EU Parliament Adopts eCall Resolution

Sounds like a great idea. by gfm · 2012-07-03 16:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Considering all of the crazy technology we have in even the cheapest modern cars, it is amazing something like this isn't commonplace outside of high end systems like OnStar by now. Would love to see this in the US too.

Re:Sounds like a great idea. by Mashiki · 2012-07-03 18:39 · Score: 2

OnStar really isn't highend, it's standard on all GM cars. A lot of dealerships will install a compatible unit if you ask them for it too. Hell you can go down to your local Bestbuy(yeah I know) and buy the stand alone unit for your car actually. They sell it aftermarket for $299, though, it's now apparently $99 and then it's $18.95/mo for the service or $199/yr.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Sounds like a great idea. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 20:01 · Score: 1

Considering all of the crazy technology we have in even the cheapest modern cars, it is amazing something like this isn't commonplace outside of high end systems like OnStar by now. Would love to see this in the US too.
Screw that. The last thing we need is several hundred thousand reports of collisions next time a big hail storm blows through the midwest.
Re:Sounds like a great idea. by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-07-03 23:34 · Score: 1

Why not motorbikes?

Having come off twice, though thankfully neither involving serious injury, I can safely say that I would absolutely welcome this kind of system on a bike. The biggest concern I have is coming off on a bend and going through a hedge. If I fall unconscious or break bones, it could be days before someone finds me in the brush, especially if it's farmland left fallow (which all the best roads go past).

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Sounds like a great idea. by tehcyder · 2012-07-04 02:02 · Score: 1

Why not motorbikes? Having come off twice, though thankfully neither involving serious injury, I can safely say that I would absolutely welcome this kind of system on a bike. The biggest concern I have is coming off on a bend and going through a hedge. If I fall unconscious or break bones, it could be days before someone finds me in the brush, especially if it's farmland left fallow (which all the best roads go past).
I'm not sure whether it is a cool or a scary thing that you could go missing for days without anyone noticing.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Sounds like a great idea. by RobertLTux · 2012-07-04 03:18 · Score: 1

i think the problem is not that nobody would say Err anybody heard from %poster% lately?? but actually finding him before he has to be sent to see Dr Brennen. (ever tried to find anything in heavy brush??)

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Re:Sounds like a great idea. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 09:12 · Score: 0

Seriously? Every time we figure out a way to moderate our population, somebody comes along and screws it up! We should instead be finding ways of trimming the population, not making it live longer!
Re:Sounds like a great idea. by KingBenny · 2012-07-05 08:48 · Score: 1

yea, sounds like a decent idea, in 2011 there were 30,108 deaths in traffic in the EU (or so it says here , 2500 less wouldnt be half bad, i just wonder how that projection is made , it cant be statistical 'evidence' since the measure hasn't been implied yet.
few flaws in the plan maybe... the free of charge thing will mean in the end a slight increase in the price of a new car, to be paid by the buyer ofcourse. The you can't be monitored thing will mostly be true unless you've been branded potentially dangerous i suppose. The biggest flaw i see is that it's mandatory. Stuff like this should be a choice (andfree of charge) ... you can't trust people to learn to make decisions for their own good unless you actually let them decide, the pampering in this nanny state of mind does more damage than good in the long run imo, it's still enlightened despotism. e.g. the ban on smoking in bars is good for the health of people who don't smoke but it should have been and still has to be the choice of the owner of the bar wether he or she wants to allow it or not, it should not be compulsory, i've seen a lot of small businesses/bars go down since that lobby started moving. Can't all be the economic downfall. In times of need drug use rises, a lot of people drink at home. I don't think the evolution in the end is better for public health like that.
I wonder who got paid what by who before this thing got passed.

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?

Re:STUPID by gfm · 2012-07-03 16:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Every accident that happens in the middle of the day on the freeway results in 20 emergency calls (and the response system is more than adequate to deal with this fact). Accidents that happen on a dark windy road in the dead of night? Not so much.

I've got an idea by Compaqt · 2012-07-03 16:22 · Score: 2

We could save hundreds of thousands more lives if we just banned cars.

(If you're reading this from Brussels, don't make this the next "European Policy Initiative".)

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog

Re:I've got an idea by kdemetter · 2012-07-03 16:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actyally : less cars wouldn't be a bad idea to reduce the amount of accidents ( a lot of accidents happen due to traffic jams ).
But it doesn't need to be forced : ensure good public transportation, and people will use that instead of their cars.

--
Slipping shoelaces ?
Re:I've got an idea by drinkypoo · 2012-07-03 17:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

We really should do this, starting with the largest cities. Start with the largest vehicles and work your way down, adding in public transportation as cars are eliminated. I really love to drive, right until I get into some shitty city where you can't do it meaningfully anyway. And cities are fucking horrible really, but they would be wonderful without the cars. The "freedom" of driving is largely illusory. Your car can be taken away from you at the drop of a hat and even if you get it back without paying anything you're not going to get anything for the time you spent without it.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:I've got an idea by Belial6 · 2012-07-03 17:21 · Score: 2

This could easily be encourage by adjusting taxes so that companies pay more for on site workers than they do for telecommuters. Currently, the employees pay the full burden of the cost of commuting. This leads most companies to take a no telecommuting stance, since it brings unknown risk with little to no reward. Make the cost/reward situation better for businesses that promote telecommuting and you reduce the number of cars on the road while improving the quality of life of the populace.
Re:I've got an idea by blackpaw · 2012-07-03 18:20 · Score: 1

Agrarian lifestyles are very damaging for the environment - fields, irrigation, livestock (especially goats) etc. Hunter/Gather FTW!
Re:I've got an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 19:05 · Score: 1

Public transportation is polluting as well.
So you are saying that accidents are caused by pollution? Because the post you replied to was speaking about accidents, not about pollution.
Oh wait, I understand. You didn't really care about what he wrote, you just wanted to take the chance to whine about the evil environmentalists.
Re:I've got an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 19:51 · Score: 0

Hunter/Gatherer life styles are harmful to levels of other species which has a knock on effect on the environment. We need to genetically engineer a predator that preys on humans and introduce it into the food chain.
Re:I've got an idea by wvmarle · 2012-07-03 20:03 · Score: 2

Quite some cities (Amsterdam, Enschede and Den Haag in The Netherlands come to mind) do just that already. They build a large car park at the edge of the city, at the exit of the motorway, and run cheap and frequent shuttle buses or trams to the city centre.
If you really want you're still allowed to enter the city by car, but if you want to park it in the centre you have to deal with higher parking fees if you can find a place to park; traffic jams; and trying to find your way (most cities' street plans resemble a maze). Most of these transferiums as they're called are quite successful.
Re:I've got an idea by jez9999 · 2012-07-03 20:55 · Score: 1

Your car can be taken away from you at the drop of a hat and even if you get it back without paying anything you're not going to get anything for the time you spent without it.
The ability of the government to do that without ruining many people's lives is largely illusory. I know that for much of my life, if they had done that to me, I would likely have lost my job shortly thereafter (oh and don't talk about unfair dismissal rights - you only get them after 2 bloody years).

