That's actually a question on the license exam here. Paraphrased: You are coming up on a slow moving vehicle in a passing section, how should you pass him? A) Accelerate rapidly and pass him B) Maintain current speed and pass him, but don't speed C) Pass on the right shoulder D) Something else wrong. The correct answer is B and it is stressed many times in the study materials.

No, it's not my fault traffic clumps. I'm doing the speed limit. If others were doing the speed limit they wouldn't be catching up to me, would they? Doing the speed limit doesn't create dangerous conditions. Speeding and tailgating cause dangerous conditions. They don't tailgate because I won't let them speed, they tailgate because they have an over inflated sense of entitlement. The time it's the biggest problem is on 94 when it's 3 lanes. The first lane has people getting on and off. Since they're morons, they get on at about 45, so I don't want to be in that lane both because I don't want to stop for retards and because I'd be in the way of people trying to get on/off. The second lane has a bunch of people in it doing 55 trying to get around the people in lane 1 doing 45. Even when the second lane is doing 65, you still have people that cut from 3 to 1 without signaling 50 feet before their exit. The third lane is the safest, most stress free choice available. And it's not like the other two lanes are empty and I have nothing better to do than sit in lane 3 dragging my feet. Traffic is moderate and the third lane presents the least amount of obstacles. I'm not going to jump lanes because the guy riding my ass at 65 can run up 40 whole feet and ride the ass of the guy ahead of me doing 67. People here take it as a personal offense if you don't let them speed, even if the guy ahead of you is doing the speed limit too. No one should get indignant about not being allowed to break the law.

Are you talking about people matching speed at 45 in a 65 or are you complaining about people matching speed at 65 in a 65? The former is understandable, but if it's the latter, why should I make room for you to break the law (go over 65)? Sure, it's your choice to speed, but I don't see where I should feel bad about doing the speed limit. When signs say "slower traffic keep right" they mean slower than the speed limit. Grandma Moses shouldn't be in the far left lane doing 50 in a 70. The left lane isn't where it's magically acceptable to speed. People around here seem to think the speed limit is dependent upon the distance from the car in front of you. If you can't see anyone, the 65 is a 90. If you're about half a mile behind them, it's an 80. Quarter mile and it's a 70 until you're sure it's not a cop. Then it's back to 80 until you're 6 inches off their ass. At that point, you either change lanes without signaling (it'd require putting down the cell phone) or, if you can't pass, sit on their ass and flick your high beams on and off in their rear view mirror until they miss a turn and run off the road in a blind stupor. I actually saw a woman driving with her elbow this morning. She had the cellphone in her right hand and her left hand was blocking the sun from her eyes. Her visor was up and it wasn't even that bright out.

No... I don't want to watch Opera, I want to the explore internet.

Can I patent a device covered with keys covered in alphanumeric characters that are to be pressed sequentially to convey thoughts, ideas, or other forms of communication and sue everyone to ever make a keyboard?

I didn't say specifically a 1:1 correlation, but that's still probably the case as most albums generally only have one song worth listening to.

The decline in physical sales correlates perfectly to the increase in digital sales? So they'll have a hard time whining about pirates because they're still making a ton of money, but still want to play the victim.

The developer doesn't incur that extra expense though, does he? So, it's not a prohibitive cost, but a quality control.

XNA?

If that kind of logic worked, they wouldn't read the bible to begin with.

A very valid set of points, but I think it side steps my point. Yes, bushmen in remote jungles are probably not good at algebra; this should be no surprise. However, it really isn't a level comparison. You're changing both the "breed" and social setting; of course there will be radically different values. You can't tell if it's nature or nurture. I was thinking more along the lines of take 1000 people born and raised in the same city or that go to the same school. Of course people have different aptitudes, but is it a factor of rearing or genetics? I'm not saying "black people are bad at math so they're unilaterally inferior." I just think it's foolish to automatically assume/dictate that everyone is identical genetically/physically/mentally because of an over developed sense of political correctness. Is it coincidence that most Nobel Prize winners are white? Is it racism? Is it genetic? Why do so many Indians work in medicine or IT? Is it merely economic motivation? Are they genetically inclined to detail orient work? Why are so many players in the NFL and NBA black? Are they naturally more athletic? There are a lot of very valid questions that people are afraid to ask, let alone answer, because we can't possibly upset the notion that equality means we're all identical lest someone get butthurt.

Why are people so terrified by the thought of the BREEDs (we're all that same race, just different breeds) of human being different? Do you honestly think the only difference between white, black and asian is skin color, big noses, and slanty eyes? Irish are more likely to have red hair and green eyes. Scandinavians are likely to be tall, blond, and blue eyed. Black people are prone to blood pressure issues, naturally develop muscle easier, and have a natural resistance to malaria. Asian people are good at math and are generally short. Is it really so hard to imagine that maybe there is something different about mental faculties between breeds? Why are IQ tests a bad metric? Are they a bad metric because people in general can have largely varying results or are they a bad metric because different breeds score consistently lower? If it's consistent, good or bad, it shows there is an obvious difference. You can argue that the learn different or you can just call them inferior. Different is different; just because we should all be equals doesn't mean we're all the same.

Actually, that idea wouldn't be very hard at all... at least in Europe. You can run an internet connection over power lines. So, when you plug in the car, it connects to the internet, authenticates with the dmv, and then logs how much power you're using and how far you drove. A lot of cars are now coming with bluetooth connections. Why not put in some sort of 802.11 connection? Come home and plug your car in, it logs your mileage, maximum speed, average speed, mileage efficiency, and syncs your MP3 library. Granted, you can make the argument that not everyone has internet or wireless access points, but I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of people with electric cars do. You could even include a modem that dials in over your phone line or bluetooth to your cell... You can still say there are the exceptionally poor that don't have a phone, cell, internet, etc... but then they're probably driving a gas car or using public transit.

Cheat codes are, first and foremost, developer tools. Even if you do turn on god mode, the character just sits there; wholly different from a game that plays itself. We already have games that play themselves, they're called movies.

The real problem is that you're forward thinking. The people that make decisions have a financial interest in NOT changing. The future is later, but the time it comes, they'll be out of office and it will be someone else's problem; there is money to be made NOW. The people that see the need for change and those that will benefit from change are mutually exclusive from the people that are making money now. The impending shortage of petroleum is nothing but a boon to oil moguls. Diminished supplies mean they get to charge more! No serious legislation will happen in this area, or any other, as long as politicians are allowed to have private sector ties. There is no incentive to do the "right" thing because the average American is more interested in watching American Idol than stopping the games played in Washington. It's easier to bitch about gas prices on the internet than it is to write a petition, get it signed and get politicians kicked out of office for taking "donations". The human race can't govern itself because we are, by nature, selfish. We use all means at our disposal to further our own ends. It's just unfortunate greed is a much better and more common motivator/trait than altruism.