For sure, there will be people using this app while on their bikes, who come off the bike and die or seriously injure themselves. There will also be a number of people blaming those deaths on the app (or the rider's use of the app). While I personally do not agree - my opinion is that any rider who dies or is injured in an accident while using this app are themselves to blame for the accident (assuming that no-one else is involved).
The app will not force you to carry extra speed into a corner, lean further, brake later, or use it on public roads. Those are choices made by the rider, who is/should be an adult, and therefore capable of taking responsibility for their own choices and the consequences that flow from them.

What would be really nice is if the app refuses to work if the GPS device on the phone does not show the phone as being on the grounds of a designated racing circuit. :)

...who has never read the US Constitution (something I have in common with probably 99% of US citizens), and whose primary knowledge of the Consitutional amendments extends only to the 18th and 21st Amendments, and the 5th amendment because I used to watch so many US lawyer shows (Perry Mason, LA Law, Ally I cannot comment on what, if any, privacy protections are given to the public in those documents - I suspect nothing explicit is included (, and further I suspect that any implied protections are based on individual interpretation of the wording.

From my perspective, the biggest issue is not that Law Enforcement agencies can conduct surveillance and gather information on citizens, but that that the checks and balances to allow investigation while preventing authoritarian abuses (i.e. the need to apply for a Judicial warrant before engaging in said surveillance beyond certain well-defined boundaries) have been eroded to the point where there seems to be no judicial oversight and no ability for the public to scrutinise the process after the fact.

Elite was brought to us by David Braben and Ian Bell.
Braben on his own (well, with assistance from others, but without Bell) brought us Frontier and Frontier 2 as continuations of the Elite story - ok games in their own right, but more "realistic" and mathematical simulations than Elite, which was an entertaining game which sacrificed realism in favour of gameplay.
So if David Braben is looking to retool Elite without Ian Bell, I would expect either a reskinning of the old Elite game (which will probably be a nice walk down nostalgia lane, but with no long-term appeal), or a new version of Frontier (which imo was not as good a game as Elite).

Incorrect - Motorola's opening offer is a little on the high side for FRAND patents, but it is certainly within the bounds of acceptable and fair pricing. In most cases, both companies have a suite of patents (FRAND or otherwise) that will be licensed each to the other, and the final licence fee that is paid is the net result of the respective values of those patents being applied (Company A has a patent portfolio whose accepted licence cost would be 22.5% of the cost of Company B's device, and Company B has a patent portfolio whose accepted licence cost would be 21% of the cost of Company A's device. The two parties agree to cross-licence each other's patents, and the difference in value is paid as a licence).
As Apple has apparently refused to put any of their own patents on the table for licencing during this discussion (citation needed, as I have seen this commented on elsehwhere, but my Google karma is a bit off today), they have nothing with which to offset the FRAND licence cost other than goodwill and the karma that they have built up during the last couple of years of working closely with Samsung.

A "Do Not Call" list. If you are on it (for a small-ish annual fee, to administer the system probably), then marketing/survey/sales people are not allowed to call you unless you have specifically requested a call. If you receive a call, you report the calling number to the FTC.
The main problems with that system are two-fold - the calling party uses a withheld number, and they refuse to say who they are calling from if asked.

The other major problem with this and the vast majority of systems that implement some kind of punitive deterrent, such as fines, are that the company calling is a Marketing company or (at this time of the US political cycle) a political entity trying to get their candidate elected. The marketing companies can shut down and start up again under another name with relative impunity in a corporate game of whack-a-mole with the FTC. To truly tackle the problem, you would need to go after the Marketing company's clients whose products are being sold/marketed.

The problem here is that the PRC Labor Law, passed by the Chinese government in 1994, establishes the minimum age for working in China as 16. There may be provisions for vocational work, part-time work or vacation jobs, but I personally doubt it without reading the text of the law, and my Mandarin Chinese skills are probably not up to that.

The last two banks I have worked in have a significant number of Bloomberg users, and the online chat feature built into the Bloomberg client works pretty well - hit the "Help" key twice, the chat window opens up, and you can type your question/comment - anything from "I need a replacement keyboard" or issues with the Excel API integration, to issues with setting up charts and reports or locating data in the Bloomberg systems. Trying to call Bloomberg live support puts you in contact with the same call-centre that services the chat system, and response times are much the same... but you also have the accent of the call-centre personnel to contend with - not a problem if the call centre is in your country, but not many of them are, these days.

