Dude, where do you shop?! Are you sure you're checking the labels correctly? The FDA allows food manufacturers to state they have 0 grams trans fat per serving if they actually have less than 0.5 grams. Check the ingredients. If they have "hydrogenated", "margerine", or "shortening" anywhere in the list, they almost definitely have trans-fats.
At my local grocery store. Yes, I know all about checking the labels. The rule about less than.5 grams also applies to all other fats as well. And honestly.. so what? LARGE AMOUNTS are a problem, and ALL fat contains at least some transfats. Check out the references in that link.
I admit, it has gotten a lot better in the last few years, but there's still a lot of work to do. I had to stop eating burritos for a long time until just 2 weeks ago, when manny's finally stopped using trans-fats. I couldn't find another tortilla anywhere that didn't use them, or wasn't some crazy fat-free tortilla that fell apart or something like that.
There's no work to do. If people care, they will read labels as you have. If they don't, they will buy whatever, and risk taking in large amounts of transfats. So you just eat what you want, and leave everyone else to do the same.
do, and even in a hippie town like Bloomington, IN, it's hard to find places that don't. Nearly all fast food is out, though I heard recently that mcdonalds is making moves to eliminate it (Wendy's said they did, but they actually didn't. It's the 0.5 rule).
So don't eat out. It's not like you have a right to eat at someone else's property anyway.
I saw only a few things that had 0.5 or higher transfats.
Many waiters can't answer my question, or lie just to shut me up. A lot of the time restaurant owners don't realize that margerine and shortening are trans-fat, so they say they don't use it even if they do. I'm a crazy person. I go back and check their boxes. I catch them in lies all the time.
So don't eat out. Seems simple enough.
I really won't trust the system until there are actual regulations in place; preferably a complete ban, as I see no reason for this stuff to be around anyway. That's the sticking point for me: why do we need it? What do we lose in banning it?
We lose our rights. At the end of the day, if I make a dougnt with transfat, and someone wants to buy it, you really have no right to interfere. I don't see you running around advocating banning all sodas. Personally I see no reason for religion to be around either, but that has never been a reason to interfere with the rights of another person's beliefs.
AS another poster indicated, those all reference the same study.
A study which appears to be flawed, by the way. First, they classify obese using BMI, which presents it's own problems. Second, the study assumes people all end up in assisted living homes, which is a pretty bad assumption to make, especially since a good diet and exercise (things that make you healthy) allow people to remain active and more healthy lives later on. That is, less risk of Alzheimer's, osteoporosis, and a host of other conditions.
Sorry, but one dubious study does not make fact. The fact is that overweight people cost people more in not only healthcare but help raise food prices & gas prices.
I take it you're trying to get a job as a "journalist?"
People outside the ideal range, be it fat or huge amounts of muscle, tend not to live as long (strain on the heart, kidneys, joints, etc).
Wow.. please let us know your name, so we can avoid you.
Did you stop and consider that people outside the ideal BMI range are 99% outside the range because of fat, and not muscle mass? There is a reason even doctors are starting to question the wisdom of using BMI at all. Even considering all people, BMI is inaccurate for me simply because I'm tall, and the formula doesnt take people outside of average HEIGHTS into considertion either.
Why shouldn't the food companies be able to sell it? When everyone first started running around yelling about these oils, I almost immediately started seeing products advertising that they ALREADY didn't use transfat.
Transfats are also TRIVIAL to avoid transfats when grocery shopping. I read labels carefully because I'm starting a muscle building program. It's rare I ever find anything.
as far as restraunts go, you can ask and if they use transfats, tell them you won't be eating there unless they decide not to use them anymore. If they don't, that's fine, you don't have a right to eat at any restruant you want.
I understand why they are bad; but it's not my right to interfere with the private matters of two individual parties.
Let's fix medicare and medicaid by allowing them to refuse to pay for obesety related problems. For example, did you know that medicare COVERS gastric bypass surgery? I find THAT outragous.
Not all food that digests quickly is junk food. White bread digests very quickly, as does whey protien shakes. That's actually the point of whey shakes, to get protien into your body ASAP to stop muscle breakdown or provide for growth.
Also, unless you're trying to burn fat, you SHOULD have some quick digesting carbs right after a high cardio task to replenish your energy.
