Slashdot Mirror

Acres burned were dropping until the 1990s (when climate change was, you know, happening). Then harvesting of timber in California dropped dramatically in the mid 1990s, and we see an uptick in fire coverage - mainly driven by California.

Coincidence or causation? Well, given that California has a record amount of dead trees out there, it's not a big leap to say that reduced harvesting is a problem. And given that lots of people in CA believe logging dead trees is bad, we shouldn't be surprised at the fuel - and subsequent fire - increase happens.

THAT is how you cite your argument. Simple, see?

http://www.shopliftingpreventi...
"There are approximately 27 million shoplifters (or 1 in 11 people) in our nation today. More than 10 million people have been caught shoplifting in the last five years."

https://www.iii.org/fact-stati...
"in 2017, there were 16.7 million victims of identity fraud, a record high that followed a previous record the year before. Criminals are engaging in complex identity fraud schemes that are leaving record numbers of victims in their wake. The amount stolen hit $16.8 billion last year as 30 percent of U.S. consumers were notified of a data breach last year, an increase of 12 percent from 2016."

https://www.statista.com/stati...

https://www.census.gov/popcloc...
USA population is 328 million

Say that crimes caused by poverty cost $50B/year in the US. That's $152/year per person. Not enough for UBI, but it could eventually offset part of the cost of UBI.

The warnings are due to Proposition 65 - a citizen's ballot initiative which passed in 1986. It mandates a ridiculously low non-scientific threshold for requiring a cancer warning - a 1 in 100,000 chance of getting cancer due to exposure. By comparison, your lifetime odds of being killed by car is 1 in 114. By a pool is 1 in 5772. By falling from a ladder is 1 in 7707. By dog attack is 1 in 112,400. By lightning is 1 in 161,856. So we're talking about cancer risk levels which are minuscule compared to other risks you face during your lifetime.

But that's the threshold Prop 65 requires. So practically everything ends up requiring a Prop 65 warning label, including silly things like coffee. The judge can disagree with it, but has to comply with it because the text of the law is very specific. I've often joked that every door leading outside should have a Prop 65 warning above it because sunlight is known to cause cancer (about 1 in 43 people will get skin cancer in their lifetime).

About the only purpose Prop 65 serves is to enrich lawyers who go around finding businesses without the warning sing, and suing them for non-compliance, then settling the lawsuit for a few thousand dollars. The usual victim is an immigrant small business owner who never would've dreamed that such a silly law exists.

Their content is created by society, so they reflect society. If you don't like what you see reflected, breaking the mirror is a natural impulsive response but it doesn't actually change society. It just lets you pretend what you saw isn't there anymore. But since it was just a mirror, it's still there, only hidden and still festering.

If you're concerned about people being seduced by extremist content they encounter (be it online, in newsletters/books, or just by talking with other people), your effort is better spent figuring out why that extremist content is so seductive to them. Then taking corrective action to make said content no longer so seductive. A true free society does not fear extremist content, because it's educated its people well enough that they'll see the flaws in said content and reject it on their own, no policing by the government required.

A few people who are outliers will still fall for it, whether due to low IQ or mental illness or they just happened to have the right confluence of events in their lives that the extremist message rings true to them. But seeing as your odds of being killed by an extremist in a terrorist attack are somewhere down around your odds of dying in a storm, by a dog bite, or to a lightning strike, it's simply not worth the massive effort being proposed to try to prevent those deaths. Direct that effort instead to mitigating more mundane but deadlier risks, like ladders and swimming pools and stairways (not to mention fires, motor vehicle accidents, and poisoning). Heck, a program which reduces the suicide rate by 5% would save more lives than 100% effective anti-terrorism measures in the UK. (In some countries a mere 1% reduction in suicide rate would suffice.)

Interesting that you place the risk of being shot to death at several time higher than dying in an auto accident even though the number of people killed in auto accidents is about the same as the number of people killed with a gun

http://www.iii.org/fact-statis...

(and that includes suicide, which is by far the largest type of firearm death in the USA).

The above quoted statistics refer to deaths from firearm assaults, i.e. suicides and accidents are excluded.
Where there is a bias here, it likely goes the other way, for a couple of reasons:
1: The number includes DUI drivers - about 29% of all traffic related deaths correlate with alcohol-impaired driving according to the CDC. With an additional 16% or so being under influence of other substances. I.e. if you drive sober, the risk is way less.
2: The elephant in the room is the fatal traffic "accidents" that really are voluntary, where the driver either does not want those left behind to know, or hopes insurance will pay out. It's hard to know for sure, but a significant portion of driving fatalities may be vehicular suicides. With around 31% of all fatal crashes being single-vehicle "roadway departures", it's likely a statistically significant number.

