In his blog about troubleshooting spinlocks in his wife's PC, Mark talks about how he "Windows-Live-searched" some term he needed to identify.
A bit later, he uses the term again and remarks parenthetically about how it "rolls off the tongue."
After forcing my gorge down, I had to ask the question: was he making an obsequious dig at the stupidity of the messaging terminology used by MS, or is he really fellating Ballmer & co.?
The people involved in the city of Boston are fucking retards. The only thing about this "incident" that I fail to understand is how these retards seem to lack a sense of shame...shame for being so immeasurably stupid in the first place, and shame for overreacting in an equally immeasurably stupid manner, and shame for then turning and pointing the blame at others.
WHY IS EVERYONE BUYING INTO THIS?!?!
The people in Boston are fucking morons...why is everyone capitulating in the face of their idiocy? Why is everyone tripping over themselves to appease the sense of outrage coming from these redfaced buffoons? Why are people being prosecuted, sued, and resigning? Why is money being paid to the city?
Has the world absolutely lost all sense of reason and perspective? This incident makes me *so* embarassed to share citizenship with such fucktards who seem so determined to legitimize this bullshit culture of alarmist overreaction to anything they haven't seen before.
I just picked up a D-Link DSM-520 a few days ago at Fry's for $190, and it does exactly the same thing: plays all the AVI/MPG videos (plus audio and image files) stored on the PC in my office, streaming over an 802.11g wireless link.
Sure, it doesn't play DRM-locked music downloaded from iTunes, but BFD. The only such files I have are the ones my wife insists on purchasing from Apple.
Best of all, it has multiple video output options, including composite RCA, S-video, component, and native HDMI.
These devices have been around for some time...I don't see why Sling's entry garners any special attention.
I've observed this "ripple effect" of brake lights many, many times. I blame the modern automatic transmission...ok, actually, I blame the drving laziness/stupidity that has been espoused by the auto tranny.
Back in the old days (and in the modern days for those of us who still drive cars with clutch pedals), learning to drive included understanding that lifting your foot off the accelerator is the preferred method for gradual speed reduction. The brake pedal should only be used in cases where you are intending to bring your car to a complete stop, or when you need to drop a whole lot of speed in a hurry.
If you are driving prudently and with good situational awareness, you should almost never need to use your brake pedal during highway driving. Note that this doesn't (necessarily) mean driving at grandma speeds and trying to leave 5-second following distances. It primarily means having your head cut-in to what's going on around you, maintaining mental "escape" plans for any situation, and understanding how your actions are likely to affect drivers around you.
9 times out of 10, the driver braking in front of me is doing so unneccessarily...this includes morons who seem to believe it necessary to brake because a driver two lanes over and slightly ahead of them did so, as well as those annoying asshats who just seem incapable of driving without touching the brake pedal every few seconds. How I cringe for their passengers and the uncomfortable ride they must be enduring.
I seem to be in the smallest of minorities, but my immediate reaction to seeing the brake lights illumninated on a car ahead of me is to double-check my escape route...that means I already know of a way around the guy stepping on his brakes (such as a lane change), but now is the time to glance around and make sure it's still open. Most of the time, the person braking has done so for no good reason and has already released their brake. If this isn't the case and they're still braking and/or my escape route isn't open, then I'll take my foot off the accelerator pedal and re-evaluate what's happening. Only in the rarest of instances am I ever in the situation where I am required to use my brake pedal.
I have a couple of ideas on how to discourage "brake pedal dependency": (intended to be tongue-in-cheek)
1 - Implement a one-quarter to one-half second delay between pedal actuation and signal illumination. This wouldn't do much for the ride comfort of folks who have been condemned to be chauffeured by a brake-tapping jackass, but it might soften their effect on other drivers.
2 - Deliver a mild electric shock to the driver every time she touches the brake pedal. The voltage should be modulated by a learning computer that analyzes the driver's braking patterns, ramping up the intensity on morons who "ride" the brake for long distances or repeatedly "tap" the pedal without actually slowing down, and reducing the shock when the pedal is firmly depressed.
If you actually interpreted that scenario to mean that the rear-end collision itself might be fatal, then you're even stupider and more short-sighted than I originally credited you with being.