Finally, as any trainer will tell you, a little junk now and then is a very good thing. It keeps the body guessing, keeping your metabolism high.
True, you need to eat to survive. But you don't need to eat cola, donuts, fatty beef, candy, gum, cookies, cakes, chips, french fries, burritos, ad "chinese" food.
Nonsense. They may die sooner, but it takes a long, long time to do so. Especially when we're talking about being overweight. Also, in the mean time, those same fat people are using health care much more often than people of normal weight, because they have much more health problems related to being fat.
Yes, and our electric bill would go up (assuming we have electric cars too), BUT we already use a lot of electricity as well and it will be more spread. Also, nuclear can be a hold over until we DO get better an using renewable energy sources.
Why the hell does it matter if it's the default or not? As for your theory, how about you wait and see what happens... MS can't be painted with a single brush, anymore than the government can be.
If I felt the need to research every argument made on Slashdot I'd have to change my lifestyle to one that no longer requires a source of income. Your argument - your onus to provide evidence.
WTF? My arguement? You speak as if you know the implications of turning off SSID and claim a familarity with the protocol, when clearly you're not. Maybe when someone shows more knowledge about the subject you should look into it more, or at least accept what they are saying. I certainly wouldn't argue about particle physics because I'm not well versed in it.
Yes, I've monitored the speed with and without SSID broadcast. If you're going to ask me to run a series of obscure tests to determine that a particular protocol or application will be affected by x percent 4 times out of 5 I'm sorry, I'm not interested.
Now, do you have any documentation that demonstrates that speeds are adversely affected by disabling SSID broadcast by an access point?
As I said, there's plenty of forum posts out there, usually reporting speeds dropping from 5mbs to 3 mbs. But whatever, if you want to be ignorant, that's your proagative... but perhaps you should acknowledge it and refrain from making silly "no it's not!111!" posts.
As far as speed goes, you haven't NOTICED any problems. Did you actually benchmark your througput though? Hardware forums are filled with posts about these issues.
Yes, it is required. Without an SSID you can't connect, and the AP ends up broadcasting it anyway. Maybe you should read up on it, including the bandwidth issues that arise from telling the AP not to broadcast it often.
On more than one occassion (Ok, on 2 occassions) I updated the guys firmware for him.
I would certainly think that to be illegal. Perhaps the owner DIDN'T want the firmware updated for some particular reason.
So in that case, it's like walking thru an open door, fixing a few things, taking a sip from the faucet, and walking out.
You'd still be charged with trespass and theft. And you've also assumed liability of your fix doesn't last or causes other damage. The point is, no one asked or gave you permission to do any of those things.
Also, I don't know if I agree with the closed-door analogy. Seems to me an open WiFi that broadcasts its SSID and doesn't require a key nor uses any MAC filtering is akin to just leaving your door wide open and then prosecuting somebody who dare walks thru.
All APs broadcast their SSID. It's required for WiFi to work. That only leave the open part. Unencrypted is not an inventation for you to use it anymore than you can legally or ethically listen in on an unencrypted cordless phone. Of course using the Wifi is more the equiovlent of using your neighbors cordless base station to place phone calls from your house. Also illegal, I believe.
Taking just one of those steps would, to me, signal the intent of the network owner that he doesn't want you there.
You're assuming the intent is to let other's use it; the owner may not have known others can use it unless more steps or taken, or the owner might not want the performance penality from enabling encryption. Just as the default answer to "can you enter my house without express permission" should be "no," so should the use of private Wifi spots.
So a bunch of you seem to have the idea that I was advocating slamming on brakes, so let me clear this up... no, don't do that... you can hurt people, esp. yourself (whiplash etc. is more likely to hurt the front car than anyone behind, AIUI).
Certainly sounds like you're advocating it.
Again, maybe if you admit to intent... or intent can somehow be proven. But I've seen accidents where two cars were going around a "roundabout" and the one in front slammed on the brakes for no reason, the driver got out of the car and said (roughly) "I'm sorry I did that, I thought I saw something, this is completely my fault."... and the end result was insurance of the driver traveling behind paid for all damages.
