That's really what keeps slashdot at the top of my list -- the comment system. Flawed as it may be, I've not found another one out there that's half as good.
"When did gold farming start?
First reports were in Central America and Mexico in about 2003."
I remember gold farming in Asheron's Call in early 2000.
Here's a link to a blurb about Sony's problems with EverQuest in April 2000.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017_3-239052.html
That's OK. Now that you've found it, I'm sure Doctorow will remember it too;)
Now if only I could find the logic in that post -- because you're begging the question. You build your entire argument on the assumption that in order to be a good driver you must obey the speed limit - then use that as evidence to support that anybody not obeying the speed limit isn't paying attention and is a bad driver.
Half of what you quoted has nothing to do with the argument at hand -- that is, that speeding allegedly makes you more likely to get in an accident. I never said that a higher-speed collision was less likely to incur fatality -- that's a proven fact.
Why assume that the other party is in another car?
Never make assumptions. Risks can come from anywhere. While you're right about increased stopping time, you're wrong about increased thinking distance. Your thinking distance should ALWAYS be the limits of your perception -- all the way to the ends of the road in all directions, and including everything between you and those ends (as close to 360 degrees as possible).
I pity the fool that doesn't obey the speed limit in built up areas and then suffers the consequences when someone steps out in front of him.
If you said "I pity the fool that's driving too fast in built up areas..." I could agree. I can't remember if it was in this thread or a related thread, but what I said and continue to say is that you go the speed that conditions warrant. That includes: range of vision, obstructions (including on the sides of the road such as parked cars, trees, etc), traffic (car, bicycle, foot and animal), time of day, signals and stop signs, neighborhood , precipitation, temperature, and a dozen other things I've not got time to list.
Nobody said driving is simple - if you can't handle monitoring those things then get off the road -- because *then* you are a danger at any speed.
But if you are monitoring those things, and driving at a speed that's safe taking all of that into consideration, then you're no more likely to get into or cause an accident -- in fact you're in a much better position to avoid an accident because you're aware of mistakes other drivers are making.
The point again is not speeding - it's driving appropriately for what conditions allow. Sometimes that's over the speed limit. Sometimes, it's even under.
Given the deluge of AC "you stupid driver" posts in reply to my comment, I was beginning to think I was alone in the world...
The thing that baffles me is that I don't see what there is to argue with: pay attention -- all the time. Don't make assumptions. Be prepared to take appropriate evasive action even when it's not "your fault". As a driver, your responsibility only *begins* with paying attention to what you have direct control over.
Next time try to read what I wrote. a) A share of the responsibility: yes. Half: where did I say that? b) the percentage of responsibility doesn't matter. If I could have avoided it but failed to, how is that anybody's fault but mine? Sure, when it comes to covering funeral expenses it's nice to know that the other guy's insurance will pay -- but I'd rather be alive because I saw, identified and reacted to the danger even when legally I did not have to.
don't understand why this was modded insightful. Speed has everything to do with putting others at risk. Whether you are driving stupidly or not at higher speeds it takes longer to slow your car down. That is just how life works. Just because you think you are an awesome driver doesn't make your car slow down or move better while driving at higher speeds. Higher speeds put you at a higher risk for causing an accident.
Following this to its logical conclusion, we should clearly dismantle the highway system. After all, the slower we go, the less chance of accidents. (Ddi you know that there are some places in the US with a speed limit of 80? Death traps, I tell ya. Never mind that they were designed to accomodate higher speeds safely...)
A high speed collision surely increases the amount of damage that will be caused - but a high speed in *itself* does not cause accidents. It does mean that the driver doing it has to take more extreme factors into consideration (stopping distance, reaction time).
You really must think you are a leet driver.
Actually, I think I'm good but not superb. There's always room for improvement.
In many many cases it doesn't matter how good of a driver you are, you are still going to get T-Boned, you are still going to get rear ended, you are still going to get hit by stupid drivers.
Is every accident avoidable by the not-at-fault party? Absolutely not. Can most of them be either avoided or mitigated to some degree? Absolutely so. If you don't think that's true...w ell, I'm glad I don't get in the car with you. Because personally, I think driving off the shoulder to avoid being rear-ended is a good idea-- but it *does* require being willing to accept that I have to take some action to avoid being rear-ended; and further implies that I have to see the car coming in my rearview mirror.
