yea, this is a great idea until you realize that driving the speed limit is as stupid as driving double the speed limit. This would be especially bad if you cant switch it off quickly when you need to make that quick lane change.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
only maybe 10% of people on the road follow speed limits... on highways that number is even lower. so the speed limits dont really do anything at all. people will drive at whatever speed they feel comfortable driving... which, in my opinion, is better than some arbitrary number.
i would totally do 4 hours of walking up and down the road looking for trash instead of paying a speeding fine... imagine how fit i would be... shit.
you forgot idiot drivers who drive in the wrong lane and force other drivers to make semi-reckless decisions.
you are quite mistaken... the speeding tickets are not there to discourage illegal activity, they are there to make money. if it had anything to do with illegal activity at all, there would be no places where the speed limit decreases for a quarter mile for no reason whatsoever other than to catch people before they manage to slow down.
i would much rather they just sell us a license to speed for 100-200$ a year, and we have to take a special driving test to qualify. Either that or actually come up with a speed limit that makes sense. if i can safely drive 60 on a road or 100 on a highway, why should the limit be 30 for the road or 60 on the highway?
instead of coming up with some arbitrary speed at which it is safe for the average user to drive, and force people who suck at driving to drive at that speed(because going below the speed limit is dangerous), they should simply let people drive as quickly as they want to and then charge them out the wazoo when they do something stupid and injure someone. I would also love to see multi lane roads actually have variable limits based on your lane... so slow traffic is in one lane and fast traffic is in another.
maybe at one point in time... the point of them now as posted before is monetary income. this is why wealthier cities do not have nearly as many cops pulling people over for speeding as poorer cities. you can drive 100 down 30s all day in houston and noone will ever pull you over... but if you drive 70 in a 60 on the highway through ennis, you will get pulled over every time.
speed limits have been proven to have absolutely nothing to do with safety, and the speeding tickets are even worse.
the only punishment that would actually work is one that is actually reasonable... how about, you get caught, you have to pay 5x the price of the item you pirated? people might actually stop pirating. the issue with these ridiculous punishments is that the only people you could reasonably go after for are the outliers who are the ones uploading tons and tons of content and profiting off them. if you attempted to put the average joe in jail for 10 years for piracy, first of all, there would be riots on your hands, second, you would have to put 9/10 of the US in jail... and we dont have enough prisons for that, we are already letting murderers loose because we dont have room for ppl who smoke pot.
you are talking about the government here... all they would have to do is strong-arm the carrier to add their towers to the list.
it isnt a mistake... it is called investing. they can afford to throw tons of ideas out and hope one sticks. this is how the world works when you have billions of dollars of cash lying around.
if they fail to do real net neutrality, then we can point at them and say 'do you really want to be like india?' and hope that the fcc actually realizes how much we need net neutrality
if there were worried about bandwidth constraints, then they would simply decrease the speed of everyone's data (except emergency) whenever they run into their bandwidth cap. (oh wait... THEY ALREADY DO THAT. ) it is clearly just about the money because stopping people from using more than 5gb of data is totally irrelevant to their one limiting factor. it isnt like they have a cap with their internet provider.
you think they put in the caps because they dont have enough bandwidth coming from their towers? you, sir, are sadly mistaken. they do it for one reason. PROFIT. if they cap your data at 5gb and you need to use 5.1 gb, you will totally spend double the amount to get up to 10gb.
no, because they arent a big enough step up from the previous generation. it is essentially like having HD. anything between 480p and 4k resolution are technically HD. but only 4k resolution gets the 'ultra hd' tag.
yea, you can totally download a single hd movie in that second before they cap your speed at 3g.
this is absolutely ridiculous. there are so many things out there being sold with the name 'gnome'. there is no possible way that this new point of sale system will hurt the trademark of gnome, and therefore it is impossible for them to win this case. if they were making a desktop operating system, sure i would agree... but this is just dumb.
P.S. fix the bugs in your operating system before going after people for stupid-ass reasons.