So if you don't DUI, and don't drive to kill yourself, the risk of dying in a car crash is significantly reduced, and indeed several times lower than the risk of dying from a firearms assault. Which again prompts the question: Where are the kevlar vests?

We should not justify what the media does. The media does not give people an accurate understanding.

U.S. Auto Crashes: About 35,200 in 2015.

" A phone may not be "safe" but it is "safer"."

Not in my experience. Citation please to any research that supports your point. I will cite http://www.iii.org/issue-updat...

YOu want that disconnect? get a bike.

More accurately, I want those in the bottom half of the intelligence curve disconnected from every electronic device not integral to the operation of the vehicle...

Come to think of it, most of the top half, too. If your data is not important enough to pull off the highway to give it your full attention, it is NOT important enough to endanger others around you.

I'm not just talking SUV drivers, either. Anyone who thinks driving is a right and not a privilege needs that ban, as well as those who can't "see" past their radio or the car in front of them...

As much as we'd like to think we've evolved sufficiently to handle the information overload present nowadays, the traffic statistics sadly show another picture...

On top of that- cars, to a large portion of the population, are freedom. Freedom to go where you want, when you want. Freedom to live where you want. Freedom to just say "fuck it" one day and go on a road trip. Freedom from the clock- I don't have to leave the bar with my friends to make that last 10:30 pm bus, I can stay til closing time (assume I'm sober for this one). There is no substitute for this.

On top of that - cars, to a large portion of the population, are death. 1 in 84 Americans will die from a car accident*. 33% of the earth's carbon dioxide, the primary global warming issue, is from cars**. Cars are one-third responsible for the greatest threat to civilization in recorded history, largely because of people like you.

Your version of "freedom" is death. If you want to live like an ignorant hedonist, don't take us with you. Making the necessary adjustments is no more difficult than maintaining personal hygiene. (something tells me that's a bad example for this guy)

And no, I will not assume you were sober, you were drunk, and we all know it. Hence the tone of this reply.

There is a perfect substitute for this model of freedom: COMMON SENSE.

* http://www.iii.org/media/facts/statsbyissue/oddsofdying/?table_sort_735950=3
** http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_cse.htm

That cold dead hand thing would be the problem, now wouldn't it? Not that I'd never ride a motorcycle or motorscooter or bicycle. But they aren't real safe. "Motorcyclists were 37 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a crash in 2006, per vehicle mile traveled, and 8 times more likely to be injured,according to NHTSA." http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/motorcycle/?table_sort_739222=2

When I moved to Pennsylvania last year, I applied for new insurance on my new car and house in that state. My insurance company explicity stated that they will use my credit history as a basis for insurance premiums. To be more specific, they calculate a risk score based on information from your credit history. This is not your credit score. Some states do not permit insurers from doing this, but PA obviously does.

It's not based on credit, but risk, which is part of what an actuary deals with to set your insurance rates.

A second of googling would reveal many sites talking about this, including: http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/credi tscoring/

In what way is the amount of money obtained via malpractice suits indicative of anything? At best it is some distant semi-obfuscated gauge of what insurance costs might resemble in an open insurance market. From a documentary I've seen lately (I can't cite unfortunately), US practitioners were complaining of impossible insurance tariffs stemming from a tendency of the public to litigate over everything imaginable and then some.

That's not just the price of settlements, but all litigation costs combined.

Do you really believe that insurance companies are charging 100 times as much to doctors as they're having to pay out? Because that's what it would take for your "our costs are higher because of litigation" argument to hold water. No, in reality, you're looking at only about four times the cost of the payouts (30B$). Still a trivial percentage of our total healthcare expenditures (just under 2 trillion $/yr).

According to this:
http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/test5 /

About 43,000 died in vehicle crashes, both in 2005.

17,000 of the crashes were alcohol related.

13,000 of the crashes were speed related.

Now, think about ways that automobiles could be changed to prevent/limit speeding.

Of course money speaks louder than deaths.

While 3000 military deaths is too much, 3000 WTC deaths is too much, and 2000 Katrina deaths is too much, 40,000 auto deaths/per-year is normal.

Troll? You've gotta be kidding. In the state of Michigan, requirement number one to getting a license plate for your care is insurance. Try driving w/out a plate, and see how far you can go. And we're not the only state with no fault insurance.

