The stories in religious tomes are irrelevent since they are all written by man. The fact that they were disproven or not doesn't really mean anything except those that wrote the stories cannot be trusted. Said books do not offer evidence of god at all.
We have no scientific evidence of any kind of god at all, so we have no reason to think there is a god.
I agree on your last point, religion should affect public policy.
A final comment. Using this approach gives you a secure firewall with all the unixy goodness you'd expect, not to mention logging, SSH, NTP synchronisation, etc that you may want to use as well. And earning the right to sneer at everyone using those plastic Linksys NAT boxes doesn't hurt.
Will your snearing stop when they point out they were on the internet safely yesterday, while you were still deciding all the rules?
1. This article really ISN'T about government-posted speed limits at all, so this is a little off-topic (though not completely). The "speed limit" as determined by this device is determined by the parents. For instance, my dad probably would have set this thing to 65mph. Some fathers would set it to 85, to make sure their kids aren't drag-racing anywhere. Again, it has nothing to do with the state-posted speed limit, so you arguing about a topic that's only peripherally relevant to this article.
Not off base. Going above a set limit isn't inherently unsafe depending on conditions. Speeding doesn't cause accidents, no matter what the police say (they have a vested interest in making people think that way though). This device is as useless as most speed limits, because speed does cause accidents, other factors do.
2. Saying that "plenty of accidents happen that don't involve speeding" and then concluding "this device is, therefore, useless" is illogical. Plenty of accidents happen that DO involve speeding. No one claimed that this device was a "silver bullet" that would prevent all teen car-related deaths, and there's no reason to dismiss it completely because it's not that. It's a potentially useful tool for parents (the owners of the cars) to keep their kids accountable for going unsafe speeds in certain situations.
However setting too low of a limit actually causes more accidents. Accidents aren't caused by people speeding (usually; going 60 around a sharp curve will cause an accident, but reasonable people won't do that anyway). All this device will do is re-enforce the idea that whatever limit is set is valid, without question. This is a problem, because we really do need more reformed speed limit laws.
3. Wow, you already enacted Godwin's Law. Don't you think that it's a bit of a jump from "a device that will tell me when my car is going over a certain speed, and will therefore help me keep my child accountable when they are driving my care" to a fascist state? How the crap do you people manage to take arguments about TRAFFIC LAWS and end up making accusations of fascism? Get some perspective.
Thanks for not noticing the OP saying I should move to Iraq. My comment was meant to show how silly HIS comment was. Going over a set limit is no indication at all if the driver is being careful or not. Although I would think purposefully attempting to criminalize all citizens is a step toward facism, wouldn't you say? Why is it ok for the state to punish you for acting reasonably with a fine? As long as they don't toss you in jail its no big deal? I think you need more prespective than I.
4. Why do I have the feeling that you're one of those people who have a "broad view" of life, and can see the moral ambiguities, and can see that the laws are probably unjust, and that much of the system is corrupt... and then they use that as an excuse to break the speed limit whenever the crap they want? And rant about "the corruption of the American justice system" and "scientific studies of the safe speed for the road" when they're pulled over doing 50 in a school zone?
Should you obey laws of a clearly unjust and corrupt government? I thought the idea our founders had was that should such a government come to be you throw it off? At any rate, I can see that you're clearly one of those people that demonize speeding. When did I ever say going 50 in a school zone would be ok? I'm arguing for REASONABLE limits that don't crimialize the majority and are PROVEN safer, and you try to paint me out as some maniac going 90 down every city road plowing over poor Suzie ever chance I get. Get a grip dude.
Mind you, I'm not certain that you're one of these people... that's just an impression. But I exhort you: do not be so open-minded that your brain falls out.
I really can't see how you get that impression; I'm arguing for reasonable and safer limits. It seems to me there's some distortion going on when your mind interperates my post, b
Philadelphia strikes me as a poor example of your point. The traffic on the interstates in Philly rarely flows nicely - especially the Schuylkill, Blue Route, and I-95 - and you had better be paying constant attention with a foot over the brake because Philly drivers will slow down to 45 on a dime to rubberneck at anything. Except at off hours, I almost never am above 55 on 76/476/676 or 65 on 95 simply because the flow of the road makes it impossible.
