Yes, I do agree that speeding is dangerous.. what makes it dangerous is the DIFFERENCE in speeds between two vehicles. If all vehicles went the same speed it'd be pretty safe (well, with exceptions such as at cross streets - you have to be able to slow down in a reasonable amount of time).
Am I saying we should raise the speed limit to 90 and then everyone should go 90? No, but some speed limits are just plain TOO SLOW. I really feel this in the UP of Michigan (look at a map, hopefully the map actually has the UP on there - many don't) as there is only one freeway in the ENTIRE UP (which goes from Sault Ste Marie to the Mackinac Bridge into Lower Michigan - I don't live even remotely close to that). All the other federal and state roads are mostly 2 to 4 lane non-divided highways with few turn-offs. All are posted at no higher than 55 MPH. The highways can definitely handle vehicles travelling on them at faster than 55 (and many people do.. especially the TV news crews, going about 75-85). The bottom line is that going the speed limit (like I do, I don't feel like getting a ticket since there are plenty of 'fun' speed traps near where I live) just takes a long time. The UP is a few hundred miles long from west to east (Ironwood to DeTour/Drummond Island). Even from where I live (central) it probably takes 6 hours to get to Ironwood.
If they increased the legal speed limit on rural highways to 65 or 70 I really don't think that we would have more accidents. People would go the speed limit and get where they need to be faster.
The limit wouldn't need to, and shouldn't be increased in more populated areas.
Would the minority of people still speed? Yes, I'm sure of it, but for the majority of people it would just improve things as it wouldn't take so long to get from place to place.
You've probably heard this from a million people already, but people who get victimized by online users need to use a little common sense.
Maybe if they didn't go posting their name and address and photo everywhere on the internet they would be a lot more anonymous.
If they're posting something that's illegal or something that could land them in a lot of hot water otherwise (in the jurisdiction of the user / the web site) then it makes a bit more sense to use Tor or anonymous proxies or library computers.
For something like harassment though (at least here in the US) one can't easily go to a person's ISP or email provider and ask for personal information which would allow the attacker to go harass someone outside of the internet.
Perhaps it's easier to obtain that stuff in South Korea, who knows... Bottom line is, if you don't want to get targeted, keep the amount of information that you reveal online to a minimum.
People who host blogs, forums, etc can use some common sense too. If they see users attempting to harass another user they can do something about it. Perhaps banning the attacker from the service. I'm an admin at a small online forum / community, and although we rarely ban people, we have done it if they are creating enough problems.
Same with flamebait that gets posted, most of the mods in the community I'm from trash anything that is meant to be inflammatory.
Before you post something controversial it helps to see the demeanor of the community and especially its mods / admins.. harassment problems like that could be averted otherwise.
Right on with the open source philosophy. Going and buying Windows just shows that you are a supporter of closed-source, expensive, big-business bureaucracies.
On the other hand, Linux is free, open, and is much more stable. If your Windows games run fine on an emulator, then use the emulator. (And I can count the games I play on Windows on one hand, none of them requiring exquisite 3d acceleration that you can only currently get in windows).
However I don't necessarily agree with the philosophy Cedega was released, how you have to be a "subscriber" to TransGaming, $5 / month or $55 / year, just so you can download a closed-source program because you like the concept and stability of Linux. (Open-source)
I'm sure people will download it illegally, or get it other ways without paying, but the software should be free in the first place.
So it's a catch-22: Either use the closed source Windows OS (which you have to pay for), or use a closed-source emulator, Cedega, which you also have to pay for.
Just another way the FCC tries to regulate anything that has radio waves. And George W Bush's idiotic plan to dominate the world, by caring more about himself and big business, than the citizens, the people who really mean everything.
I don't care. I'd go right ahead with building one. And if the feds find out -- well, thermite-and-matches.
They couldn't easily get away with certain changes though (like removing European root servers from the zone. People would notice extremely fast). There isn't really much they can do though, administrators of name servers aren't forced and bound to use *the* zone file.
The US does control a big percentage of the root servers on the net however.
I don't believe it is in anyone's best interest that the Department of Commerce should control the internet root, nor should ICANN. The internet should be looked at as a free and global resource, not as a commercial or political development (though for many companies, it is).
Just another one of those ways the US can use to try and gain power and influence, and eventually step outside the bounds of their own Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
I think people are missing the point here.