What the driver says at the scene and what they say to their insurance company are usually two different things. It's also this line of thinking that has given rise to insurance fraud... where someone cuts you off and slams on the brakes. So I doubt this is true anymore, and just because insurance companies may have flawed reasoning doesn't mean you can't get criminal charges. It's also illegal to stop in a roadway for no reason, at the very least.
This is because, generally, you don't have to prove why you needed to stop... the people behind you are still not allowed to drive into you. And, personally, I have roughly 0% sympathy for tailgaters they are a danger to themselves and to the people unlucky enough to be in front of them.
If someone wants you to rear-end them, there is very little you can do. Hence more insurance fraud due to this way of thinking.
Apart from anything else, doing that is positive re-enforcement. Your best option is to slow down because if you then need to stop they'll have more time to react and they'll be traveling slower when they hit you (ergo. cause you less harm).
I'm going to throw out that if you're being tailgatted, you're probably going too slow to begin with. There are also laws to impeding the "normal flow of traffic." Slowing down may serve to just make the situation worse. I really don't see your line of thinking; letting someone who is tailgatting you is best for everyone; you're no longer stressed someone might hit you, and the tailgatter can go on his way.
The problem is you can't really define tailgatting. Certainly one inch is too close.. but some feel half a car lenght is fine, other's don't. I've had people get pissy at me for "tailgatting" even though I was a car lenght and a half away doing 50. So while you think someone may be tailgatting you, they may be fine because 1) they are paying attention 2) they may have good reflexes 3) their car may have more stopping power than yours 4) they have more experience than you.
So there's a lot of factors here that your oversimplification don't take into account. Again, I sense another "holier than thou" driver posting..
First, the lower speed limits are more or less because of drivers failure to slow down during hazardous conditions and to set a uniform rule on how fast to drive if a posted limit isn't present. At least in my state it is. If you follow the rules, you won't be speeding anywhere even if a sign isn't present.
No, the lower limits are there to give police more power, to increase revenue via fines, and feel good political reasons. Speed limits pretty much don't work, because the limits as is are mostly ignored anyway. It's why they finally abandoned the national 55 limit. I'd really like to know what state you live in though.. perhaps things are more sane there, but my experience is largely limited to the NE.
Second, there wasn't enough time to speed up. I describe the situation in detail at this post here.
So you say. I can't be sure if you're telling the truth or not though, and since there's no way to prove if you are either way, I feel we can drop this point.. I have my opinion, you have yours.
Your incorrect about a holier then though attitude about a speed limit though. The road was one where it was at was plenty fast enough for the conditions.
That's your opinion. Obviously at least one other disagreed
There was actually one of the yellow caution speed limit signs that lowered the speed limit by 10 MPH for the corner.
It's not illegal to ignore the yellow speed limit signs; they are advisory only, and so I never discuss them. I'm talking about the white limit sign for the road you were on.
Don't confuse someone's willingness to follow the rules and not get a ticket as some divine evangelical push for everyone else to do so. I don't care if you go 20 times the speed limit as long as you don't make me part of your mistakes. That is when I get angered.
In my experience though, that's exactly how those that "follow the rules" act. They are more concerned about the "rules" than what is really safe.. and artificially low limits ARE unsafe.
I suspect that you have a right to be fearful of someone assaulting you. You sound like one of those people who think if I can do it, what is the harm which means you probably piss a lot of people off.
Not at all; I don't follow arbitrary numbers though, I drive what I feel is safe. That may be different than you. I also have plenty of studies to back up my thinking, that says teh safe speed limit is the one that an overwhelming majority follow. Sadly, I have yet to see any roads posted in such a manor. Of course that may be because everyone knows the limits are a joke, and do at least 10 over without thinking. So the rare time the limit is properly set, you now have people that may be going to fast for conditions. Again, that's sadly the result of speed limit policy that we've been following.
However, I am big enough that if I was going to assault someone, I would have opened the car door or kicked the window out and done it. There wouldn't be a need to 2 minutes of arguing where the other driver could have speed away at the fist chance they get.
Except that in my case, should I see you approaching the car I would have reached for my gun. Think about that the next time you run up to someone's car to yell at them. If I few off the handle like that everytime someone pissed me off, I don't think my bloodpress and stress levels would be in such good shape.
No, if you slam on your brakes for no reason, you can certainly be found to have acted recklessly. That someone is tailgatting you doesn't matter.