The point was that being hit from behind introduces the very real probability of loss of control of your vehicle, with serious injury arising from resultant secondary (or even tertiary) collisions involving other vehicles, barriers, or stationary objects.
Just as it doesn't occur to peabrains like you that there might be circumstances beyond your awareness that might drive people to speed, you have now demonstrated three times that you're incapable of fathoming the concept that a "simple" rear-end collision might precipitate a fatal chain of events. Idiot.
Wow...apparently you need remedial reading comprehension classes in addition to driving lessons.
It's known as "context." In this case, the context was: like = e.g. = such as = for example = as in, etc.
As in, "the force of the rear-end collision drove little Johnny's car head-on into the oncoming traffic lane, where his 1993 shitbox was obliterated by a loaded 18-wheeler traveling at 75mph."
I had to stop from laughing at your "if you survive the collision"
If you'd spent less time futzing around with statistical nonsense, you'd know it isn't really a laughing matter. If you're hit from behind with considerable force, it's not difficult to envision all manner of lethal consequences...like being driven head-on into an oncoming traffic lane, for example. As I mentioned, your survival is not a foregone conclusion.
Have you EVER heard of ANYONE getting a ticket BECAUSE THEY WERE REAR-ENDED?
It happens all the time. Just because you like to speak out of your ass without bothering to avail yourself of the facts doesn't mean those facts don't exist and aren't accessible.
do you realize that THERE WOULD BE NO EVIDENCE?
Looks to me like you've been too busy being an asshole to keep up with current events. You lose...go directly to jail. Do not pass Go, do not collect jack shit from anyone.
Actually, it's only proof that I've ceased to consider you a person worthy of rational explanation or discourse due to your own repeated demostrations of stupidity in the face of reason. It's a simple cost/benefit analysis that puts your position on the losing end every time, yet you refuse to acknowledge it.
Unlike the speeder who creates the potential hazard by his action, you make the delibertate, conscious decision to act out against him in a manner that will undoubtedly create a hazardous situation, or make an existing one worse than it already was.
And the most amazing part of it is, you will state these positions and then label me as being self-centered and harboring rage/psychological issues...probably completely oblivious to the enormous hypocrisy therein. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot. Welcome to Stupidville, Population: You.
Typical behavior of the short-sighted and small-minded, so I can't claim any surprise. But fallacies abound, so I'll point them out anyhow...
First, you've made the (incorrect) assumption that you know anything about me at all, but that never stops your type from attaching labels. Then, you exhibit a classic fallacy of those who lack confidence in their convictions by asserting that your (ignorant, uniformed) opinion is shared by some majority. Even if this happens to be the case, it has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of anything you've said. As intelligent Americans know firsthand, being part of the majority doesn't exempt you from stupidity.
Furthermore, your equally ignorant assessment of your chances of bringing suit against someone who rear-ended you demonstrates how little you really know. For the purpose of discussion, I'll make the assumption for you that you actually survive the collision, but this is by no means a foregone conclusion. The investigating officers would cite the other driver for following at an unsafe distance, and then would cite you for obstructing the flow of traffic. If the evidence demonstrates that you braked for no reason other than to antagonize him, such willful and intentional disregard for both the rules of the road and the safety of others will get you arrested for reckless driving or assault with intent to cause death or bodily injury.
You'll have precisely zero ground for any legal action against the other driver, as you willfully engaged in the assholery that directly precipitated the collision. This would hardly be a concern to you, however, as you'd likely be occupied with posting bond and getting what's left of your car out of the impound lot. Fun indeed.
So, be my guest...slam on your brakes next time and create a rear-end collision. If you survive, come back after you've disposed of all the court proceedings, and let us know just how much fun you had. Be sure to keep coming back to let us know how much you're enjoying your new, higher insurance premiums...assuming, of course, that your underwriter doesn't drop you outright.
People like you shouldn't be allowed to breathe, much less operate a vehicle on public roadways.
It never occurs to you pious assclowns that there just might be another explanation for someone wanting you to move out of their way to let them pass, besides your presumed assessment of their incredible arrogance and disrespect of your safety. You know absolutely nothing about the driver behind you or his motivations, yet you deliberately behave in an admittedly dangerous manner based purely on some assumption? Please turn in your license and exit the gene pool before you cause further contamination.
