Incorrect in most jurisdictions:
https://www.google.com/webhp?s...

Some lawyers thrive on the fact that cracks in sidewalks can be excuses to sue landowners. Most sidewalk maintenance is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner, especially in residential areas. In most locations the city can come out and repair sidewalks, but only after repeated repair notices and it will generally be billed back to the property owners.

The problem is that there is a monopoly. These communications companies can control your access to the rest of the modern world and there isn't anything you can do about it. Unless there is competition, Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon, and others can effectively control who you associate with and how. Comcast currently offers me shit for service and effectively forces me to bundle television service because it's cheaper to get the internet with than without. They also charge a ridiculous "connection fee" for some guy to hook up my modem and router for me and make a phone call to turn the service on.

But what choice do I have? AT&T is coming to the area soon and will probably offer awesome deals to switch, which will all disappear after a year where they will adopt the same shitty policies as Comcast.

The internet is the same as the phone lines. It's a link between you and another party. The provider should not be able to control or degrade the link between two parties and the government has to set this as the requirement. If they need to change their "unlimited" (limited to 200GB/mo) "high speed" (when there is no traffic) plans to a usage based system, so be it. You should pay for what you use, but not who you get it from.

Americans might be willing to do those jobs, but we'll never know. The "social safety net" prevents them from even considering taking a crappy job. They won't starve or live on the street if they don't work, so why would they take a crappy job? People jumping across the border from Mexico WILL starve or live on the street if they don't work crappy jobs, so they do.

There needs to be an equivalent "Godwin's Law" for injecting Somalia into an argument against libertarianism... Also libertarians don't believe in NO regulations, they believe in a minimum level of regulations.

That being said, I completely disagree with many people who say they are libertarians and don't support net neutrality. I disagree with this article, and I disagree with many of the libertarian arguments. At the end of the day, the government does and SHOULD have the ability to regulate means of communication to ensure that people's private dealings between two parties are not controlled by a 3rd party. You could claim as these libertarians do that a private company can do whatever it pleases, but as has been stated before, there is no competition. You don't like Comcast's terms and services? Well you might as well live in a cave then because you cannot operate as a member of modern society without internet access.

The reality is that we live in an interconnected world. The government has a role to ensure that the interconnections are free and open so that a company can't control how and with whom you associate.

Generally sidewalks are maintained by the property owners, not the government. There is just a government requirement to maintain them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event

Triassic–Jurassic extinction event

Permian–Triassic extinction event (the one claimed here)

Late Devonian extinction

Ordovician–Silurian extinction events

This study has some interesting data, but more interesting is the conclusions they draw...

This is not based on any reputable studies. Speed limits across the US have been going up and traffic fatalities by any measure are going down. There were all kinds of protests and news articles about how dangerous it was to increase Ohio's speed limit to 70mph a few years ago before it went into effect. It went up, fatalities have gone down (but not significantly), and now all of them are back again to protest proposals to raise it again to 75mph.

But I digress on the speed limits... Their figure 9-1 (inconveniently not included in the text version) cannot be verified and they do not cite the source of this data and note that it only included drivers from one organization in 3 states. That screams to me cherry picked data to match their conclusion. Similar to all the citations from insurance institutes for high speed limit dangers. Insurance companies make a lot of money off speeding tickets raising people's rates, they would hate to see that venue stream dry up. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has done several studies and their findings have primarily been that people ignore speed limits and thus they were unable to conclude anything about higher and lower speed limits.

I don't deny that some people who go to the track drive like assholes. But then plenty of people drive like assholes that think they are race car drivers. I agree that there is no way to conclusively judge a person's driving ability and habits. However, my point is still that insurance companies make no attempt to measure these things other than bullshit "defensive driving" courses. The reason they don't is because it serves them no financial interest. Why would they collect more data and do extra analysis to reduce rates for highly trained drivers or well maintained cars?

