Re:Fortunately, it's still in infancy :)
on
AACS Device Key Found
·
· Score: 1, Funny
So, of course; don't buy them. Tell your friends not to buy the, and spread the word.
But then the Merch will turn into the Flesh Reaper and start collecting torsos!
If technology was selected based on worth and merit, we'd all have been using beta-max and mini-discs. But consumers don't always go for quality, innovation or convenience.
What the hell? Minidisc absolutely sucks. It's not a good example of a quality product.
Now, if you were to start a large-scale boycott of xxAA products? That would rock the boat. But I'm not holding my breath for you.
So what if our software is constantly changing, and is thus "unfinished"? To be finished means it won't improve.
I don't think the contention is that software should be perfect, and should never be changed. However, it would be nice if the software at least worked well when it was released. More and more software is being released in an almost perpetual "beta" state, even though users are paying for it. It seems to be more acceptable to release software with bugs in it, that hasn't been through a proper testing regime.
So, why do we need software to be "finished," anyway?
In this context, I would say it would mean that it isn't full of bugs. I think that's important. Am I somehow being selfish by wanting to run non-buggy software that works? Maybe you don't need that, but I certainly do. I haven't got time to waste on bugs, I have work to do.
But then, I'm not trying to do something with it that I shouldn't,
So, am I not "supposed" to watch my DVDs on my old TV? The macrovision protection makes the picture nearly unwatchable. The TV is very nice, and does the job well. Why should I have to throw away a perfectly good TV and buy a new one just to watch a DVD? It doesn't make any sense - if I have to buy a new TV, that's less money for me to spend on DVDs, so the copy protection would actually reduce their sales.
Likewise, have you never bought a DVD from another country? If you're not supposed to do that, then why can I buy DVDs from another country? Sure, you can get region-free DVD players, but not everybody has one - and with "RCE" protection, some titles won't even work on some region-free players. And region-free players are technically illegal in some places.
I also like to watch movies but some titles won't let me go straight to the movie, and instead force me to sit through unskippable ads and FBI warnings. I even had one disc that I bought, which made me sit through a quite long lecture about the evils of piracy, telling me how people who copy DVDs are funding terrorism and destroying the industry. Ironically, it was quite simple to make a copy of that DVD, with the anti-piracy ad removed. If they didn't have that unskippable propaganda at the beginning. If I ever get another disc with that ad, I'm going to return it as defective. I paid to watch the movie, not to be lectured by propaganda.
Remember who we are dealing with here. These people take old pensioners and small children to court over the flimsiest of evidence... they dont have much of a Public image left to lose.
But if you don't buy enough of their product, the Merch turns into the Flash Reaper, and goes from house to house collecting torsos.
On the other hand, if you do buy their product, then the Merch imparts some keen insight, and somebody's father gets fucked.
Don't you want somebody's father to get fucked? Do you really want your torso to be collected by the Flesh Reaper?
* If a serial will make it a full version...... junk to avoid
* If it takes installating more stuff.......... junk to avoid
Why does requiring a serial number, or payment make software junk? You do realize that there's lots of very good software that isn't free software don't you?
The use of all-lowercase or all-uppercase usernames is entirely conventional. Capitalizing random words in an English sentence is not. There are rules about how to capitalise in an English sentence. There aren't for usernames. Well, there are rules on different servers/systems, but they aren't consistent. Some systems force lowercase usernames, some prohibit spaces in a user name, some don't.
1. it's completely transparent and fair. the developer warns/tells you exactly what will happen if you pirate his software. assuming that the warning is clear and obvious enough, there are no "surprises" nor is he guilty of "breach of contract."
But this is where you ignore the facts. The users are not warned of this in the license agreement, or when they buy the software. It was discovered via a comment from the developer on Versiontracker. How many users are going to read all the comments on Versiontracker after they buy the application? I love Versiontracker, but I mostly read the site before I purchase software. I certainly don't go back and read all the subsequent comments for every piece of software I use.
Secondly, it appears the "delete stuff" was a lie perpetuated by the developer to scare people. I don't know if this is true, but that's what the developer claims. So, seeing as his "copy protection" is based on a campaign of lying - then how can we trust any further communication from the developer as either "fair" or "transparent"?