Were you a middle child or something? Mommy and daddy not love you enough? Save this bullshit for therapy...keep your goddamned inferiority complex off the public roadways before you wind up getting yourself or someone else injured or killed.
You're absolutely correct...people who would tailgate drivers in the right lane are the assholes themselves, totally in the wrong.
Generally speaking, though, they tend to represent the exception rather than the rule. Most tailgating is the result of some asshat blocking the passing lane.
Come on, people. I never said anything about blinding other drivers with high beams.
A simple flash or two as you're approaching is a standard visual signal to alert other drivers to your presence and intent to overtake them.
Anyone who *keeps* their high beams on with the intent to annoy/blind the driver in front of them is just being a jackass himself...and as you mentioned, creating a hazardous situation.
If I saw a car zooming down the highway with their hazard lights flashing, I'd get out of the way.
Speaking of trolls...you could also try *not* being a sanctimonious prick and simply moving aside whenever anyone comes zooming down the highway, hazards flashing or not.
As for your helpfully witty remark about calling ambuances, did you bother to stop and think that it might be possible for such an emergency to arise (gasp!) while people were already in the car driving someplace?!?! "Yes, dear, I realize that your left arm just went numb and there seems to be an elephant sitting on your chest...please be patient while I look for a place to stop so we can call the paramedics!"
The point is that you simply cannot know, yet you needlessly assume the risk of presumption every time you feel compelled to sit on your imaginary moral high horse and impede another driver's progress. Not to mention (again) that by so doing, you also commit an equal infraction of the law as the speeding driver...guilt compounded by the fact that you knowingly and willfully engaged in dangerous behavior.
I'll take ad hominem over ignorance any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
You, on the other hand, seem to have no concept of the meaning of the phrase, nor of what you speak in general. I didn't base my response upon an attack of your character as a person...I just pointed out your narrow-sighted idiocy as an amusing aside.
The substance of my response was in the factual text of the law, which I was kind enough to cite for you down to the subsection. While I see some numbers in your response, alongside an inexplicable exhortation to familiarize myself with my own law, I have to inform you that nothing you posted is found anywhere in the Texas transportation code. You, however, might want to have a look at Section 545.062 of that publication.
Of course, if you believe me to be in error here, please be kind enough to cite the chapter and section of the transportation code from which you're deriving your information, and I'll be more than happy to provide you a prompt apology for wrongfully calling you out as an ignorant blowhard.
Unfortunately, this kind of crap happens, too. Thankfully, these incidents are the fringe exceptions rather than the general rule.
Most speeders that I know, myself included, aren't looking to get into pissing contests with other drivers...they just want to tool down the road doing 75, 80, 85mph without some jerkweed blocking them for no reason other than his self-delusional fantasies about stopping a bad guy from breaking the speed limit. My personal take is that I don't care if you either speed up and stay in front of me, or move over and let me pass...but don't block me just to block me. Leave the policing to the police.
If you're in the left lane refusing to move over for a faster driver, then you're the asshole, even if you're already going the speed limit. If you get the situation you describe where you're already over to the right and he still on your bumper, then HE is the asshole, not you. You did exactly the right thing in moving over and then pulling out the cell phone. And for pete's sake, if someone acts like that don't ever stop and confront them or lead them to your house...just stay on the line with the dispatcher and keep driving. If you mention that you think you saw a weapon, it won't take long for a patrol unit to find you.
I don't know what fantasyland you're living in, but your definition of "at capacity" needs serious rectification with reality.
If there are 3-4 car lengths between cars traveling at freeway speeds, and you're refusing to yield the passing lane, then not only are YOU the asshole, you're also not even on the right side of the law. Like I told the AC below, check the transportation code. In Texas, it's Section 545 Subsection B.
And like I also told him, speeding in and of itself doesn't create a dangerous situation...it's dependent upon the circumstances. However, a self-righteous prick who takes it upon himself to obstruct faster traffic by intentionally violating a law himself does create a dangerous situation every time he does it. And the fact that he knowingly endangers motorists around him through such sophomoric behavior destroys any credibility he might have claimed for being concerned about safety and well-being. The logic is pretty clear: the least dangerous course of action for all involved is to simply obey the law and yield the right of way to the faster traffic.
How about you come out from behind that skirt, little coward, and explain just why my attitude is asshole?