"I think i saw something" doesn't usually fly either. If it's a small animal, you're expected to hit it to avoid causing an accident. Anything bigger and they might try looking for animal tracks.
At the very least, are you going to feel good about yourself knowing that an action you took helped kill someone, possibly a third party that wasn't involved in your ego trip? Seriously, there's nothing you can do if someone is tailgatting you but pulling off the road to let them pass. If there goign to hit you, they're going to hit you. You feel they are acting unsafe and taking a big risk... and your solution is to increase the risk?
I've driven in most of the NE states, and recently in FL. I haven't seen that happen personally.. useually the other person eventually passes as they should. I know whenver I've wanted someone to pass me for some reason, letting off the gas until they do seems to do the trick, pretty quickly. I think I lose 5 MPH before they decide to pass.
At any rate, for those people, there's nothing you can do. But that's not the story the OP told us, and yes, on a double lane road he should have pulled off to the shoulder. It's not like he was on an interstate.
Ya, the cop was right. The other guy shouldn't have passed in a no passing zone, no doubt about that. You're angry, no problem there. But there is a problem with jumping out of your car and screaming at someone. In other words, the other driver's actions don't excuse yours.
I worry much more about someone that jumps out of a car than someone that cuts me off. The one that cuts me off will continue on his way; the one that jumps out may assalt me. He shouldn't have passed, but once he did perhaps you should have responded by slowing down to ensure the situtation didn't cause an accident. Based on your reaction though, I suspect you probably sped up, because of your holier than though attitude about the speed limit.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, where do you shop?! Are you sure you're checking the labels correctly? The FDA allows food manufacturers to state they have 0 grams trans fat per serving if they actually have less than 0.5 grams. Check the ingredients. If they have "hydrogenated", "margerine", or "shortening" anywhere in the list, they almost definitely have trans-fats.
At my local grocery store. Yes, I know all about checking the labels. The rule about less than .5 grams also applies to all other fats as well. And honestly.. so what? LARGE AMOUNTS are a problem, and ALL fat contains at least some transfats. Check out the references in that link.
I admit, it has gotten a lot better in the last few years, but there's still a lot of work to do. I had to stop eating burritos for a long time until just 2 weeks ago, when manny's finally stopped using trans-fats. I couldn't find another tortilla anywhere that didn't use them, or wasn't some crazy fat-free tortilla that fell apart or something like that.
There's no work to do. If people care, they will read labels as you have. If they don't, they will buy whatever, and risk taking in large amounts of transfats. So you just eat what you want, and leave everyone else to do the same.
do, and even in a hippie town like Bloomington, IN, it's hard to find places that don't. Nearly all fast food is out, though I heard recently that mcdonalds is making moves to eliminate it (Wendy's said they did, but they actually didn't. It's the 0.5 rule).
So don't eat out. It's not like you have a right to eat at someone else's property anyway.
McDonald's either elimited it already or never had it: http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.index1.html
I saw only a few things that had 0.5 or higher transfats.
Many waiters can't answer my question, or lie just to shut me up. A lot of the time restaurant owners don't realize that margerine and shortening are trans-fat, so they say they don't use it even if they do. I'm a crazy person. I go back and check their boxes. I catch them in lies all the time.
So don't eat out. Seems simple enough.
I really won't trust the system until there are actual regulations in place; preferably a complete ban, as I see no reason for this stuff to be around anyway. That's the sticking point for me: why do we need it? What do we lose in banning it?
We lose our rights. At the end of the day, if I make a dougnt with transfat, and someone wants to buy it, you really have no right to interfere. I don't see you running around advocating banning all sodas. Personally I see no reason for religion to be around either, but that has never been a reason to interfere with the rights of another person's beliefs.
AS another poster indicated, those all reference the same study.
A study which appears to be flawed, by the way. First, they classify obese using BMI, which presents it's own problems. Second, the study assumes people all end up in assisted living homes, which is a pretty bad assumption to make, especially since a good diet and exercise (things that make you healthy) allow people to remain active and more healthy lives later on. That is, less risk of Alzheimer's, osteoporosis, and a host of other conditions.
Sorry, but one dubious study does not make fact. The fact is that overweight people cost people more in not only healthcare but help raise food prices & gas prices.
I take it you're trying to get a job as a "journalist?"
