books'.
As far as i know, software are protected by copyrights, or 'droit d'auteurs' in French. There are several differences between national legislations on that point, but hey, this is another problem.
Eventually, your example is extreme, because you imply that a set of algorithms could, without any physical intermediary, produce physical impact. This is, IMO, impossible. If you create a software that takes care of the spare energy of your computer to animate two wings, then ok, but your innovation isn't physical, since you didn't create a new way of using elements, let's say. Your program calculates something and brings this something into a very physical instrument (here, wings, that may have been, though I really don't know, patented).
MR borrows Einstein's idea ; maths cannot be patented ; they belong to the common pool.
Regards,
jdif
This is precisely what MR tries to fix here, by introducing a finely tuned distinction barring the EPO from implementing a 'free-market' patenting policy.
If this memorandum is pushed forward hard enough, then the EPO will have to reassert its 50,000 patents, and won't be able anymore nor to assign others nor to pressure, by its existence, the harmonization of legislations towards a recognization of software patents.
Don't mix things up, software patents, for now, mean nothing when brought up in courts. This is what is at stake now.
Regards,
jdif
Computer controlled technical inventions are, for instance, the different types of monitors (LCD, plasma, whatever), optical, wireless mouses, motherboards switches... All these devices present technical innovations, and then, should be, in MR's mind, patentable.
Computer programs, on the other hand, are the internal immaterial parts of logic that, assembled in some way (whether good or bad), make the former tools work together....
Well, you got the picture, don't you ?
IMO, this is not a bad distinction. Software patents is such a quagmire when it comes to law. At least, I could endure such a bill.
And, still IMO, MR in one of our most intelligent and honest politicians still alive, despite his irritating fatalism.
Hope it helps,
jdif
Brothers from the basement, let's gather into the Hive and sing our hymn, Radio Zerg !
Burps...
Having this post modded up informative really disturbs me... :)
It's your bet. If they made up something that would look like an OO-oriented SGML thing, it would remain simple for basic stuff, basically HTML, but could be expanded into more complicated things.
Again, I'm more on trusting de Icaza than you. It's not that I don't like you, but I'm not using the desktop you've made !
Regards,
jdif
Apparently, XAML is a complete replacement for HTML. So, it means that you have the ease of use and flexibility of every web development language, plus the markup, in one single language.
Furthermore, did you work with XAML ? do you know how the internals work ? I don't, and I'm pretty sure you don't either ; and I think it's quite relevant to trust Miguel de Icaza on that point.
And then you answer me, yeah yeah you trust too easily. And then I say : trusting trust, boy !
Plus a nice {counterinsult} with plenty of web apps just in your forehead.
Regards,
jdif
He acknowledges that the Microsoft replacement for HTML is a rich user experience to come, despite the fact it certainly is dangerous to a certain extent.
Do realize that, GNU/Linux zealots : you can say something is good from a certain point of view (usability), and bad from another (interoperability). Isn't that incredible ?
Really ; isn't that incredible ?
Regards,
jdif
interview_with_miguel_de_icaza_cofounder_of_gnome_ ximian_and_mono.html
I, for one, welcome our new naming convention overlords.
jdif
I've heard of Microsoft referred to, I've heard Windows referred to, but rarely in the same sentence outside a press release.
Yeah, and this is RMS's point : he doesn't give a shit about friends saying Linux, he wants the OS to be publicly acknowledged as GNU/Linux.
The way I'm seeing it : I'm not a huge FSF follower, but I do think that RMS, GNU, and the FSF do deserve some credit for what they did. Hence the scheme. If we take the problem in the reverse way, calling it GNU would have been similarly scandalous. The few essential pieces come from two different places ; C library, C compiler, productivity tools and licence come from the GNU ; the kernel comes from the hacker community gathered around L. Torvalds.
To reuse your comparison with FreeBSD (or more recently X ?), you remember the fuss around the 'advertising licence' ? Well, demanding to have your organization's name inside a product (arguably, in my opninion), is nothing more than asking people to remember who did it in an impersonal way. It is a credit, but far less outrageous than the licence changes made by BSD and X teams. So what's wrong with GNU when people haev been upgrading to X 4.4 before distros came back on 4.3 ? What's wrong with those people that keep using FreeBSD ? Why aren't we bashing them ? I guess it's because there is no reason to bash them ; it's the same for GNU. There are other reasons to bash GNU, but not this one in my opinion.
