A Pizza is more than most people get as the result of a class action lawsuit...
What are the parameters that define a "good" driver. Going below the speed limit on a highway in the left lane. Being lucky when you don't look right or left making a turn onto a street? Taking way to long to brake?
That's the real question isn't it, how are they going to define a safe driver vs. a risky driver. One way is to collect telemetry from people for a while and then compare the telemetry of the people that have collisions with the people who don't and look for statistically valid differences.
I've been driving for decades, I've put over 300,000 miles under me, but I bet those damn things would label me a bad driver
Any time I hear something like this I'm reminded of the fact that when asked, most people rate themselves as above average drivers. Not to say that you're not a good driver, but your driving ability is anecdotal at best. Why would you think they would label you a bad driver? Note I'd prefer to use the terms safe driver and risky driver.
for I accelerate firmly coming onto a highway, I don't brake forever coming off a highway,
With, I'd imagine, long periods driving at a constant velocity in between, why would you think that makes you a risky driver? That's what you're supposed to do. The risky driver is the guy who accelerates firmly and brakes firmly repeatedly and often in city traffic.
I tend to exceed the posted speed limit by a few miles when in the left lane and certainly when passing
Any rational system wouldn't rate someone as risky for exceeding the speed limit in a calm manner by a small percentage, particularly on a highway.
and i do my best to maintain situational awareness when behind the wheel.
By looking at vehicles' telemetry it would be very easy to identify the people who tailgate (due to their need to constantly adjust their speed), change lanes frequently and abruptly, drive significantly faster than the surrounding traffic, etc. It would also be easy to identify the people who practice good defensive driving techniques.
These devices will do nothing to bring about "safe" driving because that term is still relative to skill, conditions, and environment.
Actually it's got a good chance to reduce collisions. People drive at their own acceptable level of perceived risk. If driving in a risky manner puts them at risk of higher insurance rates they will modify their driving habits.
Flo can take her device and shove it somewhere dark, just not in my car.
That's OK, once these become standard you will always be able to opt out. Of course that means you will be placed in the highest risk category and pay the highest premiums, but at least they won't have a tracker in your car.
My issue with this sort of device isn't that it will be used in determining insurance premiums, my issue is "What else will it be used for?"
A Manchester plumber was arrested for having a van full of "bomb" making material.
His pleas of "It's just pipe for a sink" went unheeded.
They'd also do well by dropping the one and two dollar bills, replacing them with coins; the currency has devalued so much, it's not worth keeping the low value notes as notes. You could also make a case for ditching the penny, to boot.
What are you? Some kind of closet Canadian?
While ESRB ratings and other warnings about violent games for kids have good reason to exist, many parents still ignore them, aren't aware to them, or simply don't care about their warnings
"Many parents still ignore them", which is fine, they are warnings not commandments.
"or simply don't care about their warnings", which is fine, they are warnings not commandments.
"aren't aware to them", which is a publicity issue for the ESRB and not the fault of the parents -- assuming for a moment that anything more than a statistically insignificant number of people aren't aware of them.
The ESRB warning are there so that parents can make decisions about their own children themselves. That their decisions differ from yours isn't a failing of the warnings. It's a failure of you for wanting to control other people's lives.
So how long until this technology can be used to build the flying car I've been promised for several decades?
So how long until I can use this technology to finally get my flaying car?
Maybe not In the video; the guy using the plastic strip to trick the device is holding the plastic strip over the same finger that can legitimately unlock the device.
Go re-watch the video and pay attention this time... He used his index finger to lock the phone and his middle finger to unlock it using the "plastic strip".
Don't we also have a duty to preserve a world free from flying killer robots for our children?
Isn't it the killing that's the terrible thing, not the method that's used? This reminds me of the stupidity of classifying some crimes as "hate crimes", as if it's worse that someone gets beat up because they're gay than if they get beat up because they're walking down the wrong street.
...maybe put that brainpower into solving the actual global problem, rather than finding a bandaid solution to the local symptom....
Given that solving the global problem would pretty much require us to stop all fossil fuel use, stop all food-animal production, stop all rain-forest destruction and start an effective process of eliminating termites (they are huge methane producers) I think we can pretty much rule out being able to solve the global problem.
Since the current plans to "deal with" global warming are about slowing the affects of global warming not stopping or reversing it -- so your town won't be under water for seventy years instead of fifty -- the rational course of action is to start dealing with the current and upcoming effects.
To use a non-automotive analogy, global warming is like a huge snowball rolling down a snowy hillside. You can waste a bunch of time fruitlessly trying to stop it or slow it down but you'd be better off beating it down the hill and moving anything it's going to hit out of its way.
This whining gets a little old. People cry that "the bankers" (or "banksters" in your case) should go to jail but yet never seem to be able to cite specifics. That to me says you don't actually know of any laws broken, you are just mad and think that you're angry should be reason enough to convict someone.
How about we start with the F'ing bankers who were laundering billions but didn't get charged with any criminal activity and their organization only got a token fine because it would be "bad for the economy" if they were held responsible for their criminal activity.
Then we could go after the F'ing bankers that took money from congress with the promise that they would re-start lending to the "little guy" and instead used it to buy up their competition and pay executive bonuses.
If you don't think most bankers (i.e. top executives at the large banks) should be in jail you haven't been paying attention.
This is all about setting up a system to charge for access to 'whois' information. Phrases like "authorizing 'requestors'" is code for charging users.
You have the right to free speech, but not the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room.
Actually you do have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room. You just can't use the first amendment to avoid prosecution for starting a riot. In other words, you have the right to act but you are also responsible for your actions.
There is no need for such a law, all they have to do is install a key logger on the company's computers (it's their computer they can do that) and they'll have the employee's facebook password before lunch.
"By using DHS as the middleman, the Obama administration hopes to bring the formidable overseas intelligence-gathering of the NSA closer to ordinary U.S. residents without triggering an outcry from privacy advocates who have long been leery of the spy agency's eavesdropping."
Translation: People don't fear the DHS as much as they fear the NSA, this should fix that.