From the developer's site:
There exists two illegal cd-keys that can be used to register the program without paying for it. When Display Eater detects these keys, it would delete your home directory.
However, this is not the case in reality. The whole purpose was to create a scare campaign. You can download, the file linked from the main page, which is now down(the link is still intact here), and check it for yourself. It has been this way since 2/7/07.
It was my hope that by creating a scare campaign, I could stop wasting time writing copy protection routines to be broken over and over.
It is very difficult to parse this "public letter" because the (ab)use of English is so bad. But how I translate this is that the program never had any code to delete stuff, and that was just a rumour he spread to scare people who would pirate the software.
In simpler English, he lied to his customers. He claims the scare campaign backfired, but I'm not so sure. It seems to have worked perfectly. Now people are scared of his application. I'm not sure why a developer would want to scare people off, but he appears to have gotten his wish.
This whole thing is a crazy mess. How can anybody even trust his words? Even if it is true that there is no deletion "feature," that does not excuse his attitude and his lying. But maybe he is lying again that there is no deletion capability? One can't really tell, because his letter is so badly writtin that it's not clear what he is actually saying. The best course of action would be to treat the software as suspicious, and not go near it.
But like I said - slashdot supports actual bold or italic tags. I do understand the type of formatting you allude to. In fact, I use Markdown as a starting point of HTML composition. It would be nice if slashdot actually supported markdown, as it's much more efficient for the limited formatting we use here. But I wouldn't use Markdown style tags unless we were using a plain-text system like email, or if it was converted to display in HTML on slashdot.
I think he meant that "common carrier protection" should be limited. Limited in the sense that if the "common carrier" does not impose _any_ restrictions (within some _sane_ safety limit like no explosives) then that "common carrier" _should_ be protected. However, many ISP's are now NOT acting like "common carriers".
What do the underscores around certain words in your post mean? At first I thought they were supposed to represent scare quotes, but there are other words in your post surrounded by scare quotes. I guess they could represent bold or italic emphasis - but slashdot allows you to use bold and italic in your post.
So, I'm at a loss. I just don't understand why you used underscores in your post. Could you explain?
Fuck physics - lok at accident rates. They went down when states raised their maximum speed limits.
Evidence?
Moron. the speed of what people are doing, not what you think they should do. Moron. the speed of what people are doing, not what you think they should do.
So, what is this speed? Different people drive at different speeds, and this has nothing to do with what is the safe speed. So, what is this speed that "people are doing"?
No, my atitude is that I'm doing fine, leave me be. That's counter to the whole drug war thing. If you have a problem with leaving people alone, then go to hell.
I don't have a problem with leaving people alone. Apparently you do, because you like to fuck with other people's lives by speeding.
Not on the interstate. Too much shoulder.
So, what about other problems, like someone stopping suddenly?
Dude, that's 20%.
No, it's not 20%, because your journey consists of other things apart from travelling at speed. In any case, it's insignificant.
So we only have the speed law to tell us when we're wrong? since when does the law say what's right?
The law doesn't. It only implies what's right by outlining what's wrong.
Why is that? Do you have any evidence that it is?
Yes. Again, you don't seem to understand the laws of physics. Driving faster is inherently more dangerous..
No it isn't, because murder involves someone deliberately killing another without justification - much worse than a traffic fatality.
What difference does it make if the fatalaty is deliberate or accidental? The effect is still the same - someone dies. But very few people murder others. Many more people kill others because of careless driving. Therefore, careless driving has a much worse impact on society than murder, and kills more people. Why is this so hard to understand for you?
You mention "justification" in your murder equation. What justification is there for driving carelessly? Killing someone in a car accident is equally as unjustifiable as murder.
The wikipedia page on cat senses claims they can distinguish color, but without much accuity and mostly at close range.
Hmmm. I went to the Wikipedia page for cats, and it didn't mention anything about color perception. It did, however, mention that Rum Tum Tugger is very fickle and unappesable.
Evidence? How does more kinetic energy, and greater stopping distance, equal greater safety? Again, you are forgetting your physics.
