Google Wallet and the Google Wallet card have done this since release.

While interesting it's not a "real" credit card that most people would use - no rewards, can't use in many stores, non-geek family members will not use, etc.

ApplePay is just that and more to anyone without an iPhone 6.

First of all, people with iPhone 4s or above will be able to pay using the device when the Apple Watch launches. Even now some iPad models also work with ApplePay, because you can also use ApplePay for online purchases.

But - my post is about the benefits of using ApplePay to link to credit cards, even if you don't use the phone to pay. Any device can technically use ApplePay to hold card data, and receive notifications when the cards are used even if you are not there.

The phone and wallet don't have to be at war with each other, they cam complement each other quite well.

With Apple Pay in particular, there's one very good reason to link a card into that system even if you never intend to pay using the phone - you get push notifications when money is spent on the card linked to ApplePay, even if you just use the card itself to buy whatever.

While credit cards could do this with custom apps, I've not seen it done before (at least with credit - I'm pretty sure some banks were doing this already when payments were made from an account) - and it's really nice as a backup mechanism to know earlier rather than later if your CC number has been compromised, even wen using online.

It is actually all about the time it takes the human body to react to stimuli.

Which is why it is so vital all cars are going similar speeds, because accidents USUALLY happen between cars going the same way on the road, not with stationary objects.

The simple fact is MOST people will ignore limits that re too low and drive faster than the limit. That leaves you with a number of drivers that are trying to obey the limit and creating an abundance of artificially slow traffic, where a faster (or slower!) driver has much less time to react to cars from the "other group" making mistakes.

This again is why accident rates in most states lowered when the national speed limit was raised from 55 to 65 in the U.S., because traffic speed was more equalized.

Going faster in the hope that an animal won't have time to jump out in front of you would amount to epic idiocy.

The only idiocy here is you denying something is true with no proof or even thought, and ignoring the laws of probability that say the less time you are on the road the lower changes are you will encounter an animal.

Why do you ignore this very basic fact?

If I can I don't drive in the evening in rural areas for exactly that simple reason.

Think about the much larger hole in the front of your car,

The whole point is that they can't get in front of your car as easily. The point is exactly that you want to avoid that, so you minimize the ability of the animal to get in front of you, and also minimize the probability you will be around the road at the same time an animal is nearby.

As for the "size of hole" thats pretty irrelevant as from 55 to 85 (or even much lower speeds), your car is not going anywhere after you hit a deer.

the blood and guts splattered over your hood and grill,

That happens at any speed if you hit an animal, which is why I seek to avoid it instead of increasing my chances of hitting one as you are doing.

When risk of hitting an animal exists, then slow down. Period.

If you can SEE an animal on or very close to the road, of course that makes sense (I've come to a dead stop because of deer that were indecisive about crossing).

But your absolute command even when nothing is visible makes no sense, because you are increasing your time on the road and chances an animal can get in front of your car.

Driving faster is more dangerous unless you bend the laws of physics.

The laws of physics also state that the greater the relative speeds between two cars, the less time one car has to react to the other changing relative velocity.

Avoiding accidents involves way more than simply braking. For instance, one time I was at a dead stop waiting to turn left - I could someone going too fast come the opposite way around a snowy corner.

I could tell that wasn't going to work out well so I accelerated, to move my car off the road to the side. Seconds later the car, spinning like a top, glided through the space where I had been.

Similarly, I've avoided about three rear-end collisions by accelerating, not braking. That was possible in part because I was going the same relative speed as traffic with a good buffer, which allowed me leeway as to how to move my car - leeway that vanishes if someone in front of you is going a lot slower than you are.

Yes, and at 85mph, hitting that elk is a) far more likely to occur

Let's say you have to drive 60 miles (not unusual in Montana). Going 85 vs. 65 means you are on the road for less time, meaning a random encounter with an elk is LESS likely, because you are simply not on the road as long.

You also ignore the fact that many deer/elk accidents occur because a deer is startled and leaps in front of the car. Well if you are going fast enough the animal is either not going to have enough time to get in front of you, or leap to hit you at all... but going faster increases the chance an animal coming from the side will run into the side of the car instead of your front, which is much better for both of you.

They blowing past you on the shoulder? That's already illegal.

Not in texas, and I think in other states.

If someone where going 45 in a 75MPH zone, I'd pass them on the shoulder... but then they should really be the ones driving there at that speed.