Yes, I do agree that speeding is dangerous.. what makes it dangerous is the DIFFERENCE in speeds between two vehicles. If all vehicles went the same speed it'd be pretty safe (well, with exceptions such as at cross streets - you have to be able to slow down in a reasonable amount of time).
Am I saying we should raise the speed limit to 90 and then everyone should go 90? No, but some speed limits are just plain TOO SLOW. I really feel this in the UP of Michigan (look at a map, hopefully the map actually has the UP on there - many don't) as there is only one freeway in the ENTIRE UP (which goes from Sault Ste Marie to the Mackinac Bridge into Lower Michigan - I don't live even remotely close to that). All the other federal and state roads are mostly 2 to 4 lane non-divided highways with few turn-offs. All are posted at no higher than 55 MPH. The highways can definitely handle vehicles travelling on them at faster than 55 (and many people do.. especially the TV news crews, going about 75-85). The bottom line is that going the speed limit (like I do, I don't feel like getting a ticket since there are plenty of 'fun' speed traps near where I live) just takes a long time. The UP is a few hundred miles long from west to east (Ironwood to DeTour/Drummond Island). Even from where I live (central) it probably takes 6 hours to get to Ironwood.
If they increased the legal speed limit on rural highways to 65 or 70 I really don't think that we would have more accidents. People would go the speed limit and get where they need to be faster.
The limit wouldn't need to, and shouldn't be increased in more populated areas.
Would the minority of people still speed? Yes, I'm sure of it, but for the majority of people it would just improve things as it wouldn't take so long to get from place to place.
You've probably heard this from a million people already, but people who get victimized by online users need to use a little common sense.
Maybe if they didn't go posting their name and address and photo everywhere on the internet they would be a lot more anonymous.
If they're posting something that's illegal or something that could land them in a lot of hot water otherwise (in the jurisdiction of the user / the web site) then it makes a bit more sense to use Tor or anonymous proxies or library computers.
For something like harassment though (at least here in the US) one can't easily go to a person's ISP or email provider and ask for personal information which would allow the attacker to go harass someone outside of the internet.
Perhaps it's easier to obtain that stuff in South Korea, who knows...
Bottom line is, if you don't want to get targeted, keep the amount of information that you reveal online to a minimum.
People who host blogs, forums, etc can use some common sense too. If they see users attempting to harass another user they can do something about it. Perhaps banning the attacker from the service. I'm an admin at a small online forum / community, and although we rarely ban people, we have done it if they are creating enough problems.
Same with flamebait that gets posted, most of the mods in the community I'm from trash anything that is meant to be inflammatory.
Before you post something controversial it helps to see the demeanor of the community and especially its mods / admins.. harassment problems like that could be averted otherwise.
Right on with the open source philosophy. Going and buying Windows just shows that you are a supporter of closed-source, expensive, big-business bureaucracies. On the other hand, Linux is free, open, and is much more stable. If your Windows games run fine on an emulator, then use the emulator. (And I can count the games I play on Windows on one hand, none of them requiring exquisite 3d acceleration that you can only currently get in windows). However I don't necessarily agree with the philosophy Cedega was released, how you have to be a "subscriber" to TransGaming, $5 / month or $55 / year, just so you can download a closed-source program because you like the concept and stability of Linux. (Open-source) I'm sure people will download it illegally, or get it other ways without paying, but the software should be free in the first place. So it's a catch-22: Either use the closed source Windows OS (which you have to pay for), or use a closed-source emulator, Cedega, which you also have to pay for.
Just another way the FCC tries to regulate anything that has radio waves. And George W Bush's idiotic plan to dominate the world, by caring more about himself and big business, than the citizens, the people who really mean everything.
I don't care. I'd go right ahead with building one. And if the feds find out -- well, thermite-and-matches.
Yeah the US only controls the zone file.
They couldn't easily get away with certain changes though (like removing European root servers from the zone. People would notice extremely fast). There isn't really much they can do though, administrators of name servers aren't forced and bound to use *the* zone file.
The US does control a big percentage of the root servers on the net however.
I don't believe it is in anyone's best interest that the Department of Commerce should control the internet root, nor should ICANN. The internet should be looked at as a free and global resource, not as a commercial or political development (though for many companies, it is).
Just another one of those ways the US can use to try and gain power and influence, and eventually step outside the bounds of their own Constitution.