The Shuttle is safe to fly. Don't believe me? Run the numbers:

This page gives us ~ 5 fatal crashes per million miles for commercial aviation, and 68 fatal accidents per million miles for general aviation in 2004.

Space Shuttle:

1045.99 days, 2 fatal accidents = 79 fatal accidents per million hours. That's in the same range as general aviation, and only an order of magnitude higher than commercial aviation. Not bad for a craft which travels seventeen thousand miles per hour to break away from the earth, then re-enter the atmosphere at mach 25. It looks even more amazing when you consider: the orbiter is technically still experimental; what else do you call a craft which has been manufacturered less than a dozen times, each with its own customizations? Certainly not a PRODUCTION model.

And don't tell me this is a bad comparison. Just like the Space Shuttle, aircraft spend most of their operating hours in cruise. And just like aircraft, the Shuttle is most likely to suffer an accident during takeoff and landing. If you believe that commercial airline flights are as safe as they can be, then the 79 accidents per million miles for the Shuttle is an exemplary safety record.

A friend of mine just had auto insurance rates go up because of credit card debt. Tell me how that affects your driving record?

Insurance scores are confidential rankings based on credit history information. They are a measure of how a person manages his or her financial affairs. People who manage their finances well tend to also manage other important aspects of their lives responsibly, such as driving a car. Combined with factors such as geographical area, previous crashes, age and gender, insurance scores enable auto insurers to price more accurately, so that people less likely to file a claim pay less for their insurance than people who are more likely to file a claim. For homeowners insurance, insurers use other factors combined with credit such as the home's construction, location and proximity to water supplies for fighting fires.

Insurance scores predict the average claim behavior of a group of people with essentially the same credit history. A good score is typically above 760 and a bad score is below 600. People with low insurance scores tend to file more claims. But there are exceptions. Within that group, there may be individuals who have stellar driving records and have never filed a claim just as there are teenager drivers who have never had a crash although teenagers as a group have more accidents than people in other age groups.

Most people benefit from insurance scoring because most consumers manage their debt well and therefore have good credit scores. Credit-related activities within the last 12 months are given most weight.

It depends on the state, but 47 require some kind of liability insurance. Here are a couple of articles about it from the Insurance Information Institute. Some states allow a bond or CD of about $50k instead of insurance, but that involves tying up a lot of money.

It depends on the state, but 47 require some kind of liability insurance. Here are a couple of articles about it from the Insurance Information Institute. Some states allow a bond or CD of about $50k instead of insurance, but that involves tying up a lot of money.

I'd love to see some stats to back up your "motorcycles can be safe" assertion. Of course, that depends on what your definition of safe is. For argument's sake, how about we say "safe" is 4x as dangerous as a regular old passengar car per hundred million VMT. Motorcycles are fun, convenient, cheap, fast and sexy. If they were safe, we'd all be riding 'em. http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/motor cycle/?table_sort_739024=7

Here's one interesting quote:

A September 2004 study from the NHTSA found that drivers using hand-free cell phones had to redial calls 40 percent of the time, compared with 18 percent for drivers using hand held sets, suggesting that hands free sets may provide drivers with a false sense of ease.

I think the difference is that because the person is not in the car with you, he/she won't stop talking just because things suddenly get more tense in traffic. Or, perhaps, talking to another passenger is just as dangerous and should be avoided. If you get bored while driving, I suggest you read a book or newspaper instead.

Cell Phones and Driving

Highlights:

At first safety experts focused on the problem as part of the larger one of driver distractions in general. These can include anything that reduces driver concentration on road hazards from drinking coffee to talking with another passenger. Now there is increasing evidence that the dangers associated with cell-phone use outweigh those of other distractions. Safety experts also acknowledge that the hazard posed by cell phone conversations is not eliminated, and may even be increased, by the use of hands-free sets.

Motorists who use cell phones while driving are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves, according to a study of drivers in Perth, Australia, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The results, published in July, 2005, suggest that banning hand-held phone use won't necessarily improve safety if drivers simply switch to hands-free phones. The study found that injury crash risk didn't vary with type of phone.

A government study released in June 2005 indicates that the distraction of cell phones and other wireless devices was far more likely to lead to crashes than other distractions faced by drivers. Researchers for the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tracked 100 cars and their drivers for a year and concluded that talking on cell phones caused far more crashes, near-crashes and other incidents than other distractions.

