In all likelihood, they probably just needed new vehicles, wanted things that would take a beating, and needed a little extra spin to get the approval. The vehicles were not purchased JUST to catch texting drivers, but the type or spec of the vehicle was chosen to validate that spin and "prove" that their use will be used to bring in additional revenue.
They say they have 215 million monthly users. To me, a user is a person. An account is one of many identities that a person can set up. I can believe 215 million accounts (spam!), but users?
If they're suggesting that 215 million unique people use Twitter every month and there are about 7.2 billion people on Earth today, they're saying that one in every 34 people in the world sign on to Twitter every month.
According to this (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm), about 2.4 billion people have access to the internet in one way or another. So if that's the population from which Twitter users come from (mustn't it?), that would mean that 1 in 12 people with internet access log onto Twitter monthly.
Is that really believable? That (globally) 1 in 12 people with internet access log into Twitter at least once a month?
I don't really like flying due to my height, but I *love* when this happens. I know, it's kinda cruel, but sometimes I just like seeing simple requirements enforced on those who are too cool to otherwise follow the rules.
Indeed -- Another expansion just launched. Level max. is 100. As an avid player, I'm fairly surprised it's still kicking myself!
Here's an article from 2 years ago by someone in the same county: http://cerritos.patch.com/groups/opinion/p/is-trick-or-treating-down-halloween-trends-decline-in3eafc90da4
"Over the past few years Iâ(TM)ve noticed a similar trend in the decline of trick-or-treaters going around the neighborhood. At first I thought maybe this was just me, and maybe everyone else had different experiences, but after talking to many residents from Cerritos, Artesia, and other surrounding cities most had similar experiences on Halloween."
I live in one of the safest cities in America. It's extremely clean, too. And no one trick-or-treats. The significant other and I did up our entry way and had candy on hand for 3 years running before we just gave up.
It's the safest city partially because everyone is so afraid of everyone else. We've never known our neighbors and we've lived in this city for 13 years. Neighbors just come and go. It's "nice", but it's weird, too.
So, to answer the question, we're doing nothing special. We'll likely have some wine, watch a movie, and spend some time in Norrath.
A chore? How do YOU install new Firefox releases? All I do is go to Help->About Firefox->Check for Updates->Install.
It's not exactly spring cleaning.
This article is very, very typical of someone who knows enough about cycling to ask questions, but not enough to answer them. I work in the transportation industry. I live car-free. I teach bicycle education. I work with regional transportation agencies, police departments, city planners/councils, and universities to facilitate the use of non-driver-only transportation.
The title of the article should be more direct to the reader: "How Likely Am I to be Injured While Riding My Bike?" That's what people want to know, after all. "How likely am *I* to be hurt?" Most people are concerned with the risks associated with bike commuting or running errands on two-wheels, so let's focus on that. So, let's omit all recreational mountain biking and all competitive (and "training") rides from the data for now. Next, we must differentiate between collisions and solo falls. Most importantly, differentiate between those who have received official bicycle education and those who have not.
Make all those controls and you'll find that an educated cyclist riding on a road where the average speed is 40mph or lower with a small variety of visibility tactics will have an injury only very rarely. And it will likely be due to environmental hazards.
A preferred list of questions for every bike injury logged:
Has the injured bicyclist received bicycle-specific education? (League of American Bicyclists Traffic Skills 101, Cycle Savvy, Other)
Why kind of riding prompted the injury?
Recreation Paved (roadways, sidewalks, off-street paths)
Recreation Off-Road (dirt, etc.)
Recreation Mixed Terrain (Bike Touring)
Competitive Paved (including training)
Competitive Off-Road (including training)
Utility Paved (Commuting, Errands)
What caused the injury to the cyclist?
Solo-Fall (road condition)
Strain/Sprain/Other Condition (torn ligament, seizure, etc.)
Which visibility tactics/items were implemented by the bicyclist?
Central/Left of Center Lane Position
High Visibility Colors
All Legally Required Reflectors
Reflectivity Beyond Requirements
Headlight ("see me")
Headlight ("see you")
Which of the following faults were performed by the cyclist?
Neglect to Yield to Right of Way
Inappropriate Lane Position
Travel Against Traffic
Which of the following faults were performed by others involved?
Neglect to Yield to Right of Way
Inappropriate Lane Position
Travel Against Traffic
Where did the injury take place?
On-Road, in an intersection
On-Road, within 200 feet of an intersection
On-Road, 200 feet or farther from an intersection
On a Sidewalk
On an Off-Street Path
What is the average speed on the road at the point of injury?