I pity you and your family, you are going to get yourselves killed because of your own ignorance or just because someone decides to be a moron and smashes into you.
So which part did you take issue with - where I said it's my responsibility as a driver to stay alert? Or where I implied that I take what precautions I can to avoid hazardous situations introduced by other drivers? Or perhaps the concept that I do this even in situations which I should legally be able to consider "safe"?
Right... Because I can control the other driver's speed. And their state of mind and mental condition. Also, I have direct control and final say about the mechanical condition of their vehicle.
Of course you don't. (And still this focus on speed as somehow causing trouble - it's not the speed, it's the driver.) By being aware that you DON'T know these things, and by specifically being alert to the situation most likely to "go wrong" for any given combination of road and vehicle conditions, you can avoid accidents -- even those that wouldn't have been your fault to begin with.
No. I AM NOT in any way responsible for the stupidity of other people or their stupid actions.
You're right, you are not.
All I can do is be aware and alert.
Agreed.
People need to smarten-up and take responsibility for their own actions.
Yes they do. But failing to respond to a potential hazard on the road is an action too. Responding to those situations is nobody's responsibility but yours. Would you sit still in the intersection when you saw somebody bearing down on you without slowing down? Probably not. The only difference is that not all hazards are that obvious -- but your responsibility in them remains the same.
Tell me, do you check intersections for cars even though you have a green light? When you get t-boned because you weren't looking to see the person about to run the light, your "right of way" doesn't make you any less dead. In that scenario the other driver is clearly at fault; but if you could have avoided it with a little more attention (as you could have in this hypothetical case), you also bear some measure of responsibility.
As I said, your own responsibility does not abrogate the responsibility of the other driver -- but convincing yourself that it's all on their shoulders; or that you can rely on people doing what "the law" says is just ignorant. And dangerous.
So do I. Some asshole that puts me and my family at risk so he can save 5 minutes in travel time. Way to go!
He is either driving stupidly (which can but does not have to involve speeding); or driving well (which can but does not have to involve going the speed limit). In no case does the speed of his vehicle alone make him a risk to you and your family.
In addition, do you discount your own attentiveness so readily? If so, I pity your family. As I posted a couple of days ago - most two-party accidents require TWO people not doing what they should be -- even if legally only one person is at fault. If you drive defensively and alertly, even his potential stupidity should be something you take into account and react to. At no point should your alertness falter -- even idling at a stop light, it's *still* your responsibility to be alert and check your mirrors (unless you don't value the lives of you or your family).
I say this all as someone with a family of my own - and who's gotten into an accident where someone else was entirely "at fault". No matter whose insurance paid out, it was *my* responsibility to be aware of the fact that the other driver was being dumb and adjust accordingly. (Note that this doesn't excuse the other drive for being dumb in the first place - it's just being aware that I played a role too -- and from there learning to play that role better.)
Take responsibility for yourself. Someone else's stupid driving should very rarely put your family at significantly higher risk unless you let it.
The reason why they have speed cameras is because they get lots of racing fans because the town is located just south of Bristol Motor Speedway. Nascar racing fans have a general disregard for speed limits and I bet that on a big race weekend one police car could not write tickets fast enough.
Have you ever tried to leave a large sporting event or concert? It doesn't matter how fast you *want* to go -- you're stuck going as fast as the repeated failures to merge/yield allow you to go. That is - about 5 mph. This continues onto the highway as well when we're talking 60k + people in a mass exodus.
What's wrong with just writing a dry summary? It's more pleasant to read and lets the facts of the situation speak for themselves:
"MaryAnn and Jim McMahon of Cripple Creek, Colorado were playing at the Wildwood Casino, Tuesday, and hit an $11 million jackpot on a slot machine. Before paying the winnings, the casino turned the machine over to the Colorado Gaming Division for inspection. After deciding that the win was due to a malfunction, the couple was paid only $1627.82 in winnings."
Reading this revised version doesn't make me sick and want to punch someone for trying to be witty and entertaining (that is, annoying and stupid).