In rush hour, I was on 76 / 476 (NE Ext). For the most part, traffic moved pretty quick, but it wasn't 'nice' because of the absurdly low limits. I have been on 676 during the lunch rush hour and just after rush hour, and it seemed to move fine. Most of the problems where people driving too slow and in the center lanes. Having the slowest cars in the center lane seems exteremly unsafe; I'd rather see more enforcement of the 'keep right except to pass' rule.
At any rate, traffic flow can be affected by congestion. No one said speed limits were at fault for that. Assuming no congrestion though, my points stand (even if there is no congestion; people aren't going to be able to do 55 if everything is stopped).
You've cited this in almost every one of your posts without providing any evidence as to where one might find these studies.
Look up the 85th - 90th precentile rule. I honestly had no idea how unknowledgable people are on this subject. I supsect it has something to do with the state spouting its propganda (speeding = evil!) and no one really thinking how the limits are set. I guess they just assume they are set properly. Guess we need more distrust of government:-)
Gee, this isn't a baseless troll remark. I'd come up with something creative linking [high speed driving - interstate - autobahn - hitler - fascism] but I don't feel like it.
Gee, ya don't think I included that to show how silly the OP's comments about me moving to Iraq are? Guess you must have missed that.
Then ride in the right lane. The people going 75 are doing it in the faster lanes. This is not unsafe unless you are one of those morons that likes to go 75 in the slow lane.
Don't you think its dangerous that one lane over people are doing 75, when in the right lane people are doing 55? How about EVERY lane go about the same speed, seems to me that would be safest.
You've obviously never been in Philly either; there are parts that are THREE lanes each direction, and guess where the slow people end up. The MIDDLE lane! Exteremly unsafe. Now if they raised the limit, things would flow more naturally.
Second: From the article: "His program will let Speed-Demon users view a Google map of the time, location and path of the car when the speeding occurred. If no speeding occurs, parents will not be able to see the path of the car at any time"
So if parents agree that on I-95 going 55 is the wrong thing to do, the info is there. "I was on 95, you know it's nuts to go 55 there!" " True 'dat my boy, True 'dat"
The problem is that this device does nothing to prove safe driving. Going fast on roads which can handle it is perfectly safe. Going 90 on a road were most reasonable people would do 45 is unsafe. However, many more things contribute to accidents than speed. These have been covered. So a device that measures speed and reports back is useless in determining if the driver is acting safely.
Why keep the kid off the highway? Its a skill they'll need to learn, and the only place they will learn it is on the highway. Highway driving, city driving and country road driving are all very different and require different skill sets.
I actually feel safer driving on the highway than in a city because with the highway I just need to worry about other cars; in the city, I need to worry about parked cars, bikes, pedestrians, people running lights, etc.
No, we've been saying its the fault of the state for setting the lower limit, knowing that some will follow but most will not, for the sake of generating more revenue at the risk there being more accidents.
Sorry, your 'logic' is the amusing one. You assume that without limits people will just drive as fast as their car can take them. That's simply not true. People will select a speed that is reasonable to them. Its called the 85th percentile rule, and its PROVEN to work.
So what if people start going 90 MPH? You act as if there'd be total carnage, but that would not be the case (it certainly wasn't the case before we had tight speed limit laws).
Your argument about taxes is silly. It would generate revenue to tax people for breathing, so in your mind that seems to be ok. If you can't agree on the basic premise of what our government should and should not be able to do, I don't think we can have much more of a discussion. The basic philosophy behind my argument applies to many other things: People should not be punished for doing reasonable things. If everyone is violating the speed limit, apparently the consensis is that its reasonable to go at the higher speed.
And research from there on your own. The logic is sound; most people don't want to crash, and thus will select a speed they feel is reasonable, and most people are good at selecting said speed. This applies to all drivers on all roads, not just highways.
How is it off topic? The goal of this device is to stop speeding, which is violating the posted limit. How that posted limit is set is the issue here.
You're a liar. One ticket and you never did it again? Ya, ok.
Its funny, because in PA near Philadelphia, the limit on the interstates is 55. Yet traffic flows quite nicely around 75 mph. Yet there was not carnage everywhere, as you claim to think. And yes, in that case the ass going 55 while everyone around is doing 75 IS MORE DANGEROUS. But you probably don't even realize that some states have a MINIMUM limit on interstates as well. Gee, why would they do that? Forcing people to go AT LEAST a speed!? So dangerous!!