People outside the ideal range, be it fat or huge amounts of muscle, tend not to live as long (strain on the heart, kidneys, joints, etc).
Wow.. please let us know your name, so we can avoid you.
Did you stop and consider that people outside the ideal BMI range are 99% outside the range because of fat, and not muscle mass? There is a reason even doctors are starting to question the wisdom of using BMI at all. Even considering all people, BMI is inaccurate for me simply because I'm tall, and the formula doesnt take people outside of average HEIGHTS into considertion either.
Why shouldn't the food companies be able to sell it? When everyone first started running around yelling about these oils, I almost immediately started seeing products advertising that they ALREADY didn't use transfat.
Transfats are also TRIVIAL to avoid transfats when grocery shopping. I read labels carefully because I'm starting a muscle building program. It's rare I ever find anything.
as far as restraunts go, you can ask and if they use transfats, tell them you won't be eating there unless they decide not to use them anymore. If they don't, that's fine, you don't have a right to eat at any restruant you want.
I understand why they are bad; but it's not my right to interfere with the private matters of two individual parties.
Let's fix medicare and medicaid by allowing them to refuse to pay for obesety related problems. For example, did you know that medicare COVERS gastric bypass surgery? I find THAT outragous.
Have any citations to back that up?
Not all food that digests quickly is junk food. White bread digests very quickly, as does whey protien shakes. That's actually the point of whey shakes, to get protien into your body ASAP to stop muscle breakdown or provide for growth.
Also, unless you're trying to burn fat, you SHOULD have some quick digesting carbs right after a high cardio task to replenish your energy.
Finally, as any trainer will tell you, a little junk now and then is a very good thing. It keeps the body guessing, keeping your metabolism high.
True, you need to eat to survive. But you don't need to eat cola, donuts, fatty beef, candy, gum, cookies, cakes, chips, french fries, burritos, ad "chinese" food.
Nonsense. They may die sooner, but it takes a long, long time to do so. Especially when we're talking about being overweight. Also, in the mean time, those same fat people are using health care much more often than people of normal weight, because they have much more health problems related to being fat.
Proportially, our waistlines should be only a few inches wider AT MOST, not over half a foot.
Yes, and our electric bill would go up (assuming we have electric cars too), BUT we already use a lot of electricity as well and it will be more spread. Also, nuclear can be a hold over until we DO get better an using renewable energy sources.
I didn't see where they said it was better, I only saw they said it won.
Why the hell does it matter if it's the default or not? As for your theory, how about you wait and see what happens... MS can't be painted with a single brush, anymore than the government can be.
If I felt the need to research every argument made on Slashdot I'd have to change my lifestyle to one that no longer requires a source of income. Your argument - your onus to provide evidence.
WTF? My arguement? You speak as if you know the implications of turning off SSID and claim a familarity with the protocol, when clearly you're not. Maybe when someone shows more knowledge about the subject you should look into it more, or at least accept what they are saying. I certainly wouldn't argue about particle physics because I'm not well versed in it.
Yes, I've monitored the speed with and without SSID broadcast. If you're going to ask me to run a series of obscure tests to determine that a particular protocol or application will be affected by x percent 4 times out of 5 I'm sorry, I'm not interested.
Now, do you have any documentation that demonstrates that speeds are adversely affected by disabling SSID broadcast by an access point?
As I said, there's plenty of forum posts out there, usually reporting speeds dropping from 5mbs to 3 mbs. But whatever, if you want to be ignorant, that's your proagative... but perhaps you should acknowledge it and refrain from making silly "no it's not!111!" posts.
Ya, it is: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=43 It's being broadcast while you're using the connection, no matter what your router is set to do.
It also don't matter whether or not the user even knows what firmware is, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ALTER HIS PROPERTY.
I can see why you don't understand the issues here if you stop reading at the first hint you disagree with something.
Man, new users are confirming my belief that people are raising dumber and dumber kids...
Fucking-a man, learn to google: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=43
As far as speed goes, you haven't NOTICED any problems. Did you actually benchmark your througput though? Hardware forums are filled with posts about these issues.
Yes, it is required. Without an SSID you can't connect, and the AP ends up broadcasting it anyway. Maybe you should read up on it, including the bandwidth issues that arise from telling the AP not to broadcast it often.
