I agree. However, this does not mean that anyone can change lanes at any time with impunity. If it did, passing would be impossible.

No, it is everyone's responsibility to calculate braking distance. The speeder is not the sole party at fault here. The speeder, despite the fact that they were driving at an illegal speed, may have been doing so with a safe braking distance within their lane. If someone begins to merge into the speeder's lane and creates an unsafe braking distance, that is not a safe lane change. Hence, both are at fault: the speeder for driving at an illegal speed and the lane changer for failing to make a safe lane change.

The quoted statistics compare fatal accident rates on the German autobahn and German rural roads. In both cases, German drivers.

I could not find Dr. John Eberhart's report either, only citations. I agree, the low fuel savings are likely due to the fact that very few people adhered to the new speed limits consistently.

I agree, but I don't think this justifies an absolute speed limit. Buying desserts/snacks, using extra water to take a long shower, or owning more land than you absolutely need are all wasteful, but there is no legally defined absolute limit to any of these, nor should there be. The amount of gas/oil that a person may use, like any other limited resource, should not be artificially limited. It simply needs to be priced accordingly.

The point is that there does not appear to be any correlation between speed and safety. Different speeds may provide different results and if you know of any study that does show a correlation between speed and safety I would like to see it.

The link above mentions another study that compares safety over a wider range of speeds and actually found the lower speed areas to be much less safe. This study compared fatal accidents on areas of the German autobahn where there is no speed limit with rural German roads where there are speed limits.

The point is that the "car in front" should not have been in front had they been safely changing lanes. Just because the car is in front doesn't necessarily mean that it should be.

Not quite sure how you think that was an attempt to justify speeding...

Not necessarily. It depends on the location. For example, in the California Vehicle Code, there is this:

Obviously, if a car is moving fast enough in the lane that you want to move into that it could collide with your car if you attempt to change lanes, that is not a reasonably safe lane change. However, if you're already traveling at the speed limit then the other guy was obviously speeding. Technically both are at fault.

Yep, and, here in the US at least, that reason is the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act. This initially set the speed limit nation-wide to 55 MPH. Contrary to the popular belief that our current speed limits are set for safety, they were actually set in an attempt to conserve energy (which actually reduced fuel consumption by only about 1%). The limit for some roads was later raised to 65 MPH and in 1995 the federal speed limits were repealed.

Studies examining the reduced maximum speed limit's impact on safety showed mixed results:

There is some evidence that speed limits actually reduce overall safety.

The point of building a colony on the moon is to learn how to survive away from Earth using only local resources. The goal is to make the colony self-sustainable, not to be completely dependent on Earth for all eternity.

Yes, because eventually we will not be able to.

The GP has a good point, albeit poorly stated. Microsoft has the resources to fix these problems quickly, they simply choose not to because fixing their past mistakes would take time away from producing their next cash cow. No, they don't need to fully patch the problem immediately. But they do need to pass the information about the vulnerability along to anyone that may be using a system that is affected by it. And if they care about their customers at all, Microsoft should also provide a method to temporarily prevent an attacker from using that vulnerability against them.

Let's try another hypothetical...

You're working your ass off getting a project out the door, that new oil well needs to be drilled ASAP. A vendor of yours comes to you on Friday night with a NEW problem that they think is a big deal; apparently one of the wells that you drilled in the past has broken and is spewing thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean every day. You acknowledge their complaint, file it away and go back to working on what you were working on. Two business days later, you learn that your vendor took out ads in every major publication and website touting what an idiot you are for not "responding" to him, even though you did.

Now, before you say that's comparing apples to oranges, give it some thought. Is this hypothetical really so different from Microsoft's handling of vulnerability reports? Both problems require a prompt response because they could cost people/businesses a lot of money if the problem leads to a loss of data/resources. Both problems exist as a result of companies cutting corners. Both companies responded slowly because a prompt response would hurt their bottom line (short-term anyway).

What Microsoft should do with this and all other vulnerability reports is allocate as many resources as necessary to, at the very least, find a way for people to shore-up/disable the affected services, systems, etc. then promptly notify the world of both the problem and a temporary solution even if that temporary solution is just to turn the entire system off.

What Microsoft should not do is keep the information from the public until they release a patch. Just because one guy filed a bug report, it does not mean he is the only guy who is aware of the bug. There could be someone else who not only knows about the bug, but has already written and begun using an exploit for it.

Why won't this myth die? CRA was not the cause of the sub-prime mortgage disaster.

You're right about Fannie and Freddie. They did contribute to the problem, although the problems there were actually due to poor policies: investments in sub-prime mortgages should have been regulated, HUD's affordable housing goal increases ignored reality, etc.

(Assuming you meant Linux on the PS3)

Many, including the US Air Force would beg to differ.

This is at John Wayne. In my case, security is probably a little more strict due to the high volume of commercial traffic there coupled with the fact that we have to drive past the gate and onto the airfield to get to the plane. They don't check the luggage, they just take a quick look into the car to make sure we aren't bringing anything onto the airfield that shouldn't be there. Doesn't take more than a minute.

Have a good flight!

With all of the upsides that you've listed, you should try the pilot's seat some time. It looks and feels so much more cool when you're at the controls and looking through the front window rather than the sides.

It also eliminates most of those downsides. At the gate, security just checks your pilot's license then takes a quick walk around your car and a peek in the trunk. No lines, x-rays, clothing removal, bag emptying, etc. You get to park right next to your plane and take off as soon as you want. There are no delays, missed connections, lost luggage, annoying passengers, personal space issues, etc.

The only downside is that it is a little more expensive. A lot more if you still want to get across the country in a few hours or around the world in a day. But, compared to flying commercially, I think it's worth it.

Oh, the irony...