You know what this summary is missing? Exclamation points! Exclamation points — and m-dashes. Perhaps a smidge of sarcasm, and an acronym! Here, let me fix this for you:
"MaryAnn and Jim McMahon — of Cripple Creek, Colorado — were playing at the Wildwood Casino on Tuesday, and hit an $11 million jackpot on a slot machine! Before paying the winnings, the casino turned the machine over to the Colorado Gaming Division (CGD) for inspection. After the CGD determined that the win was due to a "malfunction", the couple was paid only $1627.82 in winnings.:("
Also, I threw in a frowny face. Now it's dry - and yet somehow exciting and suspense-filled! A
The problem here is that the patent *doesn't* describe the methods. I've read through most of it, and in large part it seems to consist of things like
E]In embodiments utilizing a Web server, the Web server can run any of a variety of server or mid-tier applications, including HTTP servers, FTP servers, CGI servers, data servers, Java servers, and business application servers. The server(s) also may be capable of executing programs or scripts in response requests from user devices, such as by executing one or more Web applications that may be implemented as one or more scripts or programs written in any programming language, such as Java.RTM., C, C# or C++, or any scripting language, such as Perl, Python, or TCL, as well as combinations thereof. The server(s) may also include database servers, including without limitation those commercially available from Oracle.RTM., Microsoft.RTM., Sybase.RTM., and IBM.RTM..
As you can see, there is no methodology described -- only a high-level description of software that *could* be used to facilitate the process. This patent contains no algorithms; only descriptions of component parts.
(Unfortunately I can't look at the images to see what they contain, as I refuse to install quicktime -- I don't want to deal with resetting all my defaults every time it updates.)
I call those people "copbait" or sometimes "copcatcher". Because of them, I'm free to speed responsibly without interference. It's all about a) being safe and b) not calling attention to yourself.
I don't know that anybody's looked for a trend there. I do know that overall, purchasing is increasing -- the real problem is that nobody knows you CAN do it. The number one complaint I hear about BB is that it's great, but there's nowhere to get apps. (Even aside from the official store, there a good half-dozen places like Handango...)
As for your side-note: yep, it would be wonderful indeed.
Naturally, when the phone goes on sale June 4, people who live in 3G-only cities (such as San Francisco) may wonder what they're missing from the experienc
That's very generous of you. My guess is that most of them will have bought their 4g phones, and be marveling at how much faster the 4g experience really is.
I'm surprised at not seeing Verizon mentioned in the summary, as I've heard pretty much everywhere that they have the best network. Perhaps Verizon focuses more on phone service than data?
If by "pretty much everywhere" you mean "in all the Verizon commercials", I am forced to concur.
It's doubtful that you could show an appropriate chain of evidence with the GPS. It's easily argued that you tampered with any such evidence.
Ticketing for illegal speeds is pretty easy, most people confess to it.
"Do you know why I pulled you over?"
"I was speeding."
"I saw you doing 80mph"
"Yes sir, that's about right. I'm sorry."
Voila, instant ticket for 80mph, and a confession to back it up.
I did the opposite. You never *KNOW* why the officer stops you. You may have been speeding. He may be pulling you over for a burned out taillight, or your vehicle may match a description of one seen at a crime scene, or it may even match the description of a vehicle from a missing persons case. Don't guess.
Right up there with - after pulling someone over for going [limit+20] the officer asks "Do you know how fast you were going back there?". It's amazing how many boneheads answer, "Probably [limit+10], sir." As if by somehow admitting to a LESSER amount of speeding, they'd get out of trouble. Guess what folks - it's still speeding, and you still just admitted to it.
On the other hand - it's often possible to drive quite a bit over the speed limit , as long as you're not driving like an idiot. If given a choice between someone driving 80/65 in a straight line in the right line; and someone driving 75/65 while alternating between weaving through traffic, tailgaiting, and tromping on their brakes... most officers aren't going to pick the person who's posing little to no risk at 80.
The leading cause of death for people between 15 and 35 in the US is automobiles.
You sound like a big part of the problem.
The leading cause of death is not automobiles, just like the leading cause of homicides is not guns.