I don't drive like I do on the track on the roads. On the track I try to drive to 80-90% of the limits of the car. On the road I keep it to under 50%. It just so happens that 50% of my limits (based on car, rubber, and brakes) are at the limit for the average car. I am also not saying that this should be an exception just for me. There are plenty of auto enthusiasts out there with far more driver training and experience than the average driver and none of it counts toward insurance.

My point is that insurance companies don't factor in driver ability and mechanical aspects of the car which are more directly related to safety than arbitrary limits on braking, cornering, and acceleration. What you are using as your excuse for why it shouldn't be factored in are mechanical damage and acts of god which cannot be prevented or predicted regardless of how close one is driving to the limit. Sure driving to the limit might put more stress on parts, but that might just cause a failure at 100k miles instead of 200k, and as I already pointed out, I replace parts that wear down due to hard driving on a regular basis. I don't race on the street, and I condemn those that do. But I'd be lying if I didn't say I drove spiritedly when the conditions are good, traffic is light, and I'm in the mood. And nothing about that is any more unsafe than driving in general.

Stainless steel braided lines installed in the last 1000 miles for the win? Do you think I replace the fluid and swap out the pads without checking the brake lines?

My brake pads are also better than average, my brake fluid is changed several times a year (instead of never in the average vehicle). Braking hard consistently allows me to keep track of the condition of my brakes.

Insurance agents have no power, desire, or ability to adjust your rates. All they can do is input data into a computer. And they can only input data that the computer is programmed to receive. Sure there are plenty of people out there who think they can drive better than they can. That's why you shouldn't take their word for it. A racing competition license or even records of driver's education from an actual sanctioned automotive organization would be sufficient for evidence of superior driver skill. Far more so than the certificate of completion from Bob's Defensive Driving Academy where they tell you to follow the speed limit religiously and accelerate slowly.

Also, don't expect HR to follow their own company policies or the integrity department to review the circumstances of your BS firings. They won't... They also won't tell your former co-workers why you aren't there. Lack of information is their friend.

Yes indeed. That's what happened to me. A "safety violation" when you get back from a work trip leaves you jobless and without benefits... Don't spend a lot of time thinking about getting a new job. When you decide it isn't working out, find something else, don't do what I did and make an elaborate plan to quit on a certain day next year and then take a nice vacation.

I could care less about the privacy, I get upset that they record the data that is easy to get rather than data that is actually related to safe driving. Sure braking force and cornering acceleration are things an accelerometer can easily and reliably measure data, but they have nothing to do with safe driving... These things don't record the things that are dangerous such as not using headlights and blinkers, weaving through traffic, tailgating, running red lights, driving down the wrong side of the road, eating/texting/having sex while driving, having a car with bald tires, and all of the other general asshatery that we all see and isn't private, but are things that are not factored in to insurance.

When insurance gives me a discount for having a manual transmission (know how to drive, have to anticipate actions farther in advance, extra theft protection), having high performance tires (greater grip, shorter stopping distance), having extra safety items in my car (roll bar, first aid kit, fire extinguisher), or having extra driving education (sure an online 20 minute "defensive driving" course can get you a discount, but competition track license doesn't). Then maybe I will consider letting them track my driving habits to reduce my insurance costs.

Until then, they charge us all based on the biggest idiots of the group and then offer discounts for things that make them more money: bundling (which doesn't reduce risk), tracking (which they can sell the data for), and longevity (loyal customers).

The problem with that is that this device and insurance in general doesn't factor in driver ability. Sure I brake harder and later than the general driving population and I corner like my car is on rails. But 1) I actually have a decent amount of race track experience where I actually AM controlling the car at the absolute limits, 2) I never come close to those limits on the street, 3) I maintain my car significantly better than the average vehicle on the road, 4) I have far better tires than the average vehicle on the road, and 5) I have a much lighter and easier to control car [Miata WOOHOO] than the average car on the road.

However none of my 5 points factor in on insurance. Why would I let them track me to see that my car brakes harder and corners faster than the average car if they won't factor in the driving abilities and vehicular factors that make me safer than the average driver?

You can't be charged extra for pre-existing conditions, but they can exclude medications from coverage to treat said pre-existing condition... Ask me how I know.