On more than one occassion (Ok, on 2 occassions) I updated the guys firmware for him.
I would certainly think that to be illegal. Perhaps the owner DIDN'T want the firmware updated for some particular reason.
So in that case, it's like walking thru an open door, fixing a few things, taking a sip from the faucet, and walking out.
You'd still be charged with trespass and theft. And you've also assumed liability of your fix doesn't last or causes other damage. The point is, no one asked or gave you permission to do any of those things.
Also, I don't know if I agree with the closed-door analogy. Seems to me an open WiFi that broadcasts its SSID and doesn't require a key nor uses any MAC filtering is akin to just leaving your door wide open and then prosecuting somebody who dare walks thru.
All APs broadcast their SSID. It's required for WiFi to work. That only leave the open part. Unencrypted is not an inventation for you to use it anymore than you can legally or ethically listen in on an unencrypted cordless phone. Of course using the Wifi is more the equiovlent of using your neighbors cordless base station to place phone calls from your house. Also illegal, I believe.
Taking just one of those steps would, to me, signal the intent of the network owner that he doesn't want you there.
You're assuming the intent is to let other's use it; the owner may not have known others can use it unless more steps or taken, or the owner might not want the performance penality from enabling encryption. Just as the default answer to "can you enter my house without express permission" should be "no," so should the use of private Wifi spots.
No, it's more like you using your cordless handset to use a neighbor's cordless base unit to make phone calls... which is illegal, by the way.
So a bunch of you seem to have the idea that I was advocating slamming on brakes, so let me clear this up ... no, don't do that ... you can hurt people, esp. yourself (whiplash etc. is more likely to hurt the front car than anyone behind, AIUI).
... or intent can somehow be proven. But I've seen accidents where two cars were going around a "roundabout" and the one in front slammed on the brakes for no reason, the driver got out of the car and said (roughly) "I'm sorry I did that, I thought I saw something, this is completely my fault." ... and the end result was insurance of the driver traveling behind paid for all damages.
... the people behind you are still not allowed to drive into you. And, personally, I have roughly 0% sympathy for tailgaters they are a danger to themselves and to the people unlucky enough to be in front of them.
Certainly sounds like you're advocating it.
Again, maybe if you admit to intent
What the driver says at the scene and what they say to their insurance company are usually two different things. It's also this line of thinking that has given rise to insurance fraud... where someone cuts you off and slams on the brakes. So I doubt this is true anymore, and just because insurance companies may have flawed reasoning doesn't mean you can't get criminal charges. It's also illegal to stop in a roadway for no reason, at the very least.
This is because, generally, you don't have to prove why you needed to stop
If someone wants you to rear-end them, there is very little you can do. Hence more insurance fraud due to this way of thinking.
Apart from anything else, doing that is positive re-enforcement. Your best option is to slow down because if you then need to stop they'll have more time to react and they'll be traveling slower when they hit you (ergo. cause you less harm).
I'm going to throw out that if you're being tailgatted, you're probably going too slow to begin with. There are also laws to impeding the "normal flow of traffic." Slowing down may serve to just make the situation worse. I really don't see your line of thinking; letting someone who is tailgatting you is best for everyone; you're no longer stressed someone might hit you, and the tailgatter can go on his way.
The problem is you can't really define tailgatting. Certainly one inch is too close.. but some feel half a car lenght is fine, other's don't. I've had people get pissy at me for "tailgatting" even though I was a car lenght and a half away doing 50. So while you think someone may be tailgatting you, they may be fine because 1) they are paying attention 2) they may have good reflexes 3) their car may have more stopping power than yours 4) they have more experience than you.
So there's a lot of factors here that your oversimplification don't take into account. Again, I sense another "holier than thou" driver posting..
First, the lower speed limits are more or less because of drivers failure to slow down during hazardous conditions and to set a uniform rule on how fast to drive if a posted limit isn't present. At least in my state it is. If you follow the rules, you won't be speeding anywhere even if a sign isn't present.
No, the lower limits are there to give police more power, to increase revenue via fines, and feel good political reasons. Speed limits pretty much don't work, because the limits as is are mostly ignored anyway. It's why they finally abandoned the national 55 limit. I'd really like to know what state you live in though.. perhaps things are more sane there, but my experience is largely limited to the NE.