I never said to abolish speed limits, I said most are set to generate revenue, and set unsafely LOW. The safe speed for a road can be determined through a scientific study.
This device is attempting to solve the wrong problem; careless teens cause accidents and this device (like modern speed limit enforcement) does nothing to solve the problem.
The problem with speed limits is that you just assume that going X when the limit is Y means its more dangerous, which is not the case. It'd be kinda like punishing someone for being a sex offender, if the only thing you need to do to become one would be to buy a Playboy.
The law is not infallible; the state doesn't always have OUR best intrests at heart. A state setting limits lower than an engineering study is doing so to generate money because its PROVEN that setting anything lower than the study says is unsafe. You are free to ignore 40 years of traffic engineering studies. Do you still believe the sun revolves around the earth too? Oh no, someone's breaking an unjust law! The horror!
Its people like you that are sliding our country closer and closer to facism.
Please tell me, what's the difference between a 16 yr old and an 18 yr old? Do you think that there are that many fundamental differences between someone 16 and 18? Do they, in those two years, somehow magically become responsible. If you can't trust your kid by 16, you have serious relationship issues when them, end of story. And your distrust of your kid may keep him alive, but it certainly won't leave him capable of making smart decisions or functioning correctly in relationships with others.
FYI, speed has been found to correlate quite clearly with accident rate in urban areas, and lowering the speed limit often, although not always, lowers the accident rate significantly. (sorry no references in english, you'll have to trust me:)
Sorry you're wrong. There's no references because you are incorrect. The 'safest' speed limits are set according to the 85-90th percentile rule. Any lower than that INCREASES the risk of an accident.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe Vista won't even install drivers which are not signed.
The stories in religious tomes are irrelevent since they are all written by man. The fact that they were disproven or not doesn't really mean anything except those that wrote the stories cannot be trusted. Said books do not offer evidence of god at all.
We have no scientific evidence of any kind of god at all, so we have no reason to think there is a god.
I agree on your last point, religion should affect public policy.
A final comment. Using this approach gives you a secure firewall with all the unixy goodness you'd expect, not to mention logging, SSH, NTP synchronisation, etc that you may want to use as well. And earning the right to sneer at everyone using those plastic Linksys NAT boxes doesn't hurt.
Will your snearing stop when they point out they were on the internet safely yesterday, while you were still deciding all the rules?
Funny, because last I heard GPL vNext would disallow code from being used to build DRM schemes.
Well the newest gpl would dictate restrictions keeping gpl code from working with certain other kinds of code.
Really? Crashing his companies email server is 'hardly anything?' Bull. He should be fined and have community service for 2 months.
Who said an orbit has to be 'round?'
Pluto is automatically disqualified because its oblong orbit overlaps with Neptune's.
Couldn't you argue that that excludes Neptune as well, since it didn't 'clear out its neighorhood'?
Excuse me, that's Differently Proportioned Planets!!!
Um, what did they use for a ruling planet before the 1930s?
I thought it would be an asteroid, since its mostly rock. Aren't comments mostly collections of gas?
Well, the 'flag burning' problem is overblown as soon as its mentioned in Congress. They should not even be wasting time thinking that 'issue'.
1. This article really ISN'T about government-posted speed limits at all, so this is a little off-topic (though not completely). The "speed limit" as determined by this device is determined by the parents. For instance, my dad probably would have set this thing to 65mph. Some fathers would set it to 85, to make sure their kids aren't drag-racing anywhere. Again, it has nothing to do with the state-posted speed limit, so you arguing about a topic that's only peripherally relevant to this article.
Not off base. Going above a set limit isn't inherently unsafe depending on conditions. Speeding doesn't cause accidents, no matter what the police say (they have a vested interest in making people think that way though). This device is as useless as most speed limits, because speed does cause accidents, other factors do.
2. Saying that "plenty of accidents happen that don't involve speeding" and then concluding "this device is, therefore, useless" is illogical. Plenty of accidents happen that DO involve speeding. No one claimed that this device was a "silver bullet" that would prevent all teen car-related deaths, and there's no reason to dismiss it completely because it's not that. It's a potentially useful tool for parents (the owners of the cars) to keep their kids accountable for going unsafe speeds in certain situations.
However setting too low of a limit actually causes more accidents. Accidents aren't caused by people speeding (usually; going 60 around a sharp curve will cause an accident, but reasonable people won't do that anyway). All this device will do is re-enforce the idea that whatever limit is set is valid, without question. This is a problem, because we really do need more reformed speed limit laws.