As regards Emacs, I really don't know what you have against it. I guess it's another point, but as far as I've used it, it fits. Let's just not enter into it, it smells like a troll subject.
Anyway it was nice to have some constructed opinion about that subject. Kudos.
Regards,
jdif
I'm not American, so I'm not the best judge of the situation. But the striking bipolarization of American politics leads to numerous questions, and is to be related with how the public opinion has been specifically influenced to achieve that result.
Just as an example, more and more essayists are complaining about the fact that both rep and dem are forgetting middle class workers... Despite of that fact, no third political party is able to rise with that line (work for the middle-class), although the middle class indeed is the majority of the population. I just find it strange.
Anyway, it was nothing more than a not-so-innocent joke.
Regards,
jdif
Can't you standardize political opinions ? Isn't that the role of a political party ? I don't see your point... :)
Regards,
jdif
This is your opinion. GNU is not a nice word, but I find infinite recursion quite witty.
English speakers, as a generality, hate having a common term with more than three syllables. GNU/Linux brings it up to 4. There's a reason we don't always call it "Microsoft Windows."
No argument about that. During daily life, it's Windows. But when you are talking to corporate people, or making press statements, you are always mentioning (or at least shoud, but my feeling is that it is respected) Microsoft... and for good reason...
Many of us also get annoyed with this sense of self-importance. The build system is a big deal, but it only bought us a few years of time. Three years later and Linux would have been built using the BSD tools. (Or perhaps Torvalds would have helped fix up 386BSD... who knows?)
Some things disturb me in your point. Who is that 'us' ? And furthermore, the BSD tools are using GCC, a GNU tool. It's not that simple.
Hence the point of GNU : GNU gave the collection of absolutely necessary tools, and the legal foundations to create a free software operating system. X, Qt, GTK are irrelevant in that context, since they are not essential to create a functional OS. They help people migrating, but you can use your computer without them. Then, I find it quite normal that GNU, as the provider of the set of tools required to make your free OS work, and as the placeholder of the juridical legitimacy of free software (which is, actually, the real achievement of GNU/FSF), ask for some gratefulness from the rest of the community, through a name. And that's it.
I'm not defending GNU against everything. They have bad points too. The fundamental thing to keep in mind is that RMS is the root node of free software as an organized movement. This is something he for sure is immensely proud, and that he wants to maintain in a way he judges sound. His definition of 'sound' can lead to mistakes, sometimes. Firing people making criticisms, being arrogant, sometimes. But as regards that name, I definitely don't see your point. What would be any free OS without GCC nor GLIBC ? Without the GPL (that led to other free licenses afterwards) ? You answer, because I'm not able to do it.
Regards
jdif
There's definitely something I don't get here.
jdif
This is an endless variation of the same post, reposted every time there is the troll-luring subject about anything related to both Gnome and KDE.
The guy is actually glad that you (and therefore I) spent some time arguing with him. Let's stop it.
jdif
Ok, choice is nice and all, but this duplication of thinking and criticism is probably extremely unproductive as a whole for the progress of democracy. It should be enough with 2-3 choices for political parties instead of 20: one or two lightweight ones as the libertarians, and one or two "fully featured" like the democrats and the republicans.
oh wait...
BC1 : "We should be trusted because of our supposed human attributes ?"
BC2 : "For Bill Gates's sake, we are not the ones opening *.pif.exe files, or even answering to those two lesbian chicks asking for hard cock right now !"
Human 1 : "Hot chicks ? Where ? Can I see them ?"
Regards,
jdif
The very interest of that subject is that we don't rationnally have enough element to scientifically assess the situation. Hence the Wager (thanks for the vocabulary, BTW).
If various factors are to influence the consequences, but if unfortunately we know only one of this factor, it is safe to bet on it, because the cost of opportunity of betting is far lower than the one of not betting. If any other factors have some influence, then we will have bet for nothing. But in the case human activities did have an influence, the outcome is really different. The logical implication of that bet is that the benefit of betting is far superior than the one you could have without betting.
From a more philosophical standpoint, you should know that Pascal's Wager was a counterargument to those trying to assess the existence of God scientifically.
So the analogy is relevant ; since, despite the fact that global warming has indeed scientific implications (more than god, for sure), we won't be able to know the truth before something actually happens, it is safe to bet.
Get it ?
In the end, even though Pascal's argument can be perceived as a fallacy, it is one of the most brilliant fallacy ever uttered. At, that time when people could invent calctools and still be poetic...