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:I've got an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 22:10 · Score: 0

Yes, but those aren't the accidents that tend to be fatal. Those tend to be annoyances as nobody's traveling fast enough to do any real damage.
Re:I've got an idea by f3rret · 2012-07-03 22:20 · Score: 1

Hunter/Gatherer life styles are harmful to levels of other species which has a knock on effect on the environment. We need to genetically engineer a predator that preys on humans and introduce it into the food chain.
Why genetically engineer it? Lots of stuff already eat humans if they can get away with it. Oh also humans are the natural predator of humans.

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Re:I've got an idea by tehcyder · 2012-07-04 03:26 · Score: 1

Many towns in the UK do park and ride schemes. Unfortunately, they are usually shit, and based purely around shopping hours so at night everyone just drives into the town/city instead. It's pointless parking your car five miles from the theatre/cinema/nightclub/restaurant you're visiting if the fucking shuttle bus stops at 8 o'clock at night, or whatever, so that you have to get a taxi back to your car.

What you really need are proper train and bus services that run all the time and don't cost more than the cost of petrol to get you somewhere.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:I've got an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 10:38 · Score: 0

Really what would want to eat humans when it can have pork? We need serious engineering to get some creature like that!

Think of the children... and of the NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 16:38 · Score: 0

Ma-ma-ma-ma-massive potential!!1

Every car has one? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 16:50 · Score: 1

Therefore every car has GPS. Therefore tracking every car, including yours, is trivial. The motive only appears to be altruistic.

Re:Every car has one? by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-07-03 16:56 · Score: 2

You are advocating luddism as a solution to a social problem. The social problem being that "they" think they have a right to track other people. Until you address that, you're just playing whack-a-mole, and with every smack of the hammer denying society access to the technology that's being used against it.

--
<xml><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></xml>
Re:Every car has one? by TubeSteak · 2012-07-03 17:13 · Score: 1

You wouldn't give a gun to someone you know is going to shoot you with it,
then claim their desire to kill you is a social problem,
and that being anti-gun is luddism.
Enabling mass tracking and surveillance of the citizenry is like handing a loaded gun to someone you know will use it.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Every car has one? by c0lo · 2012-07-03 17:14 · Score: 1

Therefore every car has GPS. Therefore tracking every car, including yours, is trivial. The motive only appears to be altruistic.
Huh? I was convinced my GPS unit only receives (no, I don't use my mobile as a GPS). When did they start to emit?

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:Every car has one? by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-07-03 17:34 · Score: 1

Well, if we're making up hypothetical situations...
If I needed somebody to protect me while I slept, I wouldn't give the gun to the person who wanted to kill me, I'd give it to someone who wanted to protect me. Even if my gun is the only gun in the world, and I destroy the gun, the person who wants to kill me will just do it with a knife. If I keep it for myself because I trust no one, they'll just kill me while I sleep. Truth be told, I'd rather be shot than stabbed, or strangled.
The problem is not the gun. The problem is that somebody wants to kill me. And I'm saying that if the people we would give this technology to will use it against us, we should replace those people with people who want to use it to help us, because my gun isn't the only gun in the world. The technology exists, that's a hard fact. The only question is how it's used.

--
<xml><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></xml>
Re:Every car has one? by Jeremi · 2012-07-03 18:13 · Score: 1

Huh? I was convinced my GPS unit only receives (no, I don't use my mobile as a GPS). When did they start to emit?
GPS units in general can be (and often are) receive-only, but of course if you want your car to automatically notify the authorities when you get into a bad accident, then the car will also need to be able send a signal to the authorities.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Every car has one? by SuricouRaven · 2012-07-03 18:20 · Score: 1

The GPS module only receieves, but this system also needs the ability to call for help in the event of an accident, which means it needs a mobile phone network interface as well. Same thing with onstar: GPS says where, but the cellphone net provides communication both ways.
Re:Every car has one? by Chrisq · 2012-07-03 18:21 · Score: 1

Therefore every car has GPS. Therefore tracking every car, including yours, is trivial. The motive only appears to be altruistic.
An one of these people who thinks that GPS sends signals to the satellites. GPS doesn't work that way, it only receives signals.
Re:Every car has one? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 19:14 · Score: 0

It should be trivial to make this device in a way that it only sends when an accident occurs. It would also be an advantage for mobile phone companies because otherwise all those devices would needlessly clog their towers.
Re:Every car has one? by wvmarle · 2012-07-03 20:08 · Score: 2

If it were the US government I'd be very sceptic indeed; the EU parliament is a lot better when it comes to privacy. I'm sure it's not that hard to design these things in a way that does not allow them to be used for surveillance or tracking.
Re:Every car has one? by jez9999 · 2012-07-03 21:02 · Score: 1

You are advocating luddism as a solution to a social problem. The social problem being that "they" think they have a right to track other people. Until you address that, you're just playing whack-a-mole, and with every smack of the hammer denying society access to the technology that's being used against it.
The trouble is it's hard to see any other solution. By their very nature, politicians tend to like control and surveillence, so I adopt the default position of not trusting them with my privacy. Even if the CURRENT lot are trustworthy, it's likely that some future politicians won't be. Don't give them more power than necessary, ever.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:Every car has one? by f3rret · 2012-07-03 22:27 · Score: 1

Therefore every car has GPS. Therefore tracking every car, including yours, is trivial. The motive only appears to be altruistic.
I don't get why this is problematic at all, I mean you are likely to appear on any number of traffic cams at different points during the day anyway, and if you have a cellphone your location is also logged.
The problem is, as it as always been, the huge amounts of data generated by large scale tracking like this makes it impossible to do anything with it in real-time unless you know specifically what to look for, and even if you do know it might not be that easy.
And trust me on this, nobody at the NSA, CIA or even FBI care about you. Hell even Google and Facebook are indifferent towards you and they make money off you.

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Re:Every car has one? by f3rret · 2012-07-03 22:28 · Score: 1

Enabling mass tracking and surveillance of the citizenry is like handing a loaded gun to someone you know will use it.
Mass tracking and surveillance was enabled as soon as we invented CCTV and cellphones.

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Re:Every car has one? by Hentes · 2012-07-03 22:59 · Score: 1

The system only activates in case of accidents, the only people who should fear of it tracking them are hit-and-runners.
Re:Every car has one? by Hognoxious · 2012-07-04 00:43 · Score: 1

Well it's a bit of a slippery slope argument - full of "could this" and "might do that".
On the other hand, it's best to avoid stepping onto them at all rather than trying to stop when you're accelerating at g sin(theta)...

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Every car has one? by tehcyder · 2012-07-04 03:41 · Score: 1

And trust me on this, nobody at the NSA, CIA or even FBI care about you. Hell even Google and Facebook are indifferent towards you and they make money off you.
You're really not trying hard enough to be paranoid. Everyone here knows that this is just the first step on the road to registering, licensing, tracking and remotely deactivating our tinfoil helmets.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

OnStar is a bug by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 16:52 · Score: 3, Informative

They can silently listen in on you. Court filings have shown that this is in fact being done. Merely having the hardware provides this ability; you need not be a subscriber. (thus I refuse to buy a vehicle with OnStar)

Re:OnStar is a bug by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-07-03 17:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, we could stifle technological progress in order to prevent things like this. Just think of all the privacy we'd have if electricity had been outlawed at the start!
Or, we could apply a system of checks and balances to address the root issue, which is that privacy is being violated, regardless of the means.

