Speeding does make accidents more likely, or at least less easy to avoid.
WRONG! They did studies about this 10 years ago and the studies showed that raising speed limits did NOT have any impact on accident rates.
There are also studies showing that speed limits which violate the 90th percentile rule are actually MORE likely to cause accidents than if the speed limit was at the higher rate.
Not exactly intuitive I know, but there was a time when it wasn't intuitive that the earth revolved around the sun. We have 40 years of study backing up what I've said. Go do some research.
Moreover, the results of a higher-speed accident are usually more severe. Just look at the difference in injuries between a child hit at 30mph (usually survivable if we're to believe the literature) and one hit at, say 60mph (usually fatal, IIRC).
This is the only part of your post which is correct. No one is saying we don't need limits; however to think that most limits are the safest limits is incorrect. There's also a simple method to keep kids from being hit. Teach them not to run into the road!
I've NEVER been almost hit by a car driving down the road, because when I was younger, adults helped me learn how to cross the street. Teach kids how to cross the street, and to stay out of it at all other times, and obey the pedestrian signals if they are present.
Speeding (violating the posted limit) by itself is not unsafe. Usually, if many people are 'speeding' on a road, its because the state intends that road to generate revenue in the form of tickets. The limit is actually set dangerously low, and raising it would actually make the road safer. Not paying attention is another matter... but that will cause an accident no matter what speed you're going.
We have 40 years of research telling us how to set speed limits that are safe; the problem is that speeding is an easy revenue for the state.
I know this is anecdotal, but I'm sure others will have similar experiences. I usually travel 10 - 15 miles above the limit, and have had only one accident which was not my fault, and there was nothing I could do to avoid it.
You ignore the fact that you are instilling a sense of distrust in your kid. You don't really trust them, and thus they will not trust you. They'll also likely have problems trusting everyone, since if your own parents can't learn to trust you, how can you possibly trust anyone else?
If by the age of 16 you still can't trust your kid, I think you have serious problems in your relationship with them.
There's a problem with this however. You assume that slower = safer. It does not. Many localities set speed limits lower than the speed recommended by a traffic engineering study. Doing so results in an unsafe speed limit which will actually raise the chances of having an accident.
Add to the fact that many localities also now do an end run around the constitution by saying speeding is a 'civil' violation and do other things to stack the deck in their favor, you soon realize that modern speed limits have nothing to do with safety and are in fact just a way to generate revenue for the state.
To really address the safety issue we need to fix the laws and how speed limits are set. Issuing tickets does absolutely NOTHING to address safety. Nobody stops speeding because of tickets and paying the fine is supporting the arbitrary unsafe limit.
Indeed. I once saw a movie on SciFi about the ghost of an indian in mexico that was killing some soldiers. Not only did they reuse the same scenes of the 'ghost' riding a horse over and over, they couldn't even be bothered to make sure they used the same horse. In the SAME battle sequence, the horse would change from black to brown back to black again..
You may think the argument is old, but that doesn't make it any less valid.
People in this country want their cell phones to work anywhere in the country, not just in their home city / state. If you couldn't take your cell into a neighboring country, would you think its as valuable?
You also ignore other things as well; landline phone is dirt cheap. I can call nationally for free for $25 / month. Its my understanding this isn't the case in Europe.
Your idea works until you realize that you can easily 'hack' your phone to allow transfers to and from your computer. For example, VZW blocks ALL file / data transfer. Buying the Motorola Phone Tools + a 'bonus' cd unlocks all the features VZW attempted to block.
There's a simple way to handle this; don't pay it.
I've had Cingular, and I'd much much rather use them than Verizon Wireless. If you think Cingular is a bunch of assholes, you've never had "service" with VZW.
Well, we 'take' 2 weeks (or 1 week, or whatever) a year. We do not 'get' 2 weeks a year. Americans can arrange their vacation vs. work time quite easily. As a nation, though, our cultural habits come down to preferring about 2 weeks per year.
I really fail to see your point. Personally, I'd rather have six weeks vacation over the standard two to three we get now.