You can check the road safety statistics to see just how dangerous it is on US roads compared to German ones.

Except the accident rates for the U.S. were often worse when the speed limit was lower (before it used to be 55). One pretty obvious reason for that is that some people would drive very fast anyway, so you had a greater discrepancy between speed of drivers on the road - after a lot of driving experience I'd say that's probably the biggest reason accidents happen, a slow driver does something suddenly and a fast driver cannot respond quickly enough.

In Germany things works out because multiple lanes are much more separate and slow drivers actually move right.

Comparing German accident rates to U.S. rates with very different driving situations makes no sense when arguing a speed limit should be raised or not, because it says nothing about how accident rates for U.S. drivers change at different speed limits.

Except for leading the nation in deaths per highway mile...yeah, I suppose?

Since Montana still leads that figure after years of having a speed limit, the real question is - when do you admit you didn't think about how that correlated to high speed limits?

Funny how the only person I know to be killed in a traffic collision was, in fact, killed by a drunk driver in Montana.

What's even funnier: being drunk is unrelated to speed.

People don't drive "reasonably well" - ever. People have poorly maintained vehicles, especially in a by-and-large poor state like Montana with very little vehicle inspection

They drive better at a speed they are not bored at. They drive better when they reach somewhere before they get sleepy.

Guess who picks up the tab for the millions of dollars in medical care when Joe Cowboy

Bigoted much?

Nice try at ad-hominem, normally though to carry some credibility it comes with at least a half-hearted attempt to address points raised... I note you can't refute a single point made against unions for programmers, therefore why should anyone listen to your rantings? You mention "the British", when we are talking about the situation of real workers and unions in present day...

Unions once had a very good reason to exist, but regulations have far supplanted the need for them. What I am for is systems evolving for efficiency and the bests interests of those who have to live inside said systems; what you are for is ironically apparently for an unchanging world regardless of how facts alter, like a simple monkey you fling poo at any that cross your mind as a transgressor to your rigid opinion.

You speak of dimensionality yet you have none yourself; your argument is as flat as a coke opened years ago and left in the back of the fridge, forgotten and unwanted.

That's really too bad, I id imagined it would be around for a long time to come... but if they aren't getting new installations because the've messed it up over time it's going to fade even if existing installations linger for some time...

Steelworker jobs disappeared as a result of automation.

And automation was cost effective because...

I'll bet you really can't figure that out, can you?

No sir, no reason whatsoever that overpaying workers leads to fewer workers over time! Just unpossible!

You missed the point of the term "temporarily embarrassed millionaire". As in, someone who supports policies that benefit the rich over the common folk,

It's true I did not understand what that awkward phrase was trying to say.

However since unions make workers over time poorer, not richer, and exist (again over time) primarily for the benefit of union leadership, they are a prime example of supporting the rich over the common folk.

I see a disturbing trend where every single person who is for unions claims to be for the workers instead of realizing they are in fact diametrically opposed. Very odd.

When the people with 99% of the money dictate

And you accuse me of dogma... trigger warning people!

The Hostess example the other guy posted shows clearly enough the same thing applies when unions are in the public sector.

It's not being inherently anti-union, it's understanding human nature. Unions are simply another kind of company that over time uses workers to maximize union income. Note I did not say union worker income... that may be a side benefit, though usually a short-lived one.

Everyone wants to make more money. Unions are the only way for the workers to push back

That is not at all true. You can either ask for a raise, or find somewhere else to work for more money.

Programmers (and I include myself here) traditionally find it difficult to ask for more money, even though it can be very effective. But they don't find it very difficult at all to look for work, because there is usually a good range of choice as to where a programmer can work. So programmers have not really needed unions because getting more money is easily done, if desired...

Which brings up another point; programmer pay is high enough usually that a union giving them more pay is seen as kind of pointless, when most feel like they make a good living already. Base pay for programming is high enough that salary is usually a secondary concern to other factors.

Take your anti-union rhetoric and toss it back to Fox News where it belongs.

I haven't watched Fox News pretty much ever; take your blindly applied stereotypes and your squawking parroting of talking points and bat them around the little bubble of unreality you live in.

Oddly I don't see any posts about the source itself, but I found it pretty interesting to browse through... though I was trying to find the code that triggered state change for the enemies to fight each other when one hit another, I couldn't figure out where exactly that happened...

Very cool also it includes all of the graphics and audio assets.