It isn't the people speeding who create traffic jams...they motor on down the road to get where they're trying to go as quick as possible. If it weren't for the self-righteous pricks taking it upon themselves to block the left side of the freeways, there wouldn't even be any tailgaters.
It's quite plainly codified in black and white: if you are moving slower than other traffic and have been visually or audibly signaled by an approaching driver, then you are obligated to yield to the right and allow them to overtake you. It doesn't matter if you're already moving at the speed limit or not.
But don't take my word for it...check Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 545, Subchapter B. This concept was apparently important enough that it be the first set of rules enumerated in the vehicle operating code. Most states have similar statutes in place, and most civilized nations either observe these rules of driving behavior by ordinance or by simple courtesy.
Depending on various conditions, speeding may or may not constitute dangerous driving behavior. Someone deliberately and knowingly antagonizing another driver by intentionally making themselves an obstacle to traffic flow, however, creates a dangerous situation every single time it happens. So, put your money where your mouth is. For the greater safety and sanity of everyone on the road, just obey the law and get out of the speeders' way when they come up behind you. You can laugh yourself silly when you see them pulled over a few miles down the freeway.
If your alleged concern for safe driving situations weren't pure pious bullshit, you'd never display such a puerile behavioral response...you'd adopt the safest course of action for all involved, namely yielding the right of way to faster moving traffic.
Instead, you out yourself as an infantile pissant who would rather escalate what you've already determined to be an unsafe situation than take the more rational course of action to defuse it before any incident occurs. Then again, if you were truly so concerned with maintaining general safety and complying with the laws, you wouldn't be creating an obstacle in the first place, now would you?
And some free advice: before you start being really stupid and thinking it's a good idea to actually follow/punish anyone, you might want to invest in some kevlar clothing. Or better life insurance.
Slashdot Mirror
In his blog about troubleshooting spinlocks in his wife's PC, Mark talks about how he "Windows-Live-searched" some term he needed to identify.
A bit later, he uses the term again and remarks parenthetically about how it "rolls off the tongue."
After forcing my gorge down, I had to ask the question: was he making an obsequious dig at the stupidity of the messaging terminology used by MS, or is he really fellating Ballmer & co.?
Hah! I opened the commentary for the very same reason...my gaming rig has a 6800GT driving the screen!
I can't give any instructions here for servicing Vista. Sorry.
I can...don't install it.
The people involved in the city of Boston are fucking retards. The only thing about this "incident" that I fail to understand is how these retards seem to lack a sense of shame...shame for being so immeasurably stupid in the first place, and shame for overreacting in an equally immeasurably stupid manner, and shame for then turning and pointing the blame at others.
WHY IS EVERYONE BUYING INTO THIS?!?!
The people in Boston are fucking morons...why is everyone capitulating in the face of their idiocy? Why is everyone tripping over themselves to appease the sense of outrage coming from these redfaced buffoons? Why are people being prosecuted, sued, and resigning? Why is money being paid to the city?
Has the world absolutely lost all sense of reason and perspective? This incident makes me *so* embarassed to share citizenship with such fucktards who seem so determined to legitimize this bullshit culture of alarmist overreaction to anything they haven't seen before.
You may consider yourself fodder for the nematodes, but I have no intention of ever shuffling off this mortal coil.
I just picked up a D-Link DSM-520 a few days ago at Fry's for $190, and it does exactly the same thing: plays all the AVI/MPG videos (plus audio and image files) stored on the PC in my office, streaming over an 802.11g wireless link.
Sure, it doesn't play DRM-locked music downloaded from iTunes, but BFD. The only such files I have are the ones my wife insists on purchasing from Apple.
Best of all, it has multiple video output options, including composite RCA, S-video, component, and native HDMI.
These devices have been around for some time...I don't see why Sling's entry garners any special attention.
I've observed this "ripple effect" of brake lights many, many times. I blame the modern automatic transmission...ok, actually, I blame the drving laziness/stupidity that has been espoused by the auto tranny.
Back in the old days (and in the modern days for those of us who still drive cars with clutch pedals), learning to drive included understanding that lifting your foot off the accelerator is the preferred method for gradual speed reduction. The brake pedal should only be used in cases where you are intending to bring your car to a complete stop, or when you need to drop a whole lot of speed in a hurry.