I dunno, maybe speed?
Yes, speed. What speed? The speed of the traffic should be the posted limit. So, are you saying that speed limigts should be 85% of the speed limit? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
why should I? Even in this thread there are multiple examples.
No, I don't see any. You are the one making the exraordinary claims that go against demonstrated physics. That demands some evidence.
Another assertion. Refutation: Roadtrip of 150 miles at ave. speed of 60 mph: 2.5 hrs. At ave. speed of 80 mph, just under 2 hr.
But to get an average speed of 80mph, you would have to travel faster - because there are such things as stops. Most commuting is not road trips. And 30 minutes is a totally insignificant time saving on a 150 mile journey.
What's so important that you can't leave 30 minutes earlier?
Sure I do. Bad weather doesn't sneak up on you.
But bad weather is far from the only problem that can arise. A pedestrian could suddenly run out onto the road. Someone could have an accident ahead of you.
Then how is reflexes and training relevant?
It's not. You claimed you could handle ANYTHING that was thrown at you. You did not specify any limitations. So, I could throw a nuclear warhead at you. Can you outrun that?
Fuck you. I don't go shooting up houses in the name of my right to speed (like the DEA does) or taking somebody's land because somebody speeds on it (local PD, this time). Speeding pales in comparison.
No, it doesn't. the attitude behind your speeding is the kind of thing that leads to the drug war and worse. Speeding (and mor importantly the attitude and arrogance behind it) is far more widespread, and affects more people than the drug war.
In fact, speeding and impatience even gets you to work slower, because it is one of the major causes of congestion and accidents. If everybody slowed down, you'd actually get through traffic quicker.
More than murder and assault laws? Get a grip, sparky.
Pretty much. Because people know that murder and assault are wrong, and they will be punished. People need to be told that speeding is dangerous, because there is an epidemic of selfish people who think they are god's gift to the road, and don't have the brain cells to drive properly. Also, murder is less of a problem for society than traffic safety violations. Many more people are killed on the roads than by murderers. More people are maimed on the road than are assaulted.
What problem? Speeding is not a problem of itself.
What problem? The death and the accidents. Are you retarded? Do you not realize that speeding causes more problems on the roads? You claim to be a great driverm, yet you aren't even aware of basic facts.
Dear god, you're arguing about speed limits and you don't even know. The 85th percentile of free flowing traffic.
Why should I know something that doesn't even make sense? The 85th percentile of what about free-flowing traffic?
Because it's been demonstrated time and time again. May as well stop believing in dogs.
Yet you don't provide any evidence. Interesting. Or not.
You can't substantiate your objection to speeding on any other grounds, so you fall back on the legal one. No benefit? I get where I'm going faster, and for no signifigant risk.
That's where youy are wrong. You are taking a significant risk - and you probably don't get there any faster, if there is any traffic. The time savings, if they exist are extremely minimal. The risks are very large. And you are reneging on the agreement you made to get your license. So, why should you be allowed to drive?
I slow down when I get in the shit, then go fast when it's nice.
But you njever know when "the shit" might arise. Are you psychic, or is this more of the superhuman ability thing?
Sure would. I'd use my superior intellect to get off the damn track.
But you were chained to the track in my scenario. Are you Houdini now?
No, that'd be the drug war and the whole 'tough on crime BS' that's infested politics for 20 years.
The drug war is pretty bad, but I don't think it compares to the selfishness and arrogance of people, and their lack of concern for safety. If people were more concerned with safety and less concerned with being #1, there probably would never have been a drug war in the first place.
Which comes back to the crux of my point. Banning drugs and sexual acts are the really wrong laws, they are pointless, and infringe on human rights. Road laws are the most important laws of all, because they don't infringe on rights, and they are there to actually protect people.
If they aren't causing a problem, why bother them at all?
Speeding is causing a problem - that's why they bother.
They aren't set at the 85th percentile
The 85th percentile of what?
and they are frequently set at unreasonably low limits specifically to drive ticket revenue. This isn't something that's really up for debate.
What makes them unreasonable, and why can't this be debated?