Every single automobile death is caused by either someone not paying sufficient attention (which includes driving faster than you can plan ahead for any given set of road conditions), or mechanical failure (usually coupled with some degree of someone not paying attention). The idiot who pulled out "right in front of me" today might have caused an accident -- he certainly wasn't paying attention, but I was. I saw the potential for him to make a stupid choice about four seconds ahead of time (as soon as he approached the intersection*) and by the time he actually did it two seconds later, I had already dealt with the situation.**
The point is this: most accidents require two parties not paying attention: the one who is making the active mistake and does something stupid like pulling into traffic, or driving faster than he can react; and the one who should have seen the possibility for the event to occur, and reacted to avoid it. Obviously this doesn't apply in all cases - but I suspect it does in most. (Heck - even getting t-boned when crossing a protected intersection... why did you assume you didn't have to look first, just because your light was green?)
* what is with those people who will pull up to an intersection, sit and STARE at oncoming traffic for several seconds, THEN pull into it, causing much swerving and slamming on of brakes? Are they just spaced out while they watch a few dozen tons of metal bearing down on them, or perhaps they know they *should* look left -- so they do it for form's sake though they've already made up their minds to go?
** no, "dealt with" does not mean slamming on the brake and potentially causing more incidents behind me. With so many more controls than the horizontally long pedal in the middle (or left), WHY is that so often a person's first reaction?
As far as GP goes - I feel his frustration, and it's nothing to do with wanting to speed. Driving in a residential area I only drive as fast as I can comfortably react to the unexpected - often given the potential for kids and animals coming onto the scene from hidden places, it's at or only slightly over the speed limit. But when I hit six lights in a row, and the timing of the lights causes yet more delays and backups because of volume... i can't help but get frustrated at what a waste of time and gas it is. Those lights *could* be sequenced together, but they're simply not -- usually in order to either raise ticket revenue for the city, or because some politician who doesn't know anything about traffic management decides something must be "done" about how unsafe it is in the city.
Through a test course in Munich, vehicles were able to post phenomenal fuel efficiency gains simply by adjusting the timing of traffic lights depending on traffic volume — to whatever speed provides a so-called 'green wave' of four or more synchronized signals."
This just in! Stopping and idling at each of four consecutive lights uses much more gas than driving straight through them without stopping!
Slashdot Mirror
That's really what keeps slashdot at the top of my list -- the comment system. Flawed as it may be, I've not found another one out there that's half as good.
"When did gold farming start? First reports were in Central America and Mexico in about 2003." I remember gold farming in Asheron's Call in early 2000. Here's a link to a blurb about Sony's problems with EverQuest in April 2000. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017_3-239052.html
That's OK. Now that you've found it, I'm sure Doctorow will remember it too ;)
Why is the first post modded Redundant? It could be a lot of things, but Redundant seems to be a 100% inaccurate mod.
Generally when something is so obvious it doesn't need to be said; yet someone says it anyway, it will get modded redundant.
Now if only I could find the logic in that post -- because you're begging the question. You build your entire argument on the assumption that in order to be a good driver you must obey the speed limit - then use that as evidence to support that anybody not obeying the speed limit isn't paying attention and is a bad driver.
Why assume that the other party is in another car?
Never make assumptions. Risks can come from anywhere. While you're right about increased stopping time, you're wrong about increased thinking distance. Your thinking distance should ALWAYS be the limits of your perception -- all the way to the ends of the road in all directions, and including everything between you and those ends (as close to 360 degrees as possible).
I pity the fool that doesn't obey the speed limit in built up areas and then suffers the consequences when someone steps out in front of him.
If you said "I pity the fool that's driving too fast in built up areas..." I could agree. I can't remember if it was in this thread or a related thread, but what I said and continue to say is that you go the speed that conditions warrant. That includes: range of vision, obstructions (including on the sides of the road such as parked cars, trees, etc), traffic (car, bicycle, foot and animal), time of day, signals and stop signs, neighborhood , precipitation, temperature, and a dozen other things I've not got time to list.
Nobody said driving is simple - if you can't handle monitoring those things then get off the road -- because *then* you are a danger at any speed.
But if you are monitoring those things, and driving at a speed that's safe taking all of that into consideration, then you're no more likely to get into or cause an accident -- in fact you're in a much better position to avoid an accident because you're aware of mistakes other drivers are making.
The point again is not speeding - it's driving appropriately for what conditions allow. Sometimes that's over the speed limit. Sometimes, it's even under.
