Everything I'm turning over is conflating stupid driving with aggressive driving and polluting my results. i.e. aggressive people that are driving drive stupid as in tailgating, rapid changes without clear indicators, running red lights/stop signs.. you know, stupid driving. I suppose the two are not mutually exclusive by any means. The mystery article was aligning the impact measurements on flow and volume and part of it found that the presence of aggressive drivers had a tendency to affect another percentage of drivers in making them aware of the fact that they are as much a part of the solution as the problem. ("oh, I'm going slow" or "I should move over" or "I need to get behind that guy" type of stuff)

But I'll maintain that it's a complicated ordeal when it gets crowded - you have to default to "respect all present parties" until proven unsustainable and you are forced to try and gain advantage from your current position. Wolf packs are dangerous, get through them or stay out of them as much as possible... things like that.

Somebody mentioned situational awareness below - and that is spot on.

and as a passing thought - cuz I don't think I'll come back around -
Always, always, always respect the rigs and their drivers.

until next time, drive safe, drive smart and have fun

I remember it being a rather large scale traffic impact assessment actually. It was not an opinion based anything. I'm not particularly fond of opinions, especially mine own and unless they're mine (I know, I know, it's an eternal internal conflict).

You're going to make me look harder aren't you? pfft

And I would only like you if you got out of the way I think.. or were pretty.. or both.

Any idiot can do 61 in a passing lane just as easily as every other idiot can pass them on the *right*. ftfm (fixed that for myself)

I'm wishing that I could find the article but, from memory, there was a distinct value add on the overall flow of traffic when a certain percentage were "aggressive" classed drivers. Not to be confused with total dickheads behind the wheel mind you. I would guess that the article that I can not find is about 10 months old or so.

Now then, I would consider myself to be an "enthusiastic" driver which means, at times, one needs the mechanisms inherent to accommodating and maintaining enthusiasm. So, when those licensed idiots (driving idiots - you don't, necessarily, need a license at all to be an idiot in other aspects of life) that
a) see a car in their rear view and do not accommodate flow but choose to set a new pace (read: their own pace)
b) fail to keep their slower than median asses to the right (whenever possible of course)
c) accelerate and decelerate like a stoned mouse on a tread-wheel
d) brake at highway speeds for any of a, b, or c (unless to warn traffic behind you of law enforcement or, obviously, to not crash)
can understand that courteousness is a two-way street you might find yourself becoming a happier driver all around.

Any idiot can do 61 in a passing lane just as easily as every other idiot can pass them on the left.

I'd venture a guess that if you're willing to put up with glitch crashes due to software and not extend the same sort of leeway to glitch crashes caused by wetware that you just might fall into the driver class that deem themselves the protector of lost souls in regulating flow your own way.. but that's just a guess.

In other words, idiocy begets idiots - like rabbits without the fun part.

>> free speech sans anonymity

Free speech is free speech is it not? Important is what important says with no small emphasis on interpretation. It does not, nor should it matter from where free speech originates (nor is how you may or may not interpret said speech relevant(blah blah)). The source of free speech is an individual and whether or not the speaker can be identified or should be identifiable is completely irrelevant. In fact, I would argue that requiring the source of given speech to be identifiable is not only detrimental (in all sorts of ways) but a direct inhibitor to the existence of it at all.

YOu said "If they ever actually accomplish anything, it just emboldens them, and they grab for more."

and now I've forgotten who "they" is...

"Christ you must be naive if you think any of this is news sonny."

Yeah? Well... Well...!! I'm rubber and your glue, bounces off me and sticks on you!

I would find it difficult to disagree with much of anything you've said. Your starred bits are kinda poinky though.. If the government can hack, lie, cheat and steal... well.. blah blah - gander, goose, feathers whatever. The general population? You're joking right? Hell, anything that can get the general population in motion, for better or worse and I'm interested - however the "branding" does not come from the general population. A not insignificant segment of general populations believe their own governments and law enforcement are the terrorists. And terrorists don't bite - they suck. On field agents - well - it's a job. National Security.... I've taken that oath and will defend your freedom as quickly as my own. I am of the mind however that one equals one and that field agent has the same value to humanity as the child that will be dead tomorrow. The games are played and pieces are lost - wrong game.

While I think I understand what you're driving at I'm not quite sure I understand your oversimplification of these events. That and your assignment of a generalized 90's adventure grouping of script kiddies is slightly off the mark. Either you're attempting to suppress your inner child and failing, could truly care less, are quite happy with the nonsense of forced consumer news issue number one that is the debt limit, are a self righteous basement virgin your damn self or you're a perfectly content citizen whose mere existence is naught but a passing nuisance of a thought.

A 400MB data file (currently available free of charge), another page of the secret ops book possibly revealed, an implication of access and/or possession of a significant horde of similar data, a picture perfect example of your tax dollar at work, a target whose client list is a majority consumer of that dollar no less and you want "Next..."?

This kind of "Next"?

* Defense Intelligence Agency,
* National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
* National Reconnaissance Office
* National Security Agency
* Department of Homeland Security
* U.S. Navy, Air Force, Army, Marine Corps
* Missile Defense Agency and DARPA
* Department of Justice
* Department of State
* Environmental Protection Agency
* NASA, NATO, state and local governments

Or this kind of "Next"?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/30/uk.royal.wedding/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+(RSS%3A+Top+Stories)

At the very, very least is this not a mildly interesting distraction in the form of entertainment? Perhaps NASCAR or comic book heroes are your cream of the crop? I'm sorry but your passive aggressive brush off of an idea is disturbing at several levels.

Why would our spooky friends at Slashdot seemingly wish to prevent any discussion from occurring on the topic of anonymous' latest bow shot? I'm horrified. If suffocation is what is deemed freedom at work in the beacon of the same then, what, exactly, is the point? I've been a lurker for many winters - one comment about satellite capabilities in response to some misguided comment never made the page and I've never attempted again, until now. Behold, the power of freedom - the truly wondrous & frightening world of "The Fall". -- Where "We are not responsible for them in any way." doesn't seem to mean "We won't prevent them from seeing the light of day."