From the other side, I have worked as a support monkey with telephone, email, live chat and remote access systems in place. A phone call is definitely better for a conversation with an angry customer (on-site visit is best of all, but who has that option for general support issues without a fat support contract?), while email and live chat are good for conversations where you need a written record of the communication, and remote access is good for obvious reasons but not always possible.

Trying to work in an environment where you only have one of those tools sets you and the customer up for a frustrating experience - "if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, then every problem starts to resemble a nail". If management make sure that you have acess to the most appropriate tools for the job, then client satisfaction should see a noticeable uptick, and probably support staff satisfaction as well (although a pay rise would also help there, you have more chance of getting the tools than the money).

Several psychological studies (the earliest and most quoted I am aware of, being by Albert Mehrabian) list the actual words and grammar used in a message as carrying about 7% of the meaning the message recipient picks up in verbal face-to-face conversation. The rest is about 38% tone of voice, and 55% body language.
Written communication, stripped of the tone of voice and body language, means the recipient is relying on only 7% of the normally available information to determine the content and meaning of the message, giving 93% guesswork.
If the message sender includes poor grammar then that 93% guesswork will be compounded by the tendency of the message recipient to make assumptions about the intended message and the relative inability of the recipient to get immediate feedback about the meaning of a specific sentence.

"I don't want nothing from you", and "I don't want anything from you" have grammatically opposite meanings, but in verbal communication are usually taken to mean the same thing, especially with the recipient's ability to query the message and interpret the message sender's tone of voice and body language.
It is easier for a person with bad grammar skills to correctly understand a message from a person with good grammar skills, than for a person with good grammar skills to understand a person with bad grammar skills, but the possibility for misunderstanding is there in both cases.

As for the price of poor grammar, In October 2006, a contract dispute between Canadian cable company Rogers Communications and telephone company Bell Aliant revealed that a misplaced comma can be worth $2 million.

The contract said:

"This agreement shall be effective from the date it is made and shall continue in force for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party."
Rogers Communications believed the placement of the second comma stated the contract was good for at least five years, while Bell Aliant said the comma indicated the deal could be terminated before if one year's notice was given.

In the end, Canada's telecommunications commission sided with Bell Aliant. They stated the comma should have been omitted if the contract was intended to last five years in its shortest possible term. As a result, Bell Alliant was able to save over $2 million by ending the deal early.

I have had this kind of conversation with HR and management people that I report to, and there are two major issues. 1. You rarely, if ever, screw up your current assignments. That means in their eyes that your job must be easy. Therefore, they could replace you if they need to, because the work is easy. The corrolary is that, if you do make a few mistakes, then you are incompetent and they could replace you with someone earning less money if they feel the desire to change a known (and apparently sub-standard) performer for an unknown, with the attendant training and ramp-up time. Both of those translate in PHB-speak into "you are overpaid, and lucky to have a job". 2. Management and HR need to be educated about the complexity of your role and the value that you add. However the kicker here is that they do not want to be educated - education is for people who are ignorant and need a perception-adjustment. Management and HR feel they know everything they need to know, and more, and they know more and better than you. Can HR do your job? Of course not, but they feel they can identify and hire someone who will do your job - that process gives them something to do, a reason to justify their existence, and they will take that opportunity if offered. Trying to educate HR/Management will probably come across as agitating and rocking the boat, which will often see them shuffling you toward the door - in their eyes you may be good at the job or you may not, but the workplace is about the team, and you are showing a lack of team spirit so we should get rid of you and find a "team player"... In this case, the "show us some evidence of another pay scale we should be using" request is an invitation to show them that they are not doing their job right. If you fail, they were right and you were wrong. If you succeed, you were right and they have bruised egos. Do you really want to bruise the ego of the people you report to and who handle the HR at your employer? The best way to educate HR/Management is to take the role, then once you have a few months'/a year's experience, or the successful delivery of a couple of major projects and you find a similar situation which offers a higher salary, take that discretely to Management and point out that competitor X has offered you x% more money for the same work. It also puts you in a potentially stronger position, with a stronger job market in 6-12 months time. Or, if you suspect that the job market is going to stagnate or contract over the next year, then being an established actor at a company is usually a better prospect than being the new guy trying to get up to speed and learning both a new company and new aspects of your role.