The thing that baffles me is that I don't see what there is to argue with: pay attention -- all the time. Don't make assumptions. Be prepared to take appropriate evasive action even when it's not "your fault". As a driver, your responsibility only *begins* with paying attention to what you have direct control over.
Next time try to read what I wrote. a) A share of the responsibility: yes. Half: where did I say that? b) the percentage of responsibility doesn't matter. If I could have avoided it but failed to, how is that anybody's fault but mine? Sure, when it comes to covering funeral expenses it's nice to know that the other guy's insurance will pay -- but I'd rather be alive because I saw, identified and reacted to the danger even when legally I did not have to.
don't understand why this was modded insightful. Speed has everything to do with putting others at risk. Whether you are driving stupidly or not at higher speeds it takes longer to slow your car down. That is just how life works. Just because you think you are an awesome driver doesn't make your car slow down or move better while driving at higher speeds. Higher speeds put you at a higher risk for causing an accident.
Following this to its logical conclusion, we should clearly dismantle the highway system. After all, the slower we go, the less chance of accidents. (Ddi you know that there are some places in the US with a speed limit of 80? Death traps, I tell ya. Never mind that they were designed to accomodate higher speeds safely...)
A high speed collision surely increases the amount of damage that will be caused - but a high speed in *itself* does not cause accidents. It does mean that the driver doing it has to take more extreme factors into consideration (stopping distance, reaction time).
You really must think you are a leet driver.
Actually, I think I'm good but not superb. There's always room for improvement.
In many many cases it doesn't matter how good of a driver you are, you are still going to get T-Boned, you are still going to get rear ended, you are still going to get hit by stupid drivers.
Is every accident avoidable by the not-at-fault party? Absolutely not. Can most of them be either avoided or mitigated to some degree? Absolutely so. If you don't think that's true...w ell, I'm glad I don't get in the car with you. Because personally, I think driving off the shoulder to avoid being rear-ended is a good idea-- but it *does* require being willing to accept that I have to take some action to avoid being rear-ended; and further implies that I have to see the car coming in my rearview mirror.
I pity you and your family, you are going to get yourselves killed because of your own ignorance or just because someone decides to be a moron and smashes into you.
So which part did you take issue with - where I said it's my responsibility as a driver to stay alert? Or where I implied that I take what precautions I can to avoid hazardous situations introduced by other drivers? Or perhaps the concept that I do this even in situations which I should legally be able to consider "safe"?
Yeah, I suck at this whole "driving" thing.
Right... Because I can control the other driver's speed. And their state of mind and mental condition. Also, I have direct control and final say about the mechanical condition of their vehicle.
Of course you don't. (And still this focus on speed as somehow causing trouble - it's not the speed, it's the driver.) By being aware that you DON'T know these things, and by specifically being alert to the situation most likely to "go wrong" for any given combination of road and vehicle conditions, you can avoid accidents -- even those that wouldn't have been your fault to begin with.
No. I AM NOT in any way responsible for the stupidity of other people or their stupid actions.
You're right, you are not.
All I can do is be aware and alert.
Agreed.
People need to smarten-up and take responsibility for their own actions.
Yes they do. But failing to respond to a potential hazard on the road is an action too. Responding to those situations is nobody's responsibility but yours. Would you sit still in the intersection when you saw somebody bearing down on you without slowing down? Probably not. The only difference is that not all hazards are that obvious -- but your responsibility in them remains the same.
Tell me, do you check intersections for cars even though you have a green light? When you get t-boned because you weren't looking to see the person about to run the light, your "right of way" doesn't make you any less dead. In that scenario the other driver is clearly at fault; but if you could have avoided it with a little more attention (as you could have in this hypothetical case), you also bear some measure of responsibility.
As I said, your own responsibility does not abrogate the responsibility of the other driver -- but convincing yourself that it's all on their shoulders; or that you can rely on people doing what "the law" says is just ignorant. And dangerous.
Rather than repeat myself, let me link back to my comments above on the idea that "speeding kills":
speeding is not a crime. is a manufactured crime designed to generate revenue. nothing more.
While I agree in part with the sentiment, all crimes are manufactured crimes.
So do I. Some asshole that puts me and my family at risk so he can save 5 minutes in travel time. Way to go!
He is either driving stupidly (which can but does not have to involve speeding); or driving well (which can but does not have to involve going the speed limit). In no case does the speed of his vehicle alone make him a risk to you and your family.