Nope. You can't use the penalties for breaking a law when arguing for their reasonableness. To answer your question, i'm not risking much of anything. I go fast because I prefer to and I can do it safely.
Right. You're a moron, because you undertake a large risk, and disobey the law, for basically no significant benefit. You just do it because "you prefer it." That's not a good rationale for engandering others.
And how do you know you can do it safely under all circumstances? Do you have some magical ability that lets you defy the laws of physics?
The faster you go, the more dangerous you are, regardless of how good a driver you are
You haven't seen me drive, so kindly keep your mouth shut regarding my skill.
Can you read? I said no matter how good a driver you are. Driving faster is inherently more risky than driving slower. It doesn't matter if you're Michael Schumacher. You really don't seem to have a good grasp of this fundamental concept, which makes me wonder how competent you really are. If you can't accept basic physical reality, I don't know what to say.
My skills were forged by the most aggressive, nasty, and dense drivers in the country. I can damn well handle anything you throw at me.
You're obviously full of shit and reckless. NOBODY can handle anything. Human beings have limitations. Cars have limitations. Do you think you're superhuman or something? How about I throw a speeding train at you - I guess your superior ability would prevent you from being crushed to death.
The fact that those people have trouble maintaining a lane whilst going slowly points to them being worse drivers than me.
So what? I didn't say you were the worst driver in the world. It doesn't mean you are allowed to break safety laws.
I pay attention and keep my car in excellent condition, so I can go fast.
Wrong. The law says you have to obey the limits, it doesn't say "you can break the limit if you think you're a good driver." And your behaviour helps encourage speeding - which means there will be more people speeding, some of whom might not be able to handle it as well as you.
Driving cars is about the most dangerous thing most people do everyday, and the roads are full of jerks who think they can do whatever they want. It's probably the biggest social problem we have today, and the costs are enormous. Attitudes like yours are like a fucking cancer eating away at society. "The rules don't apply to me. I have to get there faster, faster, faster, Me, me, me! I'm special! I can handle eating a Big Mac and talking on the cellphoine while driving! Everybody get out of my way because I own the road! You motherfuckers who obey the speed limit are going TOO SLOW. I do what I want, when I want - screw you society. Screw you laws, screw you road fatalaties, screw you ambulance drivers! Screw you laws I AGREED TO OBEY TO GET MY FUCKING LICENSE."
Why don't you just be honest and hand in your license, seeing as you got it under false pretences, when you declared that you would obey road laws in exchange for the privilege? Why don't you go and build your own roads, then you can drive on them as fast as you like.
Read what I wrote: law enforcement is not about making money.
Right. It's about enforcing the law. Which is what is happening. How else do you think they should be punished? Go directly to jail?
Or perhaps the law is an ass and was set the way it is to make money.
How are speeding laws unreasonable? IMO, they are the most reasonable and just laws in existence. They are about safety, and they dobn't vilolate any freedoms, as driving on government-owned roads, and operating a dangerous vehicle is a privilege, not a right.
Your contention that the laws were enacted to make money is ridiculous. Speeding laws were around a long time before speed cameras, and were enacted in response to dangerous accidents and fatalaties.
No I don't. I can drive fast without endangering others,
See how that demonstrates that you're a moron? Even if you can drive fast safely, what reason do you have to do it? Why would you risk beoing fined and losing your license, just for a bit of extra speed? What's so important about going fast that you have to break the law?
Anyway - you only think you can drive fast without endangering others. The faster you go, the more dangerous you are, regardless of how good a driver you are. So, you are unnecessarily endangering people. Here's a newsflash - nearly everybody thinks they are better drivers they really are, or are better than others on the road. Usually the people who hold this belief are actually the worst drivers, despite their arrogant sense of superiority. Well, probably because of this sense of superiority, they ignore their limitations and their effects on others. If something unexpected happens on the road, you might be surprised at how unprepared you are to handle it while going fast.
The fact that some people have accidents while driving slowly is not a defense for you going fast.
Contrary to popular belief, there actually ARE mainstream titles that are not steaming piles of shit.
Yes, I know. When did I say otherwise?
I know you guys love to not like things that are popular, but you're being just as stupid as the people that won't watch your oh so awesome rare and underappreciated movies.