--
<xml><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></xml>
Re:OnStar is a bug by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 17:16 · Score: 1

They can silently listen in on you. Court filings have shown that this is in fact being done. Merely having the hardware provides this ability; you need not be a subscriber. (thus I refuse to buy a vehicle with OnStar)
citation needed.
Re:OnStar is a bug by MightyMartian · 2012-07-03 17:42 · Score: 4, Funny

Translation: I don't want everyone to know that I frequent conspiracy theorist sites.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:OnStar is a bug by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-07-03 18:09 · Score: 1

This was all over the news, and is a matter of public record. Do some googling, you'd have to be a conspiracy theorist to claim that it isn't true given the volume of consistent coverage by reputable publications, up to and including the New York Times.

--
<xml><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></xml>
Re:OnStar is a bug by SuricouRaven · 2012-07-03 18:13 · Score: 1

I see no reason you couldn't buy one with OnStar. A few simple cut wires should disable it.
Re:OnStar is a bug by jamesh · 2012-07-03 18:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

"citation needed."
Look it up yourself you lazy cunt.
I'm sick of you lazy fucktards who cannot be bothered to spend 10 seconds on Google.
Hell no. If I had to go and google every crackpot theory every retard on the internet cites as fact I'd never get anything done. Why don't you spend 10 seconds pasting a link and save everyone else the time. This has the added bonus that when we see that your citation is theonion.com we can laugh at you instead of wasting time reading it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (and potty mouth retorts don't count as evidence, no matter how many expletives you might use).
I should add that I am fully prepared to believe that your claims might be true, they certainly sound plausible, but i'm not going to waste time listening to the ramblings of some AC that was too lazy to provide evidence and too gutless to put their name to them.
Re:OnStar is a bug by MachDelta · 2012-07-03 18:41 · Score: 3, Informative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar#Use_as_surveillance_device
Short version: It's possible in theory, but the design is supposed to guarantee several forms of notification (both visible and audible) if someone is listening in. If you had physical access to the vehicle, you could disable the notifications though. So in crack-pot theory land, it's doable; in reality, it probably hasn't and won't ever happen.
IAAFM (former mechanic), and yes I had heard of this when OnStar was introduced. Now you two play nice :)
Re:OnStar is a bug by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 18:46 · Score: 0

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html
Re:OnStar is a bug by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-07-03 19:00 · Score: 1

Have you ever looked at the wiring of a car made in the last 5 years? There are so many wires going to so many places you need a mechanic's manual specific to that model/year of car (usually you can only buy "packages" of manuals, and NOT for cheap!), a box of wire labels and a continuity tester with 10 feet of wire on it. Then you have to start removing all the corrugated wire-wrap, zip-ties, black-box wire management modules and wiring harnesses and that car companies seem to have a fetish for. Good Luck!
Re:OnStar is a bug by sjames · 2012-07-03 19:39 · Score: 4, Informative

OnStar says it can't be done, yet the FBI was granted a warrant to do exactly that. On appeal the 9th circuit determined that issuing the warrant was improper. So, who do I believe, the FBI (for whom the information is adverse) and the courts, or OnStar who would obviously like to tell us it isn't possible?
Weighing those sources, I'm more inclined to believe it can be done.
OnStar does admit that they get tracking data even when the call button isn't pressed and that they can do so even if you cancel the service. Bottom line, if you want privacy in your vehicle, remove the OnStar system.
I am also a former mechanic though I stuck to small engines and commercial trucks..
Re:OnStar is a bug by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 20:12 · Score: 1

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/03/11/20/1413237/roadside-assistance-system-used-for-eavesdropping
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/03/12/29/2358236/onstar-considered-harmful
This has been discussed here before, links have been posted. It's been on the news, it's been in the court systems, ruling have been made. There is nothing extraordinary about the claim at this point, it's established fact. As stated, you're simply being stubborn and lazy, and we shouldn't have to constantly repeat ourselves.
Here are some "crackpot theory" sites to get you started.
http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041127/news_lz1d27onstar.html
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/12/auditory_eavesd.html
Again, 10 seconds on Google and you'd have figured this out for yourself. It's one thing to ask for citations on a new issue, but this has been hashed out for months now. Pull your head out of your ass, cunt.
Re:OnStar is a bug by just_a_monkey · 2012-07-03 20:28 · Score: 2

Wouldn't it have been easier to just put up a link (especially since they are so easy to find; I mean, we're apparently talking ten seconds here) instead of writing several messages on how you knowledgeable people are not going to put up a link and everyone should just google for it?

--
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
Re:OnStar is a bug by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 21:15 · Score: 0

In the one case, the lazy people get their link and don't learn how to use Google.
In the other case, the lazy people get their link and learn something new.
It appears his version is a win.
Re:OnStar is a bug by nstlgc · 2012-07-03 21:23 · Score: 1

Burden of proof lies with the person making the statement, Anonymous Coward.

--
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
Re:OnStar is a bug by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 21:40 · Score: 0

Well, we could stifle technological "progress" in order to prevent infringement of privacy.
Or, we could put CCTV in every house (where most nasty things happen, after all) with the cameras connected to government computers. And then apply a system of checks and balances to stop it being abused.
1) Putting tech somewhere isn't automatically progress;
2) A government push to install tech which can be used to snoop is hardly ever progress;
3) Humans are inherently bound to corruption and should never be given too much power. The way of addressing the "root issue" is to realise this and make sure that no group of humans have the means to amass too much power.
Stop thinking like a freshman engineer. Not every solution answers a problem. Not every problem has a technical solution.
Re:OnStar is a bug by f3rret · 2012-07-03 21:55 · Score: 1

I don't know anything about OnStar. But as far as I can eCall doesn't actually allow you to talk to anyone, so there wont be a mic in the car.
If I understand it correctly then what this eCall system does is record your position and in case the system detects a crash of some sort it sends off a notice to the emergency services saying " crashed at "

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Re:OnStar is a bug by f3rret · 2012-07-03 21:58 · Score: 1

"citation needed."
Look it up yourself you lazy cunt.
I'm sick of you lazy fucktards who cannot be bothered to spend 10 seconds on Google.
You were the one who made the claim, burden of proof lies with you.
Your argument is the equivalent of a physicist saying: "Through rigorous study I have determined that 90% of the universe is in fact a hologram." and when asked to show his work he says "Do the math yourself you lazy cunt. I'm sick of you lazy fucktards who cannot be bothered to do the math yourselves."