A study from the University of Utah published in the winter 2004/2005 issue of Human Factors, the quarterly journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, found that motorists who talked on hands-free cell phones were 18 percent slower in braking and took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked. An earlier University of Utah study by the same researchers found that drivers talking on hands-free cell phones were less likely to recall seeing pedestrians, billboards or other roadside features.

Answer... there hasn't been. In fact, the number of deaths continues to fall in part due to safer cars, but also the number of accidents is falling too. Huh? I thought cell phones were such a serious problem that we have to pass laws to keep people from using them while driving? I'm sorry, but the data DOES NOT support such a conclusion. Incredible increase in cell phone usage. Small decrease in accident rates.

I just don't get it. Law makers need a boogey man to go after... to make it look like they're doing something.

It's not the phone... it's the driver. Some can handle a small level of multi-tasking... some can't. So the answer is to punish everyone and give the police something else to distract them from actually fighting crime and dealing with the truly dangerous people in our society.

-S

Okay, I'm an idiot. I'll use the preview button from now on, I promise. here's the link: http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellp hones/

Before anyone sets up any kind of web site, I strongly advise you to purchase an Umbrella Liabliity Insurance Policy. Among other things, these policies protect you from accusations of libel and slander.

While truth is an absolute defense against libel or slander, you don't want it to cost you your life savings to defend against a frivolous lawsuit because you spoke the truth someone didn't want to hear. For the cost of the umbrella policy - typically around $300 per year you can virtually stop any potential frivolous lawsuit. Such lawsuits are designed to intimidate the little guy and you're much less of a little guy when a multi-billion dollar insurance company is the one that is paying to defend you against the suit.

If cars are safe, as this journalist claims, (Cars are a good example here. Motor vehicles have to be safe), then why is car insurance expensive? (The average cost for auto insurance nationwide for 2005 is estimated at $870). What a moroon!

But he illustrates one point by accident. There's compulsory training to get a car license - perhaps there would be fewer computer crashes if IT training was compulsory too.

For an average of $300 per year, just about anyone can get Umbrella Liability Insurance. Such insurance shields you from many things including slander and libel claims.

That way, the evil corporation or incompetent doctor that wants to shut you up with a frivilous lawsuit will really be suing your multi-billion dollar insurance company. $1 Million worth of coverage is typically around $300 per year. Multi-million policies are frequently available for not much more.

showed CO2 concentration and not temperature

Some of that energy is thermal, but some manifests in stronger storms and worse weather.

Note that the use of wind power is the only try mitigation of the greenhouse gas problem.

There are buffers in the atmosphere which have caused temperatures to increase less rapidly than the concentration of CO2 (e.g., reflective cloud formation), but the energy still has to go somewhere, since total cloud-cover hasn't increased all that much.

showed CO2 concentration and not temperature

Some of that energy is thermal, but some manifests in stronger storms and worse weather.

Note that the use of wind power is the only try mitigation of the greenhouse gas problem.

There are buffers in the atmosphere which have caused temperatures to increase less rapidly than the concentration of CO2 (e.g., reflective cloud formation), but the energy still has to go somewhere, since total cloud-cover hasn't increased all that much.

showed CO2 concentration and not temperature

Some of that energy is thermal, but some manifests in stronger storms and worse weather.

Note that the use of wind power is the only try mitigation of the greenhouse gas problem.

There are buffers in the atmosphere which have caused temperatures to increase less rapidly than the concentration of CO2 (e.g., reflective cloud formation), but the energy still has to go somewhere, since total cloud-cover hasn't increased all that much.

I don't know why, but most people don't seem to know that you can purchase what's called an Umbrella Policy from your current insurance agent that will protect you against frivolous lawsuits like this. The cost? $150 to $300 per year for up to $1 million of protection.

Here's a FAQ on it:

http://www.iii.org/individuals/auto/b/umbrella/

You're just crazy to risk pissing anyone off without such a policy. Think about it. For $300 per year you can feel confident that some jerk can't shut you up just because you can't defend your right to say truthful things. Instead, let your insurance company pay to defend you in court!

From what I understand, a number of homeowner's insurance policies provide coverage for slander and libel lawsuits.

quoting http://www.iii.org/individuals/homei/hbasics/whati sin/

"You can purchase an umbrella or excess liability policy which provides broader coverage, including claims against you for libel and slander, as well as higher liability limits. Generally, umbrella policies cost between $200 to $350 for $1 million of additional liability protection. "

Often times this coverage may already be included in the insurance policy. For those of you in a position to purchase these policies, I don't see a reason not to negotiate the libel protection. It sure would have helped these guys.