In addition, do you discount your own attentiveness so readily? If so, I pity your family. As I posted a couple of days ago - most two-party accidents require TWO people not doing what they should be -- even if legally only one person is at fault. If you drive defensively and alertly, even his potential stupidity should be something you take into account and react to. At no point should your alertness falter -- even idling at a stop light, it's *still* your responsibility to be alert and check your mirrors (unless you don't value the lives of you or your family).
I say this all as someone with a family of my own - and who's gotten into an accident where someone else was entirely "at fault". No matter whose insurance paid out, it was *my* responsibility to be aware of the fact that the other driver was being dumb and adjust accordingly. (Note that this doesn't excuse the other drive for being dumb in the first place - it's just being aware that I played a role too -- and from there learning to play that role better.)
Take responsibility for yourself. Someone else's stupid driving should very rarely put your family at significantly higher risk unless you let it.
The reason why they have speed cameras is because they get lots of racing fans because the town is located just south of Bristol Motor Speedway. Nascar racing fans have a general disregard for speed limits and I bet that on a big race weekend one police car could not write tickets fast enough.
Have you ever tried to leave a large sporting event or concert? It doesn't matter how fast you *want* to go -- you're stuck going as fast as the repeated failures to merge/yield allow you to go. That is - about 5 mph. This continues onto the highway as well when we're talking 60k + people in a mass exodus.
I'm not seeing it - I'm seeing references to (and presumably diagrams of) existing technologies, but not algorithms for anything new.
What's wrong with just writing a dry summary? It's more pleasant to read and lets the facts of the situation speak for themselves:
"MaryAnn and Jim McMahon of Cripple Creek, Colorado were playing at the Wildwood Casino, Tuesday, and hit an $11 million jackpot on a slot machine. Before paying the winnings, the casino turned the machine over to the Colorado Gaming Division for inspection. After deciding that the win was due to a malfunction, the couple was paid only $1627.82 in winnings."
Reading this revised version doesn't make me sick and want to punch someone for trying to be witty and entertaining (that is, annoying and stupid).
You know what this summary is missing? Exclamation points! Exclamation points — and m-dashes. Perhaps a smidge of sarcasm, and an acronym! Here, let me fix this for you:
"MaryAnn and Jim McMahon — of Cripple Creek, Colorado — were playing at the Wildwood Casino on Tuesday, and hit an $11 million jackpot on a slot machine! Before paying the winnings, the casino turned the machine over to the Colorado Gaming Division (CGD) for inspection. After the CGD determined that the win was due to a "malfunction", the couple was paid only $1627.82 in winnings. :("
Also, I threw in a frowny face. Now it's dry - and yet somehow exciting and suspense-filled! A
E]In embodiments utilizing a Web server, the Web server can run any of a variety of server or mid-tier applications, including HTTP servers, FTP servers, CGI servers, data servers, Java servers, and business application servers. The server(s) also may be capable of executing programs or scripts in response requests from user devices, such as by executing one or more Web applications that may be implemented as one or more scripts or programs written in any programming language, such as Java.RTM., C, C# or C++, or any scripting language, such as Perl, Python, or TCL, as well as combinations thereof. The server(s) may also include database servers, including without limitation those commercially available from Oracle.RTM., Microsoft.RTM., Sybase.RTM., and IBM.RTM..
As you can see, there is no methodology described -- only a high-level description of software that *could* be used to facilitate the process. This patent contains no algorithms; only descriptions of component parts.
(Unfortunately I can't look at the images to see what they contain, as I refuse to install quicktime -- I don't want to deal with resetting all my defaults every time it updates.)
I call those people "copbait" or sometimes "copcatcher". Because of them, I'm free to speed responsibly without interference. It's all about a) being safe and b) not calling attention to yourself.
responses, support or di
Alas, we now know which one you chose.
I don't know that anybody's looked for a trend there. I do know that overall, purchasing is increasing -- the real problem is that nobody knows you CAN do it. The number one complaint I hear about BB is that it's great, but there's nowhere to get apps. (Even aside from the official store, there a good half-dozen places like Handango...) As for your side-note: yep, it would be wonderful indeed.