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Re:OnStar is a bug by Savage-Rabbit · 2012-07-03 22:08 · Score: 1

"citation needed."
Look it up yourself you lazy cunt.
I'm sick of you lazy fucktards who cannot be bothered to spend 10 seconds on Google.
Hell no. If I had to go and google every crackpot theory every retard on the internet cites as fact I'd never get anything done. Why don't you spend 10 seconds pasting a link and save everyone else the time. This has the added bonus that when we see that your citation is theonion.com we can laugh at you instead of wasting time reading it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (and potty mouth retorts don't count as evidence, no matter how many expletives you might use).
I agree with him, "citation needed" is overused. One of the wikipedia guidelines i read said it means "I don't believe you, please privise a source" but my experience shows that often it really does means more like "I don't believe you but because I'm a lazy fucktard who can't be bothered to do a simple web search somebody else should fix this". The vast majority of "citation needed" taggings that I have fixed on wikipedia (and I have fixed a bunch of them) were doable in less than five minutes, usually way less. Nobody is asking you to refute every crackpot conspiracy theory out there but surely you can sacrifice a few minutes of your time once in a while to do a simple web search and see if you can easily provide a fix before dropping yet another "citation needed" tag in a wikipedia entry.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Re:OnStar is a bug by jamesh · 2012-07-03 23:03 · Score: 1

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (and potty mouth retorts don't count as evidence, no matter how many expletives you might use).
I agree with him, "citation needed" is overused. One of the wikipedia guidelines i read said it means "I don't believe you, please privise a source" but my experience shows that often it really does means more like "I don't believe you but because I'm a lazy fucktard who can't be bothered to do a simple web search somebody else should fix this". The vast majority of "citation needed" taggings that I have fixed on wikipedia (and I have fixed a bunch of them) were doable in less than five minutes, usually way less. Nobody is asking you to refute every crackpot conspiracy theory out there but surely you can sacrifice a few minutes of your time once in a while to do a simple web search and see if you can easily provide a fix before dropping yet another "citation needed" tag in a wikipedia entry.
IMHO it's underused, especially on wikipedia. Making statements without providing sources is pure laziness. Anyone can write crap on wikipedia (evidence: wikipedia ;), it's the research that is where the actual effort is, and the research should be done by the submitter not the reader. I also find the attitude of "i'll just say whatever the hell I want and if anyone asks for proof i'll just scream profanity at them and claim that they are lazy, and maybe throw in a bit of 'suck it up princess' in there too" kind of dumb. If it was once in a while it would be fine but it's not.
Re:OnStar is a bug by AmiMoJo · 2012-07-03 23:03 · Score: 2

Or, we could apply a system of checks and balances to address the root issue, which is that privacy is being violated, regardless of the means.
Politicians always promise "checks and balances" but then always make them either too weak or just remove them at a later date. For example when Icelandic banks started to collapse the UK used anti-terror legislation that was supposed to contain "checks and balances" to freeze their assets.
The only solution seems to be to remove temptation by not allowing the system to be installed in the first place. I wish it were not so, but it is.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:OnStar is a bug by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 23:19 · Score: 0

Just an observation here:
The pent-up anger that has you hurling expletives because someone asked for a link is a sign that you desperately need a change in your life. At the very least, consider getting some physical exercise. Seriously. You'll end up old and angry and wondering why you spent your life that way.
Re:OnStar is a bug by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 23:20 · Score: 0

And I'm sick of lazy fucktards who pull things out of their ass and expect everyone else to either accept it as fact or spend time researching it. Of course, everyone should check the facts for themselves, but if you make an argument, you back it up; otherwise, STFU.
Re:OnStar is a bug by Savage-Rabbit · 2012-07-04 00:12 · Score: 1

IMHO it's underused, especially on wikipedia. Making statements without providing sources is pure laziness. Anyone can write crap on wikipedia (evidence: wikipedia ;), it's the research that is where the actual effort is, and the research should be done by the submitter not the reader. I also find the attitude of "i'll just say whatever the hell I want and if anyone asks for proof i'll just scream profanity at them and claim that they are lazy, and maybe throw in a bit of 'suck it up princess' in there too" kind of dumb. If it was once in a while it would be fine but it's not.
No, wikipedia is not a community divided into contributors ans dobters. Everybody can contribute. If you have enough expertise on the subject of a wikipedia atricle to feel comfortable in doubting its truthfulness, contribute to the community by trying to fix the error before dropping a "citation needed" tag. Is that too much to ask? Most of the time fixing does not take that much more time than injecting a "citation needed" tag.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Re:OnStar is a bug by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 00:16 · Score: 1

>Weighing those sources, I'm more inclined to believe it can be done.
Weighing those sources, I'm more inclined to believe it was already done.
FTFY
Re:OnStar is a bug by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 00:40 · Score: 0

For example when Icelandic banks started to collapse the UK used anti-terror legislation that was supposed to contain "checks and balances" to freeze their assets.
That was just quick thinking on our part, to try and protect our small savers from cheating bastard Icelandic con men.

Personally, I think we should have nuked the fuckers back during the Cod War, then all this mess would have been avoided.
Re:OnStar is a bug by AngryDeuce · 2012-07-04 00:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

I can totally understand your sentiment, but at the same time, I can understand being frustrated by the pedantic "citation needed" bullshit, it's just more of of that deliberately obtuse affectation that makes it so hard to have a productive conversation these days. That guy didn't want any citations so he could learn something, he wanted a citation so he could find some reason, ANY reason, to refute it. This is how all controversial posts are here on slashdot anymore. Hell, that's how controversial subjects are ANYWHERE these days, not just here. So many people don't ask for citations for proof anymore, they ask for citations so they can attack them and reinforce their own presuppositions. From the start, that guy was antagonistic towards the idea that OnStar could be being used illegitimately, something that has been in the news many times over the last few years. I doubt a citation from the goddamned FBI themselves saying they do exactly what is being claimed here would have been accepted as fact.
Re:OnStar is a bug by snspdaarf · 2012-07-04 00:42 · Score: 1

I haven't tried this, because my On Star is an analog system installed when GM already knew the cellular system was changing to digital and they were using up stock of non-upgradeable equipment so I am immune, but why could you not disconnect the antenna and put on a dummy load? It probably would not have the range to hit an cell site if you were parked beside the tower, and would be reversible.

--
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Re:OnStar is a bug by tehcyder · 2012-07-04 00:45 · Score: 1

So in crack-pot theory land, it's doable; in reality, it probably hasn't and won't ever happen.
That's no way to talk about the internet!

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:OnStar is a bug by AngryDeuce · 2012-07-04 00:47 · Score: 1

Agreed. I also try to provide citations for the "citation needed" tags when I run across them, and often times it's a simple matter of searching the fucking sentence that was tagged in Google. It takes barely more time than it does to edit the article and insert the tag, but that wouldn't be as fun as dismissing it out of hand, I guess.
Re:OnStar is a bug by tehcyder · 2012-07-04 01:04 · Score: 2

If the FBI use this to catch serious criminals, like Muslims, trades unionists and marry-jew-wanna users, who cares what notional "rights" they are trampling on?

If you're not a criminal, you've got nothing to worry about anyway. I think there's a lot of liberal atheist pedos here getting worried for good reason.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:OnStar is a bug by tehcyder · 2012-07-04 01:15 · Score: 1

Pull your head out of your ass, cunt.
Says the AC who is too lazy/stupid to provide clickable links.

Look up the A HREF tag on Google. Should only take 10 seconds or so.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:OnStar is a bug by tehcyder · 2012-07-04 01:18 · Score: 2

Er, this is Slashdot, not Wikipedia.