Again, where are you getting this from? I don't dislike things just because they are popular.
Case in point, like the movie for what it is and not for how popular it is or is not,
Exactly what I was arguing. The fact is that blockbusters have an overabundance of shit. I dislike them because they are bad, not because they are popular. Likewise, I dislike the herd mentality of "it must be crap if nobody rents it," and people who rent things just because they are popular.
Your tastes are not automatically better because you like unpopular movies;
Again, I never said that. You might want to do something about the hallucinations.
Slashdot Mirror
But then the Merch will turn into the Flesh Reaper and start collecting torsos!
If technology was selected based on worth and merit, we'd all have been using beta-max and mini-discs. But consumers don't always go for quality, innovation or convenience.What the hell? Minidisc absolutely sucks. It's not a good example of a quality product.
Now, if you were to start a large-scale boycott of xxAA products? That would rock the boat. But I'm not holding my breath for you.Sigh. Didn't I already mention the torsos?
I don't have any actualy figures, but I'd estimate about two people. Although that's probably just a rounding error.
I don't think the contention is that software should be perfect, and should never be changed. However, it would be nice if the software at least worked well when it was released. More and more software is being released in an almost perpetual "beta" state, even though users are paying for it. It seems to be more acceptable to release software with bugs in it, that hasn't been through a proper testing regime.
So, why do we need software to be "finished," anyway?In this context, I would say it would mean that it isn't full of bugs. I think that's important. Am I somehow being selfish by wanting to run non-buggy software that works? Maybe you don't need that, but I certainly do. I haven't got time to waste on bugs, I have work to do.
So, am I not "supposed" to watch my DVDs on my old TV? The macrovision protection makes the picture nearly unwatchable. The TV is very nice, and does the job well. Why should I have to throw away a perfectly good TV and buy a new one just to watch a DVD? It doesn't make any sense - if I have to buy a new TV, that's less money for me to spend on DVDs, so the copy protection would actually reduce their sales.
Likewise, have you never bought a DVD from another country? If you're not supposed to do that, then why can I buy DVDs from another country? Sure, you can get region-free DVD players, but not everybody has one - and with "RCE" protection, some titles won't even work on some region-free players. And region-free players are technically illegal in some places.
I also like to watch movies but some titles won't let me go straight to the movie, and instead force me to sit through unskippable ads and FBI warnings. I even had one disc that I bought, which made me sit through a quite long lecture about the evils of piracy, telling me how people who copy DVDs are funding terrorism and destroying the industry. Ironically, it was quite simple to make a copy of that DVD, with the anti-piracy ad removed. If they didn't have that unskippable propaganda at the beginning. If I ever get another disc with that ad, I'm going to return it as defective. I paid to watch the movie, not to be lectured by propaganda.
But if you don't buy enough of their product, the Merch turns into the Flash Reaper, and goes from house to house collecting torsos.
On the other hand, if you do buy their product, then the Merch imparts some keen insight, and somebody's father gets fucked.
Don't you want somebody's father to get fucked? Do you really want your torso to be collected by the Flesh Reaper?
Why does requiring a serial number, or payment make software junk? You do realize that there's lots of very good software that isn't free software don't you?
Cool, we have our own country now! Why haven't I got a passport, and which airlines offer flights to Mac Land?
The use of all-lowercase or all-uppercase usernames is entirely conventional. Capitalizing random words in an English sentence is not. There are rules about how to capitalise in an English sentence. There aren't for usernames. Well, there are rules on different servers/systems, but they aren't consistent. Some systems force lowercase usernames, some prohibit spaces in a user name, some don't.
But this is where you ignore the facts. The users are not warned of this in the license agreement, or when they buy the software. It was discovered via a comment from the developer on Versiontracker. How many users are going to read all the comments on Versiontracker after they buy the application? I love Versiontracker, but I mostly read the site before I purchase software. I certainly don't go back and read all the subsequent comments for every piece of software I use.
Secondly, it appears the "delete stuff" was a lie perpetuated by the developer to scare people. I don't know if this is true, but that's what the developer claims. So, seeing as his "copy protection" is based on a campaign of lying - then how can we trust any further communication from the developer as either "fair" or "transparent"?