3. Wow, you already enacted Godwin's Law. Don't you think that it's a bit of a jump from "a device that will tell me when my car is going over a certain speed, and will therefore help me keep my child accountable when they are driving my care" to a fascist state? How the crap do you people manage to take arguments about TRAFFIC LAWS and end up making accusations of fascism? Get some perspective.
Thanks for not noticing the OP saying I should move to Iraq. My comment was meant to show how silly HIS comment was. Going over a set limit is no indication at all if the driver is being careful or not. Although I would think purposefully attempting to criminalize all citizens is a step toward facism, wouldn't you say? Why is it ok for the state to punish you for acting reasonably with a fine? As long as they don't toss you in jail its no big deal? I think you need more prespective than I.
4. Why do I have the feeling that you're one of those people who have a "broad view" of life, and can see the moral ambiguities, and can see that the laws are probably unjust, and that much of the system is corrupt... and then they use that as an excuse to break the speed limit whenever the crap they want? And rant about "the corruption of the American justice system" and "scientific studies of the safe speed for the road" when they're pulled over doing 50 in a school zone?
Should you obey laws of a clearly unjust and corrupt government? I thought the idea our founders had was that should such a government come to be you throw it off? At any rate, I can see that you're clearly one of those people that demonize speeding. When did I ever say going 50 in a school zone would be ok? I'm arguing for REASONABLE limits that don't crimialize the majority and are PROVEN safer, and you try to paint me out as some maniac going 90 down every city road plowing over poor Suzie ever chance I get. Get a grip dude.
Mind you, I'm not certain that you're one of these people... that's just an impression. But I exhort you: do not be so open-minded that your brain falls out.
I really can't see how you get that impression; I'm arguing for reasonable and safer limits. It seems to me there's some distortion going on when your mind interperates my post, b
Philadelphia strikes me as a poor example of your point. The traffic on the interstates in Philly rarely flows nicely - especially the Schuylkill, Blue Route, and I-95 - and you had better be paying constant attention with a foot over the brake because Philly drivers will slow down to 45 on a dime to rubberneck at anything. Except at off hours, I almost never am above 55 on 76/476/676 or 65 on 95 simply because the flow of the road makes it impossible.
:-)
In rush hour, I was on 76 / 476 (NE Ext). For the most part, traffic moved pretty quick, but it wasn't 'nice' because of the absurdly low limits. I have been on 676 during the lunch rush hour and just after rush hour, and it seemed to move fine. Most of the problems where people driving too slow and in the center lanes. Having the slowest cars in the center lane seems exteremly unsafe; I'd rather see more enforcement of the 'keep right except to pass' rule.
At any rate, traffic flow can be affected by congestion. No one said speed limits were at fault for that. Assuming no congrestion though, my points stand (even if there is no congestion; people aren't going to be able to do 55 if everything is stopped).
You've cited this in almost every one of your posts without providing any evidence as to where one might find these studies.
Look up the 85th - 90th precentile rule. I honestly had no idea how unknowledgable people are on this subject. I supsect it has something to do with the state spouting its propganda (speeding = evil!) and no one really thinking how the limits are set. I guess they just assume they are set properly. Guess we need more distrust of government
Gee, this isn't a baseless troll remark. I'd come up with something creative linking [high speed driving - interstate - autobahn - hitler - fascism] but I don't feel like it.
Gee, ya don't think I included that to show how silly the OP's comments about me moving to Iraq are? Guess you must have missed that.
Then ride in the right lane. The people going 75 are doing it in the faster lanes. This is not unsafe unless you are one of those morons that likes to go 75 in the slow lane.
Don't you think its dangerous that one lane over people are doing 75, when in the right lane people are doing 55? How about EVERY lane go about the same speed, seems to me that would be safest.
You've obviously never been in Philly either; there are parts that are THREE lanes each direction, and guess where the slow people end up. The MIDDLE lane! Exteremly unsafe. Now if they raised the limit, things would flow more naturally.
Second:
From the article:
"His program will let Speed-Demon users view a Google map of the time, location and path of the car when the speeding occurred. If no speeding occurs, parents will not be able to see the path of the car at any time"
So if parents agree that on I-95 going 55 is the wrong thing to do, the info is there.
"I was on 95, you know it's nuts to go 55 there!"