So, sorry, but we are nowhere near the same 'semantic axis'. Arg... Semantic axis... or how to profess complicated vocabulary to let the people think you are clever. My God ! (Am I betting, anyway ?)
that it's more likely that you'll spend eternity in Hell if you don't believe in God than if you do.
That's wrong. A concile of high ranked christians said so in the 9th century (I'll find the precise date if you want). I'm not saying it's true, but it was worth a logical implication at that time.
Regards,
jdif
More seriously though, have any of you heard about Blaise Pascal ? He didn't invented French Fries, but come from the same country. This guy just had a revelation once, during a late night studying. The revelation of God.
To persuade other people to actually give faith into his idea of christianity, he gave us a cunning scientific principle : bet (based on both probabilities and cost of opportunity). If you bet on the existence of God, and if indeed it exists, you are ready for a happy millenar fucking angel chicks. If he doesn't exist, it's all the same. If you refuse to believe, and he does exist, just bring a cooler with you. If he doesn't exist, you're dead the same way.
The analogy is relevant in the sense that global warming does exist, but the causality with human activities is not proven. Hence the bet. Of course there are a lot of people saying that it would cost us our life standards. Answer : bip ! bullshit. Go on civil nuclear (just catch up your late, Sam !), spend less oil, learn to walk, get out of your fucking basement and take the streetcar.
Gosh ! Think, before you brain freezes...
Regards,
jdif
Some scientists rejected the first conclusions of global warming, since the data were apparently voluntarily flawed, refusing to show evidence that temperature was higher during the 15th century.
So, as a citizen that tries to use its common sense, from that point, I'm just stuck, because I have no way to know whether the former or the later lie.
Anyway the questions you ask are not that separate, since the definition of major global climate change is closely tied with its possible implications on mankind. The scientific vocabulary is really imprecise when this very matters come into light, because the adjective 'major' is not quantifiable. So the first question stems from the last two ones, and not the reverse.
And this is still why scientists argue about it.
Dont get me wrong ; I'm not negating your point. I know the sensitive areas are the two points you mentionned, but there has been such a mix between scientific/business/media vocabulary in this story, on one hand, and such silly arguments, on the other hand, that it's really unlikely that we will ever have ('we' as the non-scifi people) a clue before the North Pole begins to melt at quick pace and make the level of the sea rise by 6 meters a year... :)
Regards, jdif
Anyway, call me a psycho, but I'm eagerly waiting for it. A good big old climate change would just be the necessary step to understand that, definitely, mankind is not eternal.
God of climate, of the raging seas, of the crushing sky, you 0wn us. Even if I am to die, give us the chance to realize that now is the time to act !
Regards,
jdif
Is it so surprising ?
Especially since you are new here, and your future is assured since you appear to be a girl, I'm gonna teach you the basic principles of civil life.
Concerning the particular problem ; you will be surprised by the fact that more people die driving fast to answer emergency situations than waiting for proper services to arrive and rescue them. This is seen everywhere, and I'm gonna dig into my archives to find the report, just for you.
With time you will learn that intelligence often doesn't need violence to prevail over other opinions. Apart for rants, that are welcomed because they are explicitly humorous in a way, this has been true for more than 3000 years.
So please, do yourself a service. Read, inform yourself, think. You can do it.
Regards,
jdif
To take the two examples you gave me : if your wife is pregnant, call 911. Emergency services are here for that, I guess. And they are allowed to drive fast, because the drivers are experimented to do so.
I can understand the necessity, since the american emergency services doesn't take care of injured people on the go, but instead wait for reaching the hospital. In France where I live, it's the other way around. Whatever.
And I'm not speaking about 30mphs. More something like 140 kms/h. This is way enough to give you possibilities to be fast without endangering too much you and other people.
And then you tell me : what's the point ? 140 kms/h is fast enough to kill someone downtown. Sure thing, but that will at least prevent some motherfuckers to kill entire groups of people by driving at 120 mphs on the highway...
Regards,
jdif
Driving too fast is bad.
Killing people while driving can be a fucking crime.
When will people realize that, for god's sake ? You have no excuse when you kill someone while driving too fast, especially in downtown.
If only a government had the balls to resist the pressure of car manufacturers groups and impose an engine throttle limitation for common vehicles...
Regards,
jdif
But the real power of his answer is that he made a parody of this cease-and-desist letter, hence making the point even clearer.
It's just like asking them to stick their fist in their ass instead of only one finger... :/
Regards,
jdif