However, this is not the case in reality. The whole purpose was to create a scare campaign. You can download, the file linked from the main page, which is now down(the link is still intact here), and check it for yourself. It has been this way since 2/7/07.
It was my hope that by creating a scare campaign, I could stop wasting time writing copy protection routines to be broken over and over.
It is very difficult to parse this "public letter" because the (ab)use of English is so bad. But how I translate this is that the program never had any code to delete stuff, and that was just a rumour he spread to scare people who would pirate the software.
In simpler English, he lied to his customers. He claims the scare campaign backfired, but I'm not so sure. It seems to have worked perfectly. Now people are scared of his application. I'm not sure why a developer would want to scare people off, but he appears to have gotten his wish.
This whole thing is a crazy mess. How can anybody even trust his words? Even if it is true that there is no deletion "feature," that does not excuse his attitude and his lying. But maybe he is lying again that there is no deletion capability? One can't really tell, because his letter is so badly writtin that it's not clear what he is actually saying. The best course of action would be to treat the software as suspicious, and not go near it.
But like I said - slashdot supports actual bold or italic tags. I do understand the type of formatting you allude to. In fact, I use Markdown as a starting point of HTML composition. It would be nice if slashdot actually supported markdown, as it's much more efficient for the limited formatting we use here. But I wouldn't use Markdown style tags unless we were using a plain-text system like email, or if it was converted to display in HTML on slashdot.
One would also think that your use of Capitalization is Bizarre.
Why is that sad? Isn't that the way it should be?
What do the underscores around certain words in your post mean? At first I thought they were supposed to represent scare quotes, but there are other words in your post surrounded by scare quotes. I guess they could represent bold or italic emphasis - but slashdot allows you to use bold and italic in your post.
So, I'm at a loss. I just don't understand why you used underscores in your post. Could you explain?
Evidence?
Moron. the speed of what people are doing, not what you think they should do. Moron. the speed of what people are doing, not what you think they should do.So, what is this speed? Different people drive at different speeds, and this has nothing to do with what is the safe speed. So, what is this speed that "people are doing"?
No, my atitude is that I'm doing fine, leave me be. That's counter to the whole drug war thing. If you have a problem with leaving people alone, then go to hell.I don't have a problem with leaving people alone. Apparently you do, because you like to fuck with other people's lives by speeding.
Not on the interstate. Too much shoulder.So, what about other problems, like someone stopping suddenly?
Dude, that's 20%.No, it's not 20%, because your journey consists of other things apart from travelling at speed. In any case, it's insignificant.
So we only have the speed law to tell us when we're wrong? since when does the law say what's right?The law doesn't. It only implies what's right by outlining what's wrong.
Why is that? Do you have any evidence that it is?Yes. Again, you don't seem to understand the laws of physics. Driving faster is inherently more dangerous..
No it isn't, because murder involves someone deliberately killing another without justification - much worse than a traffic fatality.What difference does it make if the fatalaty is deliberate or accidental? The effect is still the same - someone dies. But very few people murder others. Many more people kill others because of careless driving. Therefore, careless driving has a much worse impact on society than murder, and kills more people. Why is this so hard to understand for you?
You mention "justification" in your murder equation. What justification is there for driving carelessly? Killing someone in a car accident is equally as unjustifiable as murder.
The solution is clear - Tiger Woods should be sent on all space missions.
Hmmm. I went to the Wikipedia page for cats, and it didn't mention anything about color perception. It did, however, mention that Rum Tum Tugger is very fickle and unappesable.
I though black had something to do with not being Barak Obama.
Man, you're missing out. FooMail is the best application ever.
Evidence? How does more kinetic energy, and greater stopping distance, equal greater safety? Again, you are forgetting your physics.
I dunno, maybe speed?Yes, speed. What speed? The speed of the traffic should be the posted limit. So, are you saying that speed limigts should be 85% of the speed limit? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
why should I? Even in this thread there are multiple examples.No, I don't see any. You are the one making the exraordinary claims that go against demonstrated physics. That demands some evidence.