Its meaning as a Slashdot meme/bit of shorthand is not quite the same as its use on Wikipedia. There is always an implication here that the claim is implausible without strong evidence. It's one step removed from calling someone an actual liar, but the hint is there.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:OnStar is a bug by tehcyder · 2012-07-04 01:54 · Score: 1

Your argument is the equivalent of a physicist saying: "Through rigorous study I have determined that 90% of the universe is in fact a hologram." and when asked to show his work he says "Do the math yourself you lazy cunt. I'm sick of you lazy fucktards who cannot be bothered to do the math yourselves."
AKA The Time-Cube-Guy defence.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:OnStar is a bug by causality · 2012-07-04 14:15 · Score: 1

Wouldn't it have been easier to just put up a link (especially since they are so easy to find; I mean, we're apparently talking ten seconds here) instead of writing several messages on how you knowledgeable people are not going to put up a link and everyone should just google for it?
No. It's not about being "knowledgable". This isn't something information alone can fix. Intellectual laziness is a character flaw. As such, it should never be supported, validated, or made to feel comfortable. There is no need to condemn it. Just not aiding it is enough.

You're not doing the person any favor at all by coddling their faults.

It's unfortunate that most people won't look at themselves and work to change faults because they should be changed, because they want to be better people, because they want to more thoroughly enjoy and appreciate their lives. Instead, they usually need a selfish reason, like missing out on information people without the fault are enjoying. Otherwise they make excuses and act like spoon-fed information is something you owe to them, like there's something wrong with refusing to cater to their weaknesses. Like what you're doing.

For something like a link, it's not so significant. For more serious problems, it's the same principles in action, working in concert to make the world the place full of self-centered, self-important, short-sighted, entitled people that it is. Some of us have more sense than that and are "voting with our feet" for something better.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:OnStar is a bug by Goaway · 2012-07-04 22:51 · Score: 1

It is pretty hard to argue why putting automatic emergency call systems in cars wouldn't be progress.
Maybe you enjoy dying when your car crashes, and would prefer to keep doing that?
Re:OnStar is a bug by MightyMartian · 2012-07-05 06:19 · Score: 1

Do you think this voluminous bluster actually makes you look better. You made a claim, you repeatedly refused to back it up, and now you actually call other people lazy?
Pathetic.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:OnStar is a bug by causality · 2012-07-05 10:28 · Score: 1

Do you think this voluminous bluster actually makes you look better. You made a claim, you repeatedly refused to back it up, and now you actually call other people lazy?
Pathetic.
I made no previous claim. There is nothing for me to back up. The post to which you have replied is my opinion. That prior post plus this one are my only two posts in this entire thread. Perhaps while puffing up with indignation, you have confused me with someone else?

Otherwise it's amazing how angry and upset people get when you suggest that they can educate themselves. It's almost as though telling them they're helpless victims who can never better themselves would make them happy. Or is it the identification of character flaws, the ease with which they are recognizable, that makes you so uncomfortable that you have to lash out in anger? Security is not just for computers.

Incidentally, to confuse me with another poster because you could not be bothered to even glance up at the username is ... lazy. If you want to make more judgments like "pathetic" it will confirm for me that something I said hit home.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

Re:STUPID by kdemetter · 2012-07-03 16:54 · Score: 1

So you are angry because people care enough to call 911 ?

--
Slipping shoelaces ?

Best for supervision of all traffic by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 16:57 · Score: 0

Just add telecommunication data retention for mobile phones (the on board unit), the possibility to switch on the device from the remote and your car isnt a private place any more but perfectly supervised by state secret service...

They know where your drive, when, and can switch on the device to listen to all what you are talking...

Re:Every passing motorist already calls emerg. svc by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-07-03 16:58 · Score: 1

Even better than that, let's just make everyone immortal! Problem solved!

--
<xml><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></xml>

Re:Every passing motorist already calls emerg. svc by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-07-03 16:58 · Score: 1

The only
people it will save are those who crash with nobody else around.

I've never been to Europe but I have trouble imagining it looks like Coruscant.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

Re:STUPID by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-07-03 17:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Try to remember this post when you're upside-down in a ditch with two broken arms at 3 AM on a country road.

Me? I'll gladly pay $500 extra dollars per car even if only one in a hundred people ever go through that experience. I know a hundred people, and I don't think any of them should spend a minute more in that ditch than they have to.

--
<xml><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></xml>

Re:STUPID by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-07-03 17:05 · Score: 1

Not even you.

--
<xml><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></xml>

Re:STUPID by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-07-03 17:06 · Score: 0

So you are angry because people care enough to call 911 ?

He's angry because poo-poo'ing something routinely gets you the word "insightful" next to your comment and it didn't occur to him before the mad rush to hit the 'post' button that a more solid complaint would be about privacy/tracking.

This is what the Slashdot moderation system buys you.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

Re:Every passing motorist already calls emerg. svc by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 17:11 · Score: 0

Even better than that, let's just make everyone immortal! Problem solved!

Given the fact a dead cannot die a second time, I suggest we kill every motorist. Or ask them politely to commit suicide.

Great by AcesDnied · 2012-07-03 17:13 · Score: 1

One of the many reasons I don't own a cell phone is so I don't have to worry about being tracked or listened to. 99.9% of the conversations I have on the phone are at work and only have to do with work. I know I'm not the only one holding out on buying a cell phone, for whatever reason. So, we'll have GPS in every car... Mandated... Once we accept the need, because of emergency, we'll soon be forced to deal with the realities of being tracked where ever our vehicle goes. It takes 30 minutes to get to work by car. I smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. A bicycle is a little out of the question... I guess I'll just have to start rebuilding cars that predate the mandate and are excluded. Cash for clunkers seemed like such a great idea at the time... Also, how do they plan to offset the expense of paying more medics to be on call, the increase in the number of ambulances needed, the number of cops that have to show up to the scene of an accident that might have happened on public property, where they can't even do anything if nobody was injured... We're already having a hard enough time paying our public servants to deal with the shit they already have to deal with. And who gets the contract to supply all these devices? Will they be manufactured in China with compromised chips like we're seeing with so many of our current electronics? You guys are already being video taped everywhere you go, and now your car will have GPS... How easy it will be for investigators to consider anybody to be a suspect that was in the general area a crime occurred? It sounds like it would be good for police because they could narrow the suspects down to just a select few to begin with, but do you want to possibly be harassed by the police for something that didn't involve you in any way? We already have plenty of people who are being found innocent of crimes they supposedly committed 15 or 20 years ago. I say fuck your tracking. As many citizens as possible should remove their bullshit mandated tracking devices and refuse to pay inspection taxes until they retract this law. A government run with no money. Too bad I didn't think of it first...