Naturally, when the phone goes on sale June 4, people who live in 3G-only cities (such as San Francisco) may wonder what they're missing from the experienc
That's very generous of you. My guess is that most of them will have bought their 4g phones, and be marveling at how much faster the 4g experience really is.
I'm surprised at not seeing Verizon mentioned in the summary, as I've heard pretty much everywhere that they have the best network. Perhaps Verizon focuses more on phone service than data?
If by "pretty much everywhere" you mean "in all the Verizon commercials", I am forced to concur.
It's doubtful that you could show an appropriate chain of evidence with the GPS. It's easily argued that you tampered with any such evidence.
Ticketing for illegal speeds is pretty easy, most people confess to it.
"Do you know why I pulled you over?" "I was speeding." "I saw you doing 80mph" "Yes sir, that's about right. I'm sorry."
Voila, instant ticket for 80mph, and a confession to back it up.
I did the opposite. You never *KNOW* why the officer stops you. You may have been speeding. He may be pulling you over for a burned out taillight, or your vehicle may match a description of one seen at a crime scene, or it may even match the description of a vehicle from a missing persons case. Don't guess.
Right up there with - after pulling someone over for going [limit+20] the officer asks "Do you know how fast you were going back there?". It's amazing how many boneheads answer, "Probably [limit+10], sir." As if by somehow admitting to a LESSER amount of speeding, they'd get out of trouble. Guess what folks - it's still speeding, and you still just admitted to it.
On the other hand - it's often possible to drive quite a bit over the speed limit , as long as you're not driving like an idiot. If given a choice between someone driving 80/65 in a straight line in the right line; and someone driving 75/65 while alternating between weaving through traffic, tailgaiting, and tromping on their brakes... most officers aren't going to pick the person who's posing little to no risk at 80.
Or measuring the duration it takes for a car to travel a known distance.
The leading cause of death for people between 15 and 35 in the US is automobiles.
You sound like a big part of the problem.
The leading cause of death is not automobiles, just like the leading cause of homicides is not guns.
Every single automobile death is caused by either someone not paying sufficient attention (which includes driving faster than you can plan ahead for any given set of road conditions), or mechanical failure (usually coupled with some degree of someone not paying attention). The idiot who pulled out "right in front of me" today might have caused an accident -- he certainly wasn't paying attention, but I was. I saw the potential for him to make a stupid choice about four seconds ahead of time (as soon as he approached the intersection*) and by the time he actually did it two seconds later, I had already dealt with the situation.**
The point is this: most accidents require two parties not paying attention: the one who is making the active mistake and does something stupid like pulling into traffic, or driving faster than he can react; and the one who should have seen the possibility for the event to occur, and reacted to avoid it. Obviously this doesn't apply in all cases - but I suspect it does in most. (Heck - even getting t-boned when crossing a protected intersection ... why did you assume you didn't have to look first, just because your light was green?)
* what is with those people who will pull up to an intersection, sit and STARE at oncoming traffic for several seconds, THEN pull into it, causing much swerving and slamming on of brakes? Are they just spaced out while they watch a few dozen tons of metal bearing down on them, or perhaps they know they *should* look left -- so they do it for form's sake though they've already made up their minds to go?
** no, "dealt with" does not mean slamming on the brake and potentially causing more incidents behind me. With so many more controls than the horizontally long pedal in the middle (or left), WHY is that so often a person's first reaction?
As far as GP goes - I feel his frustration, and it's nothing to do with wanting to speed. Driving in a residential area I only drive as fast as I can comfortably react to the unexpected - often given the potential for kids and animals coming onto the scene from hidden places, it's at or only slightly over the speed limit. But when I hit six lights in a row, and the timing of the lights causes yet more delays and backups because of volume... i can't help but get frustrated at what a waste of time and gas it is. Those lights *could* be sequenced together, but they're simply not -- usually in order to either raise ticket revenue for the city, or because some politician who doesn't know anything about traffic management decides something must be "done" about how unsafe it is in the city.
Through a test course in Munich, vehicles were able to post phenomenal fuel efficiency gains simply by adjusting the timing of traffic lights depending on traffic volume — to whatever speed provides a so-called 'green wave' of four or more synchronized signals."
This just in! Stopping and idling at each of four consecutive lights uses much more gas than driving straight through them without stopping!