" True 'dat my boy, True 'dat"
The problem is that this device does nothing to prove safe driving. Going fast on roads which can handle it is perfectly safe. Going 90 on a road were most reasonable people would do 45 is unsafe. However, many more things contribute to accidents than speed. These have been covered. So a device that measures speed and reports back is useless in determining if the driver is acting safely.
FWIW, there is a road in TX which has its speed limit set at 90 MPH. For long, flat stretches of road, what is wrong with 90?
There can be; in almost all cases though there is little to no difference.
Why keep the kid off the highway? Its a skill they'll need to learn, and the only place they will learn it is on the highway. Highway driving, city driving and country road driving are all very different and require different skill sets.
I actually feel safer driving on the highway than in a city because with the highway I just need to worry about other cars; in the city, I need to worry about parked cars, bikes, pedestrians, people running lights, etc.
No, we've been saying its the fault of the state for setting the lower limit, knowing that some will follow but most will not, for the sake of generating more revenue at the risk there being more accidents.
Sorry, your 'logic' is the amusing one. You assume that without limits people will just drive as fast as their car can take them. That's simply not true. People will select a speed that is reasonable to them. Its called the 85th percentile rule, and its PROVEN to work.
So what if people start going 90 MPH? You act as if there'd be total carnage, but that would not be the case (it certainly wasn't the case before we had tight speed limit laws).
Your argument about taxes is silly. It would generate revenue to tax people for breathing, so in your mind that seems to be ok. If you can't agree on the basic premise of what our government should and should not be able to do, I don't think we can have much more of a discussion. The basic philosophy behind my argument applies to many other things: People should not be punished for doing reasonable things. If everyone is violating the speed limit, apparently the consensis is that its reasonable to go at the higher speed.
Its called the 85th - 90th percentile rule. Look it up yourself. It takes into account highways and residential areas and is proven to work.
You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#85th_perc entile_rule
And research from there on your own. The logic is sound; most people don't want to crash, and thus will select a speed they feel is reasonable, and most people are good at selecting said speed. This applies to all drivers on all roads, not just highways.
How is it off topic? The goal of this device is to stop speeding, which is violating the posted limit. How that posted limit is set is the issue here.
You're a liar. One ticket and you never did it again? Ya, ok.
Its funny, because in PA near Philadelphia, the limit on the interstates is 55. Yet traffic flows quite nicely around 75 mph. Yet there was not carnage everywhere, as you claim to think. And yes, in that case the ass going 55 while everyone around is doing 75 IS MORE DANGEROUS. But you probably don't even realize that some states have a MINIMUM limit on interstates as well. Gee, why would they do that? Forcing people to go AT LEAST a speed!? So dangerous!!
I never said to abolish speed limits, I said most are set to generate revenue, and set unsafely LOW. The safe speed for a road can be determined through a scientific study.
This device is attempting to solve the wrong problem; careless teens cause accidents and this device (like modern speed limit enforcement) does nothing to solve the problem.
The problem with speed limits is that you just assume that going X when the limit is Y means its more dangerous, which is not the case. It'd be kinda like punishing someone for being a sex offender, if the only thing you need to do to become one would be to buy a Playboy.
The law is not infallible; the state doesn't always have OUR best intrests at heart. A state setting limits lower than an engineering study is doing so to generate money because its PROVEN that setting anything lower than the study says is unsafe. You are free to ignore 40 years of traffic engineering studies. Do you still believe the sun revolves around the earth too? Oh no, someone's breaking an unjust law! The horror!
Its people like you that are sliding our country closer and closer to facism.
They are a "kid", a child, not an adult.
Please tell me, what's the difference between a 16 yr old and an 18 yr old? Do you think that there are that many fundamental differences between someone 16 and 18? Do they, in those two years, somehow magically become responsible. If you can't trust your kid by 16, you have serious relationship issues when them, end of story. And your distrust of your kid may keep him alive, but it certainly won't leave him capable of making smart decisions or functioning correctly in relationships with others.
FYI, speed has been found to correlate quite clearly with accident rate in urban areas, and lowering the speed limit often, although not always, lowers the accident rate significantly. (sorry no references in english, you'll have to trust me :)
Sorry you're wrong. There's no references because you are incorrect. The 'safest' speed limits are set according to the 85-90th percentile rule. Any lower than that INCREASES the risk of an accident.