-- I don't like to be leashed. I don't even like my cell phone. I find calling someone on a phone to be very demanding. When I hear the phone ring, I hear "TALK TO ME, TALK TO ME!" which would be appropriate if it extremely important to do so, but it rarely is. I prefer a text message to which I can respond when the time is appropriate or an email through which I can convey well-thought-out messages.
-- I am not an exhibitionist. I value my privacy and, more accurately, the intimacy of being able to be vulnerable in one-on-one communication. I hold particular disdain for people who feel they must be the frequent/consistent center of attention and envy.
-- I am not a voyeur. I am not particularly interested by the day-to-day happenings of people. I usually don't care about what you ate for lunch unless you've eaten for a week at a restaurant that's new to you and you think that I would personally enjoy eating at the same place. And if that's the case, send me a message-- don't tag me on your Facebook wall so that I have to visit the shrine you've built to your exhibitionist self.
-- I don't like being subject to the constant turn-over and "hard sale". So much of the portable, connected device industry is massive marketing/advertising, and and utterly temporary in lifespan. One cannot expect to buy a smartphone today and be allowed to keep it for 2 years unmolested by the massive disposable device marketing machine. (I currently keep my dumbphone for 2+ years at a time rather comfortably because no one is bothering to sell me a new one.) One cannot expect buy a tablet today with the option of upgrading any component for extend its workable life.
-- I don't like the focus of the smartphone. The smartphone, in my opinion, should be first and foremost a phone. With the billions of dollars put into R&D and infrastructure, one would think that a cell phone call would be at least as clear as talking on an intercom... but that's far from the case. Instead, cellular voice tech has taken back seat to video media quality so that you can watch really high quality Netflix videos in your palm, but you can't talk to someone in the same confidence of communication that could by using a 40-year old telephone.
This list can go on forever. Or I can simply list what I want of a device that would convince me to be a little more connected:
A high quality phone
A customizable MP3/media player
A good camera
A calendar application
Very long battery life
The option to modify the UI (I hate the cartoony feel of iDevices and don't want to waste battery power facilitating it)
Give me all of that and I will consider getting a smartphone. Until then, cons will outweigh the pros.
People are not confident in the quality and sensitivity of their cell phone receivers/microphones. To compensate, they yell, over-enunciate, repeat themselves, or a combination of the prior to feel more confident in their communications. Moreover, many people have very specific PR-style telephone voices and tones (faux excitement/outrage, etc.) that make it easy to stereotype their speakers as ditzy, shallow, etc.
Each of those actions (and particularly combinations therein) are typically very annoying to hear. The frequent annoyance without a socially acceptable method of addressing such annoyance leads to frustration. Frustration leads to outbursts.
Solution #1 Old-school wired telephone receivers or hands-free headsets with the microphones that extend from the ear to the mouth. These physical additions to phones increase confidence and allow a user to feel more confident that his communication is being received.
Solution #2 Make cell phones better phones. Take a couple million dollars that would otherwise be spent on facilitating the graphics requires for the next implementation of "Angry Bird: Fruit Ninja Attack" and make cell phone communication clearer.
Headline could mean:
(a) Students Build Ship, Inspecting Robot - So some people came together to build a ship and then stare at a robot... Okay...
(b) Students Build Ship-Inspecting Robot - Ah! A great tool! News for Nerds!
All the major airlines have adopted policies to mirror the Federal requirements. Thus they are their own policies as well.
Moreover, to your point, the originator of the rule/policy/law doesn't matter so long as the owner of the plane accepts and enforces it.
It is always intriguing when a post with no "troll" characteristics, is intentfully factual, tactful, spawns discussion, and is modded to at least (+3 Insightful) is eventually moderated down to "Troll".
Call me crazy, but I think people just might actually moderate based on agreement of opinion instead of the descriptors "insightful, informative, funny, etc.".
So here's the thing: It's their plane.
When you buy the ticket and board the plane, you agree to play by their rules. They have the property rights and have sold you limited rights to your seats with stipulations.
If you can't accept the stipulations and choose to break the rules, don't be surprised if you need to be embarrassed into submission or even thrown off the plane when you get caught breaking the rules.
Your opinion of their rules and the basis of their rules are irrelevant given that you have already agreed to their rules. So sit down, turn off everything they say to turn off, and find solace in the fact that you're following the minimal ethic of peaceful coexistence- honoring a contract.