If you are driving prudently and with good situational awareness, you should almost never need to use your brake pedal during highway driving. Note that this doesn't (necessarily) mean driving at grandma speeds and trying to leave 5-second following distances. It primarily means having your head cut-in to what's going on around you, maintaining mental "escape" plans for any situation, and understanding how your actions are likely to affect drivers around you.
9 times out of 10, the driver braking in front of me is doing so unneccessarily...this includes morons who seem to believe it necessary to brake because a driver two lanes over and slightly ahead of them did so, as well as those annoying asshats who just seem incapable of driving without touching the brake pedal every few seconds. How I cringe for their passengers and the uncomfortable ride they must be enduring.
I seem to be in the smallest of minorities, but my immediate reaction to seeing the brake lights illumninated on a car ahead of me is to double-check my escape route...that means I already know of a way around the guy stepping on his brakes (such as a lane change), but now is the time to glance around and make sure it's still open. Most of the time, the person braking has done so for no good reason and has already released their brake. If this isn't the case and they're still braking and/or my escape route isn't open, then I'll take my foot off the accelerator pedal and re-evaluate what's happening. Only in the rarest of instances am I ever in the situation where I am required to use my brake pedal.
I have a couple of ideas on how to discourage "brake pedal dependency": (intended to be tongue-in-cheek)
1 - Implement a one-quarter to one-half second delay between pedal actuation and signal illumination. This wouldn't do much for the ride comfort of folks who have been condemned to be chauffeured by a brake-tapping jackass, but it might soften their effect on other drivers.
2 - Deliver a mild electric shock to the driver every time she touches the brake pedal. The voltage should be modulated by a learning computer that analyzes the driver's braking patterns, ramping up the intensity on morons who "ride" the brake for long distances or repeatedly "tap" the pedal without actually slowing down, and reducing the shock when the pedal is firmly depressed.
If you actually interpreted that scenario to mean that the rear-end collision itself might be fatal, then you're even stupider and more short-sighted than I originally credited you with being.
The point was that being hit from behind introduces the very real probability of loss of control of your vehicle, with serious injury arising from resultant secondary (or even tertiary) collisions involving other vehicles, barriers, or stationary objects.
Just as it doesn't occur to peabrains like you that there might be circumstances beyond your awareness that might drive people to speed, you have now demonstrated three times that you're incapable of fathoming the concept that a "simple" rear-end collision might precipitate a fatal chain of events. Idiot.
Long reply cut short: you are either a troll or a dangerous idiot.
Since you managed to contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion, I conclude that you qualify as both. TFP.
Wow...apparently you need remedial reading comprehension classes in addition to driving lessons.
It's known as "context." In this case, the context was: like = e.g. = such as = for example = as in, etc.
As in, "the force of the rear-end collision drove little Johnny's car head-on into the oncoming traffic lane, where his 1993 shitbox was obliterated by a loaded 18-wheeler traveling at 75mph."
Idiot.
I had to stop from laughing at your "if you survive the collision" If you'd spent less time futzing around with statistical nonsense, you'd know it isn't really a laughing matter. If you're hit from behind with considerable force, it's not difficult to envision all manner of lethal consequences...like being driven head-on into an oncoming traffic lane, for example. As I mentioned, your survival is not a foregone conclusion. Have you EVER heard of ANYONE getting a ticket BECAUSE THEY WERE REAR-ENDED? It happens all the time. Just because you like to speak out of your ass without bothering to avail yourself of the facts doesn't mean those facts don't exist and aren't accessible. do you realize that THERE WOULD BE NO EVIDENCE? Looks to me like you've been too busy being an asshole to keep up with current events. You lose...go directly to jail. Do not pass Go, do not collect jack shit from anyone.
Actually, it's only proof that I've ceased to consider you a person worthy of rational explanation or discourse due to your own repeated demostrations of stupidity in the face of reason. It's a simple cost/benefit analysis that puts your position on the losing end every time, yet you refuse to acknowledge it.
Unlike the speeder who creates the potential hazard by his action, you make the delibertate, conscious decision to act out against him in a manner that will undoubtedly create a hazardous situation, or make an existing one worse than it already was.
And the most amazing part of it is, you will state these positions and then label me as being self-centered and harboring rage/psychological issues...probably completely oblivious to the enormous hypocrisy therein. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot. Welcome to Stupidville, Population: You.