Another assertion. Refutation: Roadtrip of 150 miles at ave. speed of 60 mph: 2.5 hrs. At ave. speed of 80 mph, just under 2 hr.But to get an average speed of 80mph, you would have to travel faster - because there are such things as stops. Most commuting is not road trips. And 30 minutes is a totally insignificant time saving on a 150 mile journey.
What's so important that you can't leave 30 minutes earlier?
Sure I do. Bad weather doesn't sneak up on you.But bad weather is far from the only problem that can arise. A pedestrian could suddenly run out onto the road. Someone could have an accident ahead of you.
Then how is reflexes and training relevant?It's not. You claimed you could handle ANYTHING that was thrown at you. You did not specify any limitations. So, I could throw a nuclear warhead at you. Can you outrun that?
Fuck you. I don't go shooting up houses in the name of my right to speed (like the DEA does) or taking somebody's land because somebody speeds on it (local PD, this time). Speeding pales in comparison.No, it doesn't. the attitude behind your speeding is the kind of thing that leads to the drug war and worse. Speeding (and mor importantly the attitude and arrogance behind it) is far more widespread, and affects more people than the drug war.
In fact, speeding and impatience even gets you to work slower, because it is one of the major causes of congestion and accidents. If everybody slowed down, you'd actually get through traffic quicker.
More than murder and assault laws? Get a grip, sparky.Pretty much. Because people know that murder and assault are wrong, and they will be punished. People need to be told that speeding is dangerous, because there is an epidemic of selfish people who think they are god's gift to the road, and don't have the brain cells to drive properly. Also, murder is less of a problem for society than traffic safety violations. Many more people are killed on the roads than by murderers. More people are maimed on the road than are assaulted.
What problem? The death and the accidents. Are you retarded? Do you not realize that speeding causes more problems on the roads? You claim to be a great driverm, yet you aren't even aware of basic facts.
Dear god, you're arguing about speed limits and you don't even know. The 85th percentile of free flowing traffic.Why should I know something that doesn't even make sense? The 85th percentile of what about free-flowing traffic?
Because it's been demonstrated time and time again. May as well stop believing in dogs.Yet you don't provide any evidence. Interesting. Or not.
You can't substantiate your objection to speeding on any other grounds, so you fall back on the legal one. No benefit? I get where I'm going faster, and for no signifigant risk.That's where youy are wrong. You are taking a significant risk - and you probably don't get there any faster, if there is any traffic. The time savings, if they exist are extremely minimal. The risks are very large. And you are reneging on the agreement you made to get your license. So, why should you be allowed to drive?
I slow down when I get in the shit, then go fast when it's nice.But you njever know when "the shit" might arise. Are you psychic, or is this more of the superhuman ability thing?
Sure would. I'd use my superior intellect to get off the damn track.But you were chained to the track in my scenario. Are you Houdini now?
No, that'd be the drug war and the whole 'tough on crime BS' that's infested politics for 20 years.The drug war is pretty bad, but I don't think it compares to the selfishness and arrogance of people, and their lack of concern for safety. If people were more concerned with safety and less concerned with being #1, there probably would never have been a drug war in the first place.
Which comes back to the crux of my point. Banning drugs and sexual acts are the really wrong laws, they are pointless, and infringe on human rights. Road laws are the most important laws of all, because they don't infringe on rights, and they are there to actually protect people.
Speeding is causing a problem - that's why they bother.
They aren't set at the 85th percentileThe 85th percentile of what?
and they are frequently set at unreasonably low limits specifically to drive ticket revenue. This isn't something that's really up for debate.What makes them unreasonable, and why can't this be debated?
Nope. You can't use the penalties for breaking a law when arguing for their reasonableness. To answer your question, i'm not risking much of anything. I go fast because I prefer to and I can do it safely.Right. You're a moron, because you undertake a large risk, and disobey the law, for basically no significant benefit. You just do it because "you prefer it." That's not a good rationale for engandering others.
And how do you know you can do it safely under all circumstances? Do you have some magical ability that lets you defy the laws of physics?