Re:Great by f3rret · 2012-07-03 22:33 · Score: 1

One of the many reasons I don't own a cell phone is so I don't have to worry about being tracked or listened to. 99.9% of the conversations I have on the phone are at work and only have to do with work. I know I'm not the only one holding out on buying a cell phone, for whatever reason.
So, we'll have GPS in every car... Mandated... Once we accept the need, because of emergency, we'll soon be forced to deal with the realities of being tracked where ever our vehicle goes. It takes 30 minutes to get to work by car. I smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. A bicycle is a little out of the question... I guess I'll just have to start rebuilding cars that predate the mandate and are excluded. Cash for clunkers seemed like such a great idea at the time...
Also, how do they plan to offset the expense of paying more medics to be on call, the increase in the number of ambulances needed, the number of cops that have to show up to the scene of an accident that might have happened on public property, where they can't even do anything if nobody was injured... We're already having a hard enough time paying our public servants to deal with the shit they already have to deal with.
And who gets the contract to supply all these devices? Will they be manufactured in China with compromised chips like we're seeing with so many of our current electronics?
You guys are already being video taped everywhere you go, and now your car will have GPS... How easy it will be for investigators to consider anybody to be a suspect that was in the general area a crime occurred? It sounds like it would be good for police because they could narrow the suspects down to just a select few to begin with, but do you want to possibly be harassed by the police for something that didn't involve you in any way? We already have plenty of people who are being found innocent of crimes they supposedly committed 15 or 20 years ago.
I say fuck your tracking. As many citizens as possible should remove their bullshit mandated tracking devices and refuse to pay inspection taxes until they retract this law. A government run with no money. Too bad I didn't think of it first...
Dude, you're just one lost marble from moving into the woods to work on your manifesto aren't you?
What I am saying is you're sounding kinda crazy and I think you might wanna consider finding some help.

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Re:Great by tehcyder · 2012-07-04 03:55 · Score: 1

One of the many reasons I don't own a cell phone is so I don't have to worry about being tracked or listened to. 99.9% of the conversations I have on the phone are at work and only have to do with work
Unless the other 0.1% of calls involve buying child porn, arranging suicide bombings or buying large quantities of illegal narcotics, I really wouldn't worry too much about anyone being interested in what you're saying on your phone.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Great by robsku · 2012-07-08 03:28 · Score: 1

My thoughts exactly.

--
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.

That's awfully Anti-Republican Of You by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 17:13 · Score: 0

It wont fly here in the US of A. We have God to protect us from you socialists ideals. And Mitt, the demo-god of the GOP. And G stands for God, dammit!

Re:That's awfully Anti-Republican Of You by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 17:25 · Score: 0

It wont fly here in the US of A. We have God to protect us from you socialists ideals. And Mitt, the demo-god of the GOP. And G stands for God, dammit!
God Old Party? Sounds about right.

Re:STUPID by AcesDnied · 2012-07-03 17:15 · Score: 0, Troll

Fine, pay for your own service. Don't fucking mandate that we all must purchase it. Are there fines if you disconnect your emergency tracking beacon?

Same thing but in the U.S... by pitchpipe · 2012-07-03 17:16 · Score: 4, Funny

"The in-vehicle eCall system uses 911 emergency call technology to alert the police automatically to the location of the smell of marijuana. This should aid in the war on drugs and reduce terrorism by enabling qualified and equipped homeland security agents to get to the scene within the "golden hour" of the first toke, says the resolution. The eCall system could save up to 2,500 politicians jobs a year and reduce corruption inquiries by 10 to 15%, it adds."

--
Look where all this talking got us, baby.

Re:Same thing but in the U.S... by AcesDnied · 2012-07-03 17:21 · Score: 1

But if you're smoking out of a pipe shaped like a gun they have to run and hide and call the real police...
Re:Same thing but in the U.S... by Osgeld · 2012-07-03 17:50 · Score: 1

If you get ever slighty sassy with them they have to run and hide and call the real police...
worthless rent-a-cops

Re:STUPID by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 17:20 · Score: 0

Try to remember this post when you're upside-down in a ditch with two broken arms at 3 AM on a country road.

Me? I'll gladly pay $500 extra dollars per car even if only one in a hundred people ever go through that experience. I know a hundred people, and I don't think any of them should spend a minute more in that ditch than they have to.

I know a few people who could use some time in a ditch.

Re:STUPID by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 17:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Fine, pay for your own service.

The same argument could be made for seat belts. In both cases it ignores the fact that an accident affects not only the people inside the vehicle but also everyone who who wants to use the road and the public services aren't free either. So it isn't difficult to make an argument that if you're going to drive a heavy box of metal at high speeds you should take a few steps to minimize damage.

And if you're worried about being tracked I hope you don't use a cellphone. Still, the thing should be required to not track anyone, or be open-source.

Re:STUPID by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-07-03 17:43 · Score: 1

If it were up to me, no there wouldn't be fines if you voluntarily disconnect the beacon, provided you notify your passengers that you're taking on more than the minimum possible amount of responsibility for their lives because you'd rather live off the grid than address the issue of corruption that motivates your desire to live off the grid, and you feel that your desire to take the easy way out is more important than the possibility of their avoidable death.

The problem you seem to be having trouble with is that you live in a society. If more people, or a few more powerful people than you, want something different than what you want... well, I think you can see where this is going. I'd say that if you don't like the society you're in you should form your own, but there just ain't a lot of empty spaces on this planet anymore. As the song says, you can't always get what you want.

--
<xml><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></xml>

Re:STUPID by MightyMartian · 2012-07-03 17:43 · Score: 0

That's because the guys at the top of the pole keep giving simpering morons with the intellectual capacity of used toilet paper mod points. That, of course, and sociopathic Libertarians, but I repeat myself.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:STUPID by MightyMartian · 2012-07-03 17:45 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Fine, die in the ditch. If I was buying a car for one of my kids, I'd pretty much insist it be there, but for you, I'd gladly see you bleed to death because of your bizarre version of "principles" (which is really more likely undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenia).

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

it will about balance itself by jarkus4 · 2012-07-03 17:45 · Score: 2

I guess it may help some people that crash in some remote place in the night (so basically where none would report it anyway).
Unfortunately it solves pretty much the wrong problem. The biggest issue with help is not that it is not notified in time, but that it cant arrive in time. There is not enough ambulances and they often have to travel vast distance to help. Adding new source of calls wont help.
Whats more they will now get more distracting calls from accidents that are resolved by participants or cops (no serious injuries - sensors cant tell about this) or even completely bogus from defective cars, so the ambulances will move around needlessly at some times (likely failing to help some extra people due to extra distance).

Re:it will about balance itself by angel'o'sphere · 2012-07-03 21:36 · Score: 1

Erm, are you talking about this from an american perspective or from an european?
There are not many places in europe that are as isolated as you describe.
And on top of that we have lots of ambulance helicopters.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:it will about balance itself by SandorZoo · 2012-07-04 01:48 · Score: 1

Whats more they will now get more distracting calls from accidents that are resolved by participants or cops (no serious injuries - sensors cant tell about this) or even completely bogus from defective cars, so the ambulances will move around needlessly at some times (likely failing to help some extra people due to extra distance).
There's a fair amount of information you can get from sensors that can be used to predict the severity of injuries - the number occupants and in which seats, the crash severity and direction, which airbags deployed, the seat belt status, if the car rolled over, etc. A lot of this is already monitored anyway, so you don't even need new sensors.
One documentary I watched about reasearch into this subject (probably Horizon's Surviving a Car Crash) said they were getting surprisingly accurate predictions of the injuries.

cue fearmongering in 3... 2... by Tom · 2012-07-03 17:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Allow me to sum up the first 5000 or so comments:

The sky is falling! They want to track us all! It's an evil government scheme for total surveilance! You are going to be monitored, it's Big Brother all over again. I thought it was 2012 and not 1984?
What for? Nobody ever gets into a car crash with nobody else around, especially in Europe. It's all a ploy by car manufacturers to sell something we don't need for a huge markup. Follow the money!
I don't want that in my car! The RF/EM/ESP/GPS/energy emissions will cause cancer! It's an evil alien ploy to... I don't know. Where's my tinfoil hat?

