Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Now in relation to this particular case, its talking about the option of a 20% discount based on how you do during your 200km run. Its not basing your entire quote on it. Nor is it manditory. Nor are they punishing you if you do badly. It is rewarding you for being able to drive safely.
Don't get me wrong, I still feel like I'm getting robbed blind because insurance companies are exploiting my age bracket, but this here seems to be trying to seperate out good drivers from bad, rather than saying we've had X number of claims from young men, therefore ALL young men are bad drivers, therefore ALL young men have to pay huge amounts for insurance.
Second, could they not roughly work out the same information from your mileage in a year?
From what I can see, they are proposing to move away from the model of generalisations, which for me, a young male driver, is welcome news. A girl I know who was the same age as me when she started driving and had nothing different from me other than the car (which was actually more powerful) was quoted nearly €1000 less than me. That seemed massively unfair to me. If there was option of something like that, that charges you on the basis of your actual driving as opposed to your demographics, I'll welcome it any day of the week.
Is there a potential for it to be misused, yeah, but I'd welcome any move to judge my driving over lumping me in with a particular age group or gender.
Also, I've always used a seperate app for wikipedia viewing, simply because I don't like the interface on the browsers. In fairness, I rarely use a browser on my phone, there are usually apps that have browser functionality for any links within their content.
iPhones have their place, they're for the people who don't want to customise their phones, for people who just want their phone to work. I think the browser share reflects that to an extent, there are more people who are just happy enough to use whatever comes with the phone than try to find out if there is a better tool for the job, its good enough in their mind so why change around.
I am not American, I am not a Russian. I am fortuante enough to be in a position where I didn't grow up hearing either sides propaganda about the other. From my point of view, both sides lied, both said they were for democratic purposes only to topple democratically elected governments simply because they didn't like the outcome of those elections. I'm also not naive enough to think that violence is never the answer, there are times when violence is required, but only when the will of the people is not being adhered to or when you are under threat in the case of minority being surpressed. But the US wasn't concerned with the democratic will of the people or if someone was being oppressed. They were willing to overthrow democratically elected governments, to supress minorities and even surpress majorities only for the purpose of suiting themselves. That is why I don't see the US as an ethical government or military, because they have made unethical decisions. I'm not arguing about who is worse, neither are ethical and that is origin of this discussion
Learning from history is so important that it cannot be overstated. It is only by examining history can the US realise they can't use force to overthrow governments, they will only be fragile and short lived and the unintended consequences usually create a worse situation. I think some people in power are starting to understand this concept, that talking to nations rather than isolate them and force them to more extreme solutions to their problems. However it is a complex answer to a simple question and the attention span of a US election cycle does not allow for complex solutions to things. Which is why the US continues to this day to attempt to strong arm the world to do what it wants.
That's not to mention direct interventions into Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Zaire, Honduras...
My point is this...
You ask me if my claim of millions of deaths is accurate, in direct numbers affected by US foreign policy, yes I am. When you include the residue and the blow back which the CIA has always known about, I am wrong, its tens of millions. All of this wasn't "because they were communist" it’s because they all made a decision which would benefit their country at the cost of the United States, either economically, militarily or simply just the pantomime on the geo-political stage. All empires have done it in the past. The US is no better, they simply label it superpower and pay off locals to do their direct bidding instead of having their presence their all the time
In the case of booth babes, I doubt all these women have the luxery of picking and choosing which events they attend. I'm sure there is fierce competition for the positions and that if you want the good modelling jobs you also have to do some of shit ones too. Everyone here seems to be treating it with a "put up and shut up" attitude without thinking beyond their own limited perception. Just because a women, or a man for that matter, is a model doesn't mean they are talentless, doesn't mean they're bimbo's, doesn't mean they're stupid and most importantly, doesn't mean they are without emotions. There is also a difference between being looked at and being leered at.