The faster you go, the more dangerous you are, regardless of how good a driver you areYou haven't seen me drive, so kindly keep your mouth shut regarding my skill.
Can you read? I said no matter how good a driver you are. Driving faster is inherently more risky than driving slower. It doesn't matter if you're Michael Schumacher. You really don't seem to have a good grasp of this fundamental concept, which makes me wonder how competent you really are. If you can't accept basic physical reality, I don't know what to say.
My skills were forged by the most aggressive, nasty, and dense drivers in the country. I can damn well handle anything you throw at me.You're obviously full of shit and reckless. NOBODY can handle anything. Human beings have limitations. Cars have limitations. Do you think you're superhuman or something? How about I throw a speeding train at you - I guess your superior ability would prevent you from being crushed to death.
The fact that those people have trouble maintaining a lane whilst going slowly points to them being worse drivers than me.So what? I didn't say you were the worst driver in the world. It doesn't mean you are allowed to break safety laws.
I pay attention and keep my car in excellent condition, so I can go fast.Wrong. The law says you have to obey the limits, it doesn't say "you can break the limit if you think you're a good driver." And your behaviour helps encourage speeding - which means there will be more people speeding, some of whom might not be able to handle it as well as you.
Driving cars is about the most dangerous thing most people do everyday, and the roads are full of jerks who think they can do whatever they want. It's probably the biggest social problem we have today, and the costs are enormous. Attitudes like yours are like a fucking cancer eating away at society. "The rules don't apply to me. I have to get there faster, faster, faster, Me, me, me! I'm special! I can handle eating a Big Mac and talking on the cellphoine while driving! Everybody get out of my way because I own the road! You motherfuckers who obey the speed limit are going TOO SLOW. I do what I want, when I want - screw you society. Screw you laws, screw you road fatalaties, screw you ambulance drivers! Screw you laws I AGREED TO OBEY TO GET MY FUCKING LICENSE."
Why don't you just be honest and hand in your license, seeing as you got it under false pretences, when you declared that you would obey road laws in exchange for the privilege? Why don't you go and build your own roads, then you can drive on them as fast as you like.
Only if you project your own problems into my message, and read things into it that are not there.
Right. It's about enforcing the law. Which is what is happening. How else do you think they should be punished? Go directly to jail?
Or perhaps the law is an ass and was set the way it is to make money.How are speeding laws unreasonable? IMO, they are the most reasonable and just laws in existence. They are about safety, and they dobn't vilolate any freedoms, as driving on government-owned roads, and operating a dangerous vehicle is a privilege, not a right.
Your contention that the laws were enacted to make money is ridiculous. Speeding laws were around a long time before speed cameras, and were enacted in response to dangerous accidents and fatalaties.
No I don't. I can drive fast without endangering others,See how that demonstrates that you're a moron? Even if you can drive fast safely, what reason do you have to do it? Why would you risk beoing fined and losing your license, just for a bit of extra speed? What's so important about going fast that you have to break the law?
Anyway - you only think you can drive fast without endangering others. The faster you go, the more dangerous you are, regardless of how good a driver you are. So, you are unnecessarily endangering people. Here's a newsflash - nearly everybody thinks they are better drivers they really are, or are better than others on the road. Usually the people who hold this belief are actually the worst drivers, despite their arrogant sense of superiority. Well, probably because of this sense of superiority, they ignore their limitations and their effects on others. If something unexpected happens on the road, you might be surprised at how unprepared you are to handle it while going fast.
The fact that some people have accidents while driving slowly is not a defense for you going fast.
Yes, I know. When did I say otherwise?
I know you guys love to not like things that are popular, but you're being just as stupid as the people that won't watch your oh so awesome rare and underappreciated movies.Again, where are you getting this from? I don't dislike things just because they are popular.
Case in point, like the movie for what it is and not for how popular it is or is not,Exactly what I was arguing. The fact is that blockbusters have an overabundance of shit. I dislike them because they are bad, not because they are popular. Likewise, I dislike the herd mentality of "it must be crap if nobody rents it," and people who rent things just because they are popular.
Your tastes are not automatically better because you like unpopular movies;Again, I never said that. You might want to do something about the hallucinations.