Second, there wasn't enough time to speed up. I describe the situation in detail at this post here.
So you say. I can't be sure if you're telling the truth or not though, and since there's no way to prove if you are either way, I feel we can drop this point.. I have my opinion, you have yours.
Your incorrect about a holier then though attitude about a speed limit though. The road was one where it was at was plenty fast enough for the conditions.
That's your opinion. Obviously at least one other disagreed
There was actually one of the yellow caution speed limit signs that lowered the speed limit by 10 MPH for the corner.
It's not illegal to ignore the yellow speed limit signs; they are advisory only, and so I never discuss them. I'm talking about the white limit sign for the road you were on.
Don't confuse someone's willingness to follow the rules and not get a ticket as some divine evangelical push for everyone else to do so. I don't care if you go 20 times the speed limit as long as you don't make me part of your mistakes. That is when I get angered.
In my experience though, that's exactly how those that "follow the rules" act. They are more concerned about the "rules" than what is really safe.. and artificially low limits ARE unsafe.
I suspect that you have a right to be fearful of someone assaulting you. You sound like one of those people who think if I can do it, what is the harm which means you probably piss a lot of people off.
Not at all; I don't follow arbitrary numbers though, I drive what I feel is safe. That may be different than you. I also have plenty of studies to back up my thinking, that says teh safe speed limit is the one that an overwhelming majority follow. Sadly, I have yet to see any roads posted in such a manor. Of course that may be because everyone knows the limits are a joke, and do at least 10 over without thinking. So the rare time the limit is properly set, you now have people that may be going to fast for conditions. Again, that's sadly the result of speed limit policy that we've been following.
However, I am big enough that if I was going to assault someone, I would have opened the car door or kicked the window out and done it. There wouldn't be a need to 2 minutes of arguing where the other driver could have speed away at the fist chance they get.
Except that in my case, should I see you approaching the car I would have reached for my gun. Think about that the next time you run up to someone's car to yell at them. If I few off the handle like that everytime someone pissed me off, I don't think my bloodpress and stress levels would be in such good shape.
No, if you slam on your brakes for no reason, you can certainly be found to have acted recklessly. That someone is tailgatting you doesn't matter.
"I think i saw something" doesn't usually fly either. If it's a small animal, you're expected to hit it to avoid causing an accident. Anything bigger and they might try looking for animal tracks.
At the very least, are you going to feel good about yourself knowing that an action you took helped kill someone, possibly a third party that wasn't involved in your ego trip? Seriously, there's nothing you can do if someone is tailgatting you but pulling off the road to let them pass. If there goign to hit you, they're going to hit you. You feel they are acting unsafe and taking a big risk... and your solution is to increase the risk?
And do you want one app with some nasty leaks using ALL of it?
No?
I didn't think so. That's why the memory footprint is being made a big deal of...
Seems the people with the problem use tabbed browsing. Perhaps all those tabs in one process screws up memory management?
Did you forget to enable High Memory support in your kernel?
Processor type and features --->
High Memory Support (on) --->
(X) 4GB
Might it also be an MB video card stealing RAM for video memory?
I've driven in most of the NE states, and recently in FL. I haven't seen that happen personally.. useually the other person eventually passes as they should. I know whenver I've wanted someone to pass me for some reason, letting off the gas until they do seems to do the trick, pretty quickly. I think I lose 5 MPH before they decide to pass.
At any rate, for those people, there's nothing you can do. But that's not the story the OP told us, and yes, on a double lane road he should have pulled off to the shoulder. It's not like he was on an interstate.
Ya, the cop was right. The other guy shouldn't have passed in a no passing zone, no doubt about that. You're angry, no problem there. But there is a problem with jumping out of your car and screaming at someone. In other words, the other driver's actions don't excuse yours.
I worry much more about someone that jumps out of a car than someone that cuts me off. The one that cuts me off will continue on his way; the one that jumps out may assalt me. He shouldn't have passed, but once he did perhaps you should have responded by slowing down to ensure the situtation didn't cause an accident. Based on your reaction though, I suspect you probably sped up, because of your holier than though attitude about the speed limit.
The speed limit probably was too low, because almost all roads in the US have limits that are lower than they should be.
Or you could stop being an asshat and let people pass you.