Typical behavior of the short-sighted and small-minded, so I can't claim any surprise. But fallacies abound, so I'll point them out anyhow...
First, you've made the (incorrect) assumption that you know anything about me at all, but that never stops your type from attaching labels. Then, you exhibit a classic fallacy of those who lack confidence in their convictions by asserting that your (ignorant, uniformed) opinion is shared by some majority. Even if this happens to be the case, it has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of anything you've said. As intelligent Americans know firsthand, being part of the majority doesn't exempt you from stupidity.
Furthermore, your equally ignorant assessment of your chances of bringing suit against someone who rear-ended you demonstrates how little you really know. For the purpose of discussion, I'll make the assumption for you that you actually survive the collision, but this is by no means a foregone conclusion. The investigating officers would cite the other driver for following at an unsafe distance, and then would cite you for obstructing the flow of traffic. If the evidence demonstrates that you braked for no reason other than to antagonize him, such willful and intentional disregard for both the rules of the road and the safety of others will get you arrested for reckless driving or assault with intent to cause death or bodily injury.
You'll have precisely zero ground for any legal action against the other driver, as you willfully engaged in the assholery that directly precipitated the collision. This would hardly be a concern to you, however, as you'd likely be occupied with posting bond and getting what's left of your car out of the impound lot. Fun indeed.
So, be my guest...slam on your brakes next time and create a rear-end collision. If you survive, come back after you've disposed of all the court proceedings, and let us know just how much fun you had. Be sure to keep coming back to let us know how much you're enjoying your new, higher insurance premiums...assuming, of course, that your underwriter doesn't drop you outright.
People like you shouldn't be allowed to breathe, much less operate a vehicle on public roadways.
It never occurs to you pious assclowns that there just might be another explanation for someone wanting you to move out of their way to let them pass, besides your presumed assessment of their incredible arrogance and disrespect of your safety. You know absolutely nothing about the driver behind you or his motivations, yet you deliberately behave in an admittedly dangerous manner based purely on some assumption? Please turn in your license and exit the gene pool before you cause further contamination.
Were you a middle child or something? Mommy and daddy not love you enough? Save this bullshit for therapy...keep your goddamned inferiority complex off the public roadways before you wind up getting yourself or someone else injured or killed.
Yes, I seriously mean to suggest just that.
I could think of a hundred different reasons wherein it might be prudent or even necessary to exceed the posted prima fascie speed limit.
However, there is only one explanation for deliberately impeding the flow of faster traffic: you're a self-righteous prick.
You're absolutely correct...people who would tailgate drivers in the right lane are the assholes themselves, totally in the wrong.
Generally speaking, though, they tend to represent the exception rather than the rule. Most tailgating is the result of some asshat blocking the passing lane.
Come on, people. I never said anything about blinding other drivers with high beams.
A simple flash or two as you're approaching is a standard visual signal to alert other drivers to your presence and intent to overtake them.
Anyone who *keeps* their high beams on with the intent to annoy/blind the driver in front of them is just being a jackass himself...and as you mentioned, creating a hazardous situation.
If I saw a car zooming down the highway with their hazard lights flashing, I'd get out of the way.
Speaking of trolls...you could also try *not* being a sanctimonious prick and simply moving aside whenever anyone comes zooming down the highway, hazards flashing or not.
As for your helpfully witty remark about calling ambuances, did you bother to stop and think that it might be possible for such an emergency to arise (gasp!) while people were already in the car driving someplace?!?! "Yes, dear, I realize that your left arm just went numb and there seems to be an elephant sitting on your chest...please be patient while I look for a place to stop so we can call the paramedics!"
The point is that you simply cannot know, yet you needlessly assume the risk of presumption every time you feel compelled to sit on your imaginary moral high horse and impede another driver's progress. Not to mention (again) that by so doing, you also commit an equal infraction of the law as the speeding driver...guilt compounded by the fact that you knowingly and willfully engaged in dangerous behavior.
I'll take ad hominem over ignorance any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
You, on the other hand, seem to have no concept of the meaning of the phrase, nor of what you speak in general. I didn't base my response upon an attack of your character as a person...I just pointed out your narrow-sighted idiocy as an amusing aside.