Wow, who pays for that?
Who pays for all the negative health benefits that come with overwork?
Isn't only the backwoods redneck hillbillies that watch that garbage? I was stunned when I first saw that they were putting that trash on sci-fi. Horrible, ridiculous, AWFUL made for TV originals I can forgive, but WRASSLIN? My god, the person responsible really and truly needs to be hung.
No, its not. A lot of geeks I know like wrestling as well as sci-fi. I want to see Raw in Philly once; the crowd is certainly not what you expect.
You didn't specify that either.. FWIW, I bought the 'OEM' version without buying a single piece of hardware. Just the software, nothing else.
I was really just messing with you on the last post.
Sorry, I couldn't tell.
I think it's funny how you seem to have to throw in a personal attack in all your responces. Take that, Poo head!
Again, sorry. Was having a bad day, having to deal with others that weren't listeing / paying attention / whatever. Although I didn't think my previous post was a personal attack; just was suprised / exaserbated (again, because I missed the joke).
What's safer: driving 5mph above the speed limit with traffic, or driving 5mph below* the speed limit (and thus 12+mph below the average speed of traffic)?
Hint: driving with traffic, unless it is driving inappropriately fast is safer.
You'd be wrong. Always sticking with the flow is safest. The safest speed limits are the one which are high enough that 90% of the people drive the limit or less. There's 40 years of data supporting this rule.
The sad part is that the state no longer cares; they want money from speeding, at any costs. Why else would VT have ruled that you can't challege the limit based on an engineering study if the limit wasn't challenged within the first five years?
The "none of their business" argument is somewhat BS, you are asking them to put up "their" money as a "bond".
No, you're asking them for a service which, in the case of an accident, they agree to pay for damages. Its rather a stupid industry if you think about it. When you need it, its not available. When you don't need it, you're still paying quite a bit for it. Ask anyone that lost their home from hurricane Katrina how helpful their insurance has been. Is it worth it when they can weasle out of paying almost every time?
And besides, they use this data to help who was at fault. If you're not at fault, it also indicates that.
I don't think this data can possibly give a clear picture of who's at fault. If you were speeding, its just as likely you would have still been in the accident, since the other car just came out in front of you and 10 MPH difference wouldn't make a difference.
Hell, people that witness the same accident usually have widely varying stories. I know this from personal experience.
Your statements are complete bullshit. You typically AREN'T told if the police look at the data (indeed, they technically need a warrant, since its a search of your property). You could not have agreed to turn over data to the insurance company from a device you didn't know existed. If you don't believe your car has one, because no one ever told you, you would think that clause does not apply to you, would you not?
Your question is silly; its like a hidden camera inyour house that the police can get when they want without a warrant. Just because its taped and not beemed somewhere directly doesn't mean you're not being watched.
Do you complain when you buy a car and it doesn't have leather seats like some other cars do?
The point is the business chose SBS, knowing that the restrictions were. If they feel they have outgrown it, there's a path to get them to a more flexible environment. The fact that they don't want to seems to indicate that they don't really mind the restrictions. Its all in the GP's head, not the client he's working for.
People can choose to license their software however they want. This company choose the MS license, and instead of working within those restrictions, the GP is trying to fight it, because he doesn't want to learn the proper way to work within the system they have. He then invents 'reasons' for not working within the system, calling it unreliable without ever saying what goes wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Speeding does make accidents more likely, or at least less easy to avoid.
WRONG! They did studies about this 10 years ago and the studies showed that raising speed limits did NOT have any impact on accident rates.
There are also studies showing that speed limits which violate the 90th percentile rule are actually MORE likely to cause accidents than if the speed limit was at the higher rate.
Not exactly intuitive I know, but there was a time when it wasn't intuitive that the earth revolved around the sun. We have 40 years of study backing up what I've said. Go do some research.
Moreover, the results of a higher-speed accident are usually more severe. Just look at the difference in injuries between a child hit at 30mph (usually survivable if we're to believe the literature) and one hit at, say 60mph (usually fatal, IIRC).