Oh yeah, it's an evil conspiracy. Sure. "They" will monitor every car in the world through this, because... uh... no idea.

Funny how geeks have become innovation-phobic. It used to be the other way around.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Re:cue fearmongering in 3... 2... by AcesDnied · 2012-07-03 18:09 · Score: 1

So do my posts make you a prophet, a profit, or logical?
Re:cue fearmongering in 3... 2... by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-07-03 19:36 · Score: 1

Hilarious.

Insurance companies will use the data from these devices to get out of paying for insurance claims, regardless of fault.

"So the other party was drunk, texting on their phone while applying make-up, driving 20MPH over the speed limit and also getting 'satisfaction' from his partner? Well I'm certainly sorry, but the log shows you didn't indicate on your approach to the junction. You could have avoided this whole thing. We're not paying for your medical costs or the damage to your car. Sorry to hear you can't walk anymore."

A little melodramatic maybe, but don't pretend it won't happen.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:cue fearmongering in 3... 2... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 19:58 · Score: 1

Or maybe it's, "Funny how geeks, who have a good grasp of technology, can see the implications of it's implementation"?
Also, we pay attention enough to see that the past actions of most governments result in steady eroding of our rights.
No, what am I saying? We must all suddenly be Luddites.
Re:cue fearmongering in 3... 2... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 22:33 · Score: 0

Perhaps it is because these geeks have worked to implement this stuff in the past?
I've had to do some unethical privacy encroaching things in the past.
But I agree, it's probably a profit motive. Somewhere there's a lobbyist working to sell their onstar crap. Somewhere there's someone working out a plan to adjust billboards to advertise just the right products as you drive by, and somewhere someone is working out a plan to sell police more electronic monitoring software to track people.
Either way, the result is the same.
Re:cue fearmongering in 3... 2... by Rogerborg · 2012-07-03 23:00 · Score: 1

Or perhaps we've just been following the EU more closely than you?
Just for example, MEP Kerstin Westphal recently pencilled in an amendment to mandate ABS on 125cc scooters just as the rubber stamp was descending on yet another Fun Ist Verboten Directive. Completely co-incidentally, Ms Westphal had just been on a "fact finding trip" to the Bosch ABS production facility in Bamberg, where she learned the fact that Bosch is ready to sell a new ABS system for scooters, and so a market needed to be created for it.
Sorry, I interrupted you in mid sneer. Do please carry on.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:cue fearmongering in 3... 2... by Tom · 2012-07-04 00:42 · Score: 1

Just for example
Sorry, anecdotal evidence isn't. No matter how outlandish and insane a conspiracy theory, I am sure you can always find at least one anecdote that strongly supports it.
I'm sure there is corruption and lobbyism at the EU level. In fact, I would be very much surprised if there weren't. At the same time, there are reasonable decisions made (if you need an anecdote: The rejection of ACTA by every subcommittee discussing it).

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:cue fearmongering in 3... 2... by Tom · 2012-07-04 00:44 · Score: 1

Somewhere there's someone working out a plan to adjust billboards to advertise just the right products as you drive by, and somewhere someone is working out a plan to sell police more electronic monitoring software to track people.
Just what I supposed would follow as arguments.
You magically missed pretty much every important word in the original, didn't you? Like "emergency" and "crash"?
Yours is the classical strawman, related to the original proposal through a family tree that would put european noble families to shame, such a remote relative that DNA testing wouldn't show it.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:cue fearmongering in 3... 2... by Tom · 2012-07-04 00:50 · Score: 1

Strawman, and one so horrible you really need to go back to "bad rhetorics 101".
Last I checked, we were talking about a device that monitors for a crash (you already have a dozen sensors like that in your car essentially doing that, like the ones that deploy the airbags) and then calling 911 so an ambulence can be dispatched to your location.
You are thinking about some remote possibility that one could do with similar technology. Basically, you're saying that we should make cars illegal because you want to prevent World War III and tanks also use combustion engines. You are ignoring that there is much more technology needed, you can't turn a VW Beetle into an M1 Abrahams easily (in fact, it'd be easier to build an M1 from scratch) and that tanks are only a small part of the thing you're afraid of.
If you are afraid of constant monitoring by the government and/or your insurance company, there are dozens of other things you should worry a lot more about than this.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:cue fearmongering in 3... 2... by tehcyder · 2012-07-04 04:01 · Score: 1

I've had to do some unethical privacy encroaching things in the past.
Why have you had to? Were you forced at gunpoint? Had your children threatened with torture?

If you let base economic reasons, or just plain laziness, supersede your own personal ethics, you are a failed human being.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Awesome by Osgeld · 2012-07-03 17:47 · Score: 1

who's going to pay for it?

Re:Awesome by Jeremi · 2012-07-03 18:08 · Score: 1

who's going to pay for it?
People who buy new cars in Europe?

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Awesome by phantomfive · 2012-07-03 18:46 · Score: 1

In a cheap, $10,000 car, this will probably add less than $100 to the final price.

So you will, if you buy a car in Europe.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Awesome by Osgeld · 2012-07-03 19:01 · Score: 1

what about service? radio aint free anymore
Re:Awesome by wvmarle · 2012-07-03 19:49 · Score: 1

Use the emergency call service of any available mobile network.
Already when your phone is without SIM, or when you don't have your home network or a roaming network available, it will use any other available network to allow for emergency calls. This one as it's automatic will likely use SMS service, maybe data.
All this system needs to have is a GPS receiver and a SIM-less mobile phone, both are cheap. Add an impact detection (link to the air bags?) and have the whole thing ruggedised, and you're set.
Re:Awesome by robsku · 2012-07-08 03:42 · Score: 1

what about service? radio aint free anymore
This is not USA, remember? Emergency calls are always free, you just need a connection with any cell tower.

--
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.

Re:Every passing motorist already calls emerg. svc by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 17:57 · Score: 0

Especially since Natalie Portman doesn't live in Europe, AFAIK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman

Re:STUPID by Greyfox · 2012-07-03 18:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

I know 100 people who need to spend some time in a ditch *smacks fist into hand*.

You know this is just an excuse to install a GPS in every car. Then once they've done that, automatic speed enforcement! Bam!

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Re:STUPID by TrimTabTim · 2012-07-03 18:06 · Score: 2

If you bore the entire costs of your stupidity i wouldn't care if you lived or died dude.

But when shaving an hour off the medical response time to reach you could reduce the severity of your spinal injury, and save the public millions in slashing your long term care costs - it does become a public problem. 1. You don't cost anyone money when you are healthy. 2. You are only free to be stupid only when we - your fellow humans on earth - aren't on the hook to pay the price for your actions.

Otherwise chill and be cool: Wear your seat belt. Don't murder people. Don't steal things. Get insurance. Don't become a paraplegic. These things all mitigate the possible harm you can cause ME. Your freedom must not come at the expense of mine, and it does damage my freedoms when I must pay higher insurance rates and taxes to pay for your sorry ass.

