However, having bad roads and poorly trained drivers higher speed results in higher probability of a crash (for example higher probability that you won't see a pedestrian crossing or won't be able to stop in time) and a worse crash. So, the result is (even if probability stays the same) you drive too fast = you cause problems for other people, while you don't wear a seatbelt = you cause problems only for yourself.

Also, even Germany has speed limits on other roads and inside cities.

After a few accidents caused by drunk cops driving (that actually injuredor killed people) in my country, the new law is that if a cop is caught drunk behind the wheel, he can start looking for a new job (in addition to whatever punishment a non-cop would get in the same situation).

Speeding = higher risk of crash. Crash can involve other people. This means that if you speed you are more likely to kill somebody.
Not wearing a seatbelt = higher risk of injury/death in case of a crash, but only to the person not wearing the seat belt. I think the fine should be lower and let the idiots kill themselves.

Well, driving a car with a manual gearbox makes talking on the phone while driving (without using handsfree equipment) inconvenient (unless I am driving on a straight long road). I never text while driving. SMS is low priority and high latency to me - I will reply when I can. If it is urgent to you - call.

However, this device seems pointless. I have to buy it and install it in my car. Even assuming it can work with my older phones (a Nokia E90 and a Nokia 1100), I could, you know, just don't use the phone while driving if I do not want to and I do not need to spend money. OTOH, if somebody wants to use the phone while driving, they will not buy a device that prevents them or will turn it off.

This sort of device has to be mandated by law (hopefully just for new cars, so I do not have to buy such a device) or it will see very low adoption rates.

I have used cable for so long, I do not remember the terrestrial broadcasts. Well, other than the very noisy picture I got when using a portable TV outside or using a piece of wire as an antenna during cable outages.

Well, I get analog broadcasts from my cable company. Whether it's the multiple splitters or the long cables (after the amp), but the video quality is not that great. Sure, it's better than VHS, but I cannot really see a difference between it and SVHS.

I also get IPTV from another company. The SD channels are higher quality than the analog channels that i get.

And yet, with digital VCRs (and tapes for them) being so expensive, i have to continue to use VHS...

Still, when compared to analog broadcast, (or very compressed digital) SD, a good VCR and a good tape produce quite a good image, it's not full broadcast quality, but good enough for me. Especially since digital (and especially HD capable) VCRs are so expensive (tapes for them too) and not very common. So, no way to record HD and the best I can do is to record to a good VHS tape, since SVHS tapes are expensive too. DVDs don't last and don't allow overwrites, so a DVD recorder would not be useful to me.

I am a network (and Linux) admin by profession, but I can also repair my audio equipment and do some repairs on my car, even though I do not work as a car mechanic or electronics repair guy. While I could find a mechanic to repair my car (and sometimes I do), a lot of the time is is cheaper and faster to do it myself.

So, if the OP wants to create a monitoring solution himself (assuming he knows something about the monitoring systems) more power to him. I probably would ask a similar question if I had to monitor 500 remote servers that are in different locations (if they are all in the same place I would just use VPN). It would be possible to use VPN or SSH tunnels or something else, but sometimes one may need an advice from others as to which option is the best.

What is I like driving? Actually, I probably could not sit in a driverless car for, say, half an hour with nothing to do. I cannot read while in a car because I get motion sickness if I am not watching the road, I also cannot talk to the driver (as I do now when I am in a car but not driving). And I can listen to music while I am driving just as well.

And what's the difference between this and cat | grep?

To me it is also more understandable, that is, the flow of data:

cat file | grep this | grep -v butnotthis | cut | tr | awk > result.txt

What's wrong with that?

It is more convenient for me, for example
cat /some/file/somewhere| grep something (hmm, didn't get what I wanted)
cat /some/file/somewhere| grep some (good)

If I do grep something /some/file/somewhere and and to edit my search string, I have to move the cursor further than in the cat|grep version.

Also, I sometimes replace tail with cat when looking at a log file
tail -n 2000 | grep (it wasn't here, let's look at the whole file)
cat | grep (found it)

At least in Centos6, postgresql port is also configured in the start script that's in /etc/init.d/

Wouldn't it start at lower RPM though? If so, just increase the gear ratio.between crank and engine.

So that he didn't need to discharge the battery while starting the car? Useful if you are going short distances and the battery is not recharged before the next stop.

I would like a crank starter on my car as an addition to the electric starter of course. In some cases the battery is too weak to start the engine, but has enough power to operate the ignition, fuel cutoff valves and the field coil of the alternator. Sure, the car can then be push started, but that requires at least one other person and the car to not be at the bottom of a hill (it's difficult to push a car uphill). I could then crank start the car. It does not look lie adding the crank would have cost the manufacturer lots of money.