This is the only part of your post which is correct. No one is saying we don't need limits; however to think that most limits are the safest limits is incorrect. There's also a simple method to keep kids from being hit. Teach them not to run into the road!
I've NEVER been almost hit by a car driving down the road, because when I was younger, adults helped me learn how to cross the street. Teach kids how to cross the street, and to stay out of it at all other times, and obey the pedestrian signals if they are present.
Speeding (violating the posted limit) by itself is not unsafe. Usually, if many people are 'speeding' on a road, its because the state intends that road to generate revenue in the form of tickets. The limit is actually set dangerously low, and raising it would actually make the road safer. Not paying attention is another matter... but that will cause an accident no matter what speed you're going.
We have 40 years of research telling us how to set speed limits that are safe; the problem is that speeding is an easy revenue for the state.
I know this is anecdotal, but I'm sure others will have similar experiences. I usually travel 10 - 15 miles above the limit, and have had only one accident which was not my fault, and there was nothing I could do to avoid it.
You ignore the fact that you are instilling a sense of distrust in your kid. You don't really trust them, and thus they will not trust you. They'll also likely have problems trusting everyone, since if your own parents can't learn to trust you, how can you possibly trust anyone else?
If by the age of 16 you still can't trust your kid, I think you have serious problems in your relationship with them.
There's a problem with this however. You assume that slower = safer. It does not. Many localities set speed limits lower than the speed recommended by a traffic engineering study. Doing so results in an unsafe speed limit which will actually raise the chances of having an accident.
Add to the fact that many localities also now do an end run around the constitution by saying speeding is a 'civil' violation and do other things to stack the deck in their favor, you soon realize that modern speed limits have nothing to do with safety and are in fact just a way to generate revenue for the state.
To really address the safety issue we need to fix the laws and how speed limits are set. Issuing tickets does absolutely NOTHING to address safety. Nobody stops speeding because of tickets and paying the fine is supporting the arbitrary unsafe limit.
Indeed. I once saw a movie on SciFi about the ghost of an indian in mexico that was killing some soldiers. Not only did they reuse the same scenes of the 'ghost' riding a horse over and over, they couldn't even be bothered to make sure they used the same horse. In the SAME battle sequence, the horse would change from black to brown back to black again..
Free as in no per minute long distance charges. As opposed to a monthly fee + long distance charges.
You mean you'll be watching it on SciFi, after Boa, Python, and Boa vs. Python?
This movie is exactly one of those; just with better filming quality and SLJ.
Not really a great excuse; you can order the service pack on CD for very little expense.
You may think the argument is old, but that doesn't make it any less valid.
People in this country want their cell phones to work anywhere in the country, not just in their home city / state. If you couldn't take your cell into a neighboring country, would you think its as valuable?
You also ignore other things as well; landline phone is dirt cheap. I can call nationally for free for $25 / month. Its my understanding this isn't the case in Europe.
Your post is so full of crap. Wild animals get cancer as well. I can only hope you're kidding, and the mods are just high as usual.
Your idea works until you realize that you can easily 'hack' your phone to allow transfers to and from your computer. For example, VZW blocks ALL file / data transfer. Buying the Motorola Phone Tools + a 'bonus' cd unlocks all the features VZW attempted to block.
Or worse, depending on what happens, the phone becomes a projectile that kills you.
There's a simple way to handle this; don't pay it.
I've had Cingular, and I'd much much rather use them than Verizon Wireless. If you think Cingular is a bunch of assholes, you've never had "service" with VZW.
I'm sure if we packed all of our 300 million citizens into say PA and NY and MD we could achive that easily as well.
At what price are we paying though? These will be faked in time as well, and probably not that much time.
Also, it ignores the fact that all the Sept 11 terrorists had valid passports / drivers licenses. How exactly does this help us again?