The substance of my response was in the factual text of the law, which I was kind enough to cite for you down to the subsection. While I see some numbers in your response, alongside an inexplicable exhortation to familiarize myself with my own law, I have to inform you that nothing you posted is found anywhere in the Texas transportation code. You, however, might want to have a look at Section 545.062 of that publication.
Of course, if you believe me to be in error here, please be kind enough to cite the chapter and section of the transportation code from which you're deriving your information, and I'll be more than happy to provide you a prompt apology for wrongfully calling you out as an ignorant blowhard.
Yes, there's a very simple one: obey the law and yield the way to faster traffic. Works every time.
Very poetic...now move it on over, Thoreau. You're holding up the flow! :-)
Unfortunately, this kind of crap happens, too. Thankfully, these incidents are the fringe exceptions rather than the general rule.
Most speeders that I know, myself included, aren't looking to get into pissing contests with other drivers...they just want to tool down the road doing 75, 80, 85mph without some jerkweed blocking them for no reason other than his self-delusional fantasies about stopping a bad guy from breaking the speed limit. My personal take is that I don't care if you either speed up and stay in front of me, or move over and let me pass...but don't block me just to block me. Leave the policing to the police.
If you're in the left lane refusing to move over for a faster driver, then you're the asshole, even if you're already going the speed limit. If you get the situation you describe where you're already over to the right and he still on your bumper, then HE is the asshole, not you. You did exactly the right thing in moving over and then pulling out the cell phone. And for pete's sake, if someone acts like that don't ever stop and confront them or lead them to your house...just stay on the line with the dispatcher and keep driving. If you mention that you think you saw a weapon, it won't take long for a patrol unit to find you.
I don't know what fantasyland you're living in, but your definition of "at capacity" needs serious rectification with reality.
If there are 3-4 car lengths between cars traveling at freeway speeds, and you're refusing to yield the passing lane, then not only are YOU the asshole, you're also not even on the right side of the law. Like I told the AC below, check the transportation code. In Texas, it's Section 545 Subsection B.
And like I also told him, speeding in and of itself doesn't create a dangerous situation...it's dependent upon the circumstances. However, a self-righteous prick who takes it upon himself to obstruct faster traffic by intentionally violating a law himself does create a dangerous situation every time he does it. And the fact that he knowingly endangers motorists around him through such sophomoric behavior destroys any credibility he might have claimed for being concerned about safety and well-being. The logic is pretty clear: the least dangerous course of action for all involved is to simply obey the law and yield the right of way to the faster traffic.
How about you come out from behind that skirt, little coward, and explain just why my attitude is asshole?
It isn't the people speeding who create traffic jams...they motor on down the road to get where they're trying to go as quick as possible. If it weren't for the self-righteous pricks taking it upon themselves to block the left side of the freeways, there wouldn't even be any tailgaters.
It's quite plainly codified in black and white: if you are moving slower than other traffic and have been visually or audibly signaled by an approaching driver, then you are obligated to yield to the right and allow them to overtake you. It doesn't matter if you're already moving at the speed limit or not.
But don't take my word for it...check Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 545, Subchapter B. This concept was apparently important enough that it be the first set of rules enumerated in the vehicle operating code. Most states have similar statutes in place, and most civilized nations either observe these rules of driving behavior by ordinance or by simple courtesy.
Depending on various conditions, speeding may or may not constitute dangerous driving behavior. Someone deliberately and knowingly antagonizing another driver by intentionally making themselves an obstacle to traffic flow, however, creates a dangerous situation every single time it happens. So, put your money where your mouth is. For the greater safety and sanity of everyone on the road, just obey the law and get out of the speeders' way when they come up behind you. You can laugh yourself silly when you see them pulled over a few miles down the freeway.
More tough talk from the AC set.
If your alleged concern for safe driving situations weren't pure pious bullshit, you'd never display such a puerile behavioral response...you'd adopt the safest course of action for all involved, namely yielding the right of way to faster moving traffic.
Instead, you out yourself as an infantile pissant who would rather escalate what you've already determined to be an unsafe situation than take the more rational course of action to defuse it before any incident occurs. Then again, if you were truly so concerned with maintaining general safety and complying with the laws, you wouldn't be creating an obstacle in the first place, now would you?
And some free advice: before you start being really stupid and thinking it's a good idea to actually follow/punish anyone, you might want to invest in some kevlar clothing. Or better life insurance.