Well, we 'take' 2 weeks (or 1 week, or whatever) a year. We do not 'get' 2 weeks a year. Americans can arrange their vacation vs. work time quite easily. As a nation, though, our cultural habits come down to preferring about 2 weeks per year.
I really fail to see your point. Personally, I'd rather have six weeks vacation over the standard two to three we get now.
Wow, who pays for that?
Who pays for all the negative health benefits that come with overwork?
What, you don't think they read the comments here? Given the attitude, I'd probably think the same thing too if i were in their place.
Isn't only the backwoods redneck hillbillies that watch that garbage? I was stunned when I first saw that they were putting that trash on sci-fi. Horrible, ridiculous, AWFUL made for TV originals I can forgive, but WRASSLIN? My god, the person responsible really and truly needs to be hung.
No, its not. A lot of geeks I know like wrestling as well as sci-fi. I want to see Raw in Philly once; the crowd is certainly not what you expect.
I wasn't referring to OEM prices.
You didn't specify that either.. FWIW, I bought the 'OEM' version without buying a single piece of hardware. Just the software, nothing else.
I was really just messing with you on the last post.
Sorry, I couldn't tell.
I think it's funny how you seem to have to throw in a personal attack in all your responces. Take that, Poo head!
Again, sorry. Was having a bad day, having to deal with others that weren't listeing / paying attention / whatever. Although I didn't think my previous post was a personal attack; just was suprised / exaserbated (again, because I missed the joke).
What's safer: driving 5mph above the speed limit with traffic, or driving 5mph below* the speed limit (and thus 12+mph below the average speed of traffic)?
Hint: driving with traffic, unless it is driving inappropriately fast is safer.
You'd be wrong. Always sticking with the flow is safest. The safest speed limits are the one which are high enough that 90% of the people drive the limit or less. There's 40 years of data supporting this rule.
The sad part is that the state no longer cares; they want money from speeding, at any costs. Why else would VT have ruled that you can't challege the limit based on an engineering study if the limit wasn't challenged within the first five years?
The "none of their business" argument is somewhat BS, you are asking them to put up "their" money as a "bond".
No, you're asking them for a service which, in the case of an accident, they agree to pay for damages. Its rather a stupid industry if you think about it. When you need it, its not available. When you don't need it, you're still paying quite a bit for it. Ask anyone that lost their home from hurricane Katrina how helpful their insurance has been. Is it worth it when they can weasle out of paying almost every time?
And besides, they use this data to help who was at fault. If you're not at fault, it also indicates that.
I don't think this data can possibly give a clear picture of who's at fault. If you were speeding, its just as likely you would have still been in the accident, since the other car just came out in front of you and 10 MPH difference wouldn't make a difference.
Hell, people that witness the same accident usually have widely varying stories. I know this from personal experience.
Your statements are complete bullshit. You typically AREN'T told if the police look at the data (indeed, they technically need a warrant, since its a search of your property). You could not have agreed to turn over data to the insurance company from a device you didn't know existed. If you don't believe your car has one, because no one ever told you, you would think that clause does not apply to you, would you not?
Your question is silly; its like a hidden camera inyour house that the police can get when they want without a warrant. Just because its taped and not beemed somewhere directly doesn't mean you're not being watched.
You know, instead of doubting and refusing to believe, you should really try to google for yourself. Its actually cheaper now.. http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/mas terid=1185293/qlty=o/sort_type=bottomline.
Why on earth do I have to back up a claim which is pretty easily researched for yourself is beyond me.. and I'm not the only one telling you.
Do you complain when you buy a car and it doesn't have leather seats like some other cars do?
The point is the business chose SBS, knowing that the restrictions were. If they feel they have outgrown it, there's a path to get them to a more flexible environment. The fact that they don't want to seems to indicate that they don't really mind the restrictions. Its all in the GP's head, not the client he's working for.
People can choose to license their software however they want. This company choose the MS license, and instead of working within those restrictions, the GP is trying to fight it, because he doesn't want to learn the proper way to work within the system they have. He then invents 'reasons' for not working within the system, calling it unreliable without ever saying what goes wrong.