There's an app for that . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-07-03 18:13 · Score: 1

. . . if the motion detector registers serious jolts or shaking that could only be the results of an accident, it automatically calls 112. Just remember to turn it off when you engage is any extreme sports. Hell, why not just plug your phone into the car, and let the car use your own phone to do the calling?

I hate it when devices are made mandatory. They always end up being piss-poor quality, designed by bureaucrat committees. If private companies can offer these things instead, with no "must" behind it, they will come up with something cheap that folks will buy on their own. Look at car GPS navigation systems, and think about what they might have looked like, if a government decided how they were to be built. Hurl.

I think the EU Parliament must be located in some sleazy Amsterdam space cake bar. Strong shit you get there . . .

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

Re:There's an app for that . . . by tsa · 2012-07-03 19:17 · Score: 1

ABS (anti lock brakes) are also mandatory in cars here, and seatbelts. They usually work, because they are nod designed by the government. Why would the goventment design them? They just mandate some technology that does something, and let the manufacturers figure out how to make that.

--
-- Cheers!
Re:There's an app for that . . . by angel'o'sphere · 2012-07-03 21:51 · Score: 2

I hate it when devices are made mandatory.
Because you have no clue how procedures liek this work?
They always end up being piss-poor quality,
Can you point out one example?
designed by bureaucrat committees. No, they are designed by the inventors who first invented them.
If private companies can offer these things instead, Private companies are the ones who are offering this. Or do you think Mercedes Benz and Porsche a socialist owned companies?
with no "must" behind it, they will come up with something cheap that folks will buy on their own. Look at car GPS navigation systems, and think about what they might have looked like, if a government decided how they were to be built. Hurl.
If there was no must behind it your car had no safty belts.
I think the EU Parliament must be located in some sleazy Amsterdam space cake bar. Strong shit you get there . . .
Well, to give you an idea how the thought process here in europe is: if a car company is upgrading their cars with a system that increases safty, then sooner or later a few car companies offer this feature in their high end products or even build it as standard in all of their products.
Now after five to then years having such systems on the road there will still be lots of models or companies that don't offer this system.
Now, after ten years such a system is considered to be state of the art. So obviously we have trash cars on the roads, even new build trash cars that are _not state of the art_
As soon as common sense and proven usefullness realizes that we have such a new system a law gets introduced to make this system mandatory.
Happend with safty belts, air bags, ABS, ESP, crush zones, pedestrian safty systems etc.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:There's an app for that . . . by zephvark · 2012-07-03 22:16 · Score: 1

Actually, anti-lock brakes appear to be utterly worthless, according to the last reports I've seen. They appear to have no effect on accident rates. Guessing the alleged safety mandates have much more to do with keeping newcomers out of the auto market by keeping prices high. The "think of the children!" argument is always a good play with the bedwetter crowd. No price is too high, especially when you can make your neighbors pay for your personal night terrors.
Re:There's an app for that . . . by robsku · 2012-07-08 03:46 · Score: 1

ABS (anti lock brakes) are also mandatory in cars here, and seatbelts. They usually work, because they are nod designed by the government. Why would the goventment design them? They just mandate some technology that does something, and let the manufacturers figure out how to make that.
Well, the person clearly is a US citizen with little clue of how EU's or any of it's countries politics work.

--
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.

European Union Parliament... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 18:13 · Score: 0

Do they have a single federal government now? I'm confused, I thought European states hadn't yet completely lost their minds and decided to have a single government that could override their individual governments and bully them and push them around... if Europe is looking at the United State of America (yes, State, singular...) as an example of how to run a successful conglomerate nation/state, perhaps they should wait and see, since our nation is not that old yet, and being as it is in a state of flux, (from sovereign states consenting to be led to a national government that regards the formerly sovereign states as slaves to be commanded) the US of A is not a finished product, but a work in progress. However, though many might consider me, for writing this, one of the right-wing cry-babies throwing a now four-year long temper-tantrum over having a Kenyan (or more realistically, half-Kenyan) president, (I'm not...) I am warning you now, Europe.

The thing that made the American system work as long as it did, and survive and prosper as it has seemed to, was two fold. First, the autonomy of the individual states kept power away from the federal government when technology hadn't evolved to the point where the differential in power between the individual whose sovereign power the power of the federal government derives from (ostensibly with his CONSENT) has become so many orders of magnitude different... that power has been GRABBED, and is forever lost, since the federal government will never return it, and another successful revolution would be impossible at this point... (remember the largest contributing factors in the success of the original American Revolution were distance and apathy). Second, this nation stole most of its wealth from the blood, sweat and tears first of Native Americans, then later of African slaves. Since those resources were absorbed and extracted, that wealth has been floating around in the system, but has slowly been squandered and spent on energy... it's running low, and we don't really have the means to replace it. America was doing okay, more or less, when it was a largely agrarian nation, and now that so few things are made in the US anymore, (compared to the ratio of things made domestically to imports during and after the industrial revolution, before globalization,) now that we're returning to a system in which the bulk of our collective income comes from farming the land we stole, our level of prosperity will be limited to what we can reap from the Earth, which isn't going to be enough to sustain the extravagant lifestyle to which our nation has become accustomed.

Having a world-conquering super-military, skyscrapers going up in every major metropolitan area, by the dozens, having multiple companies building mega-yachts catering to a large, parasitic upper-crust of society has become a dream (of the upper-crust's) that we will not be able to sustain. Much of the financial trouble in the world today comes from the super-rich hoarding what's left of the money, extracting through financial shenanigans money from various economies, including the US, without actually increasing the value. By way of explanation, if someone buys a portion of a company, and either through manipulation or just good guesswork, holds those shares until their value has substantially increased, then sells them, pocketing the difference between purchase and sale prices, he has exploited the system of private ownership of companies, to become richer, (he has more money,) despite the fact that he has personally done NOTHING WHATSOEVER to add value to that company. Where'd the money he pocketed come from? Basically, he stole it.

You could argue back that he added value by providing, though his investment, capital that the company used to operate... but first off, the person who sold it had already done that... they already had the capital, so what the hell did it matter who owned those shares? How did the person who bought and sold it contribute a penny to the running of that business? He di

Re:European Union Parliament... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 23:40 · Score: 0

The US is a good example of why such a system is a good idea. Despite the fact that nearly half the country is filled with mind blowingly stupid people that keep voting for GOP politicians that intentionally try to take the government down via sabotage, they haven't managed to do it. I think that speaks volumes about how stable it is.

Privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 18:14 · Score: 0

If the device is not in radio contact until you crash (so they can't track the IMEI of your car) then I'm fine.
If on the other hand the device has a constant connection, i'll be jamming/breaking the bitch.

Re:STUPID by AcesDnied · 2012-07-03 18:18 · Score: 0

WTF do you think I'm talking about? I'm trying to save you untold thousands over the course of your natural working years in life. Do you have any idea how many people and how much new equipment it will take to answer all of these "emergency" calls that may be nothing more than some dumb ass who backed into his own garage door? My long term medical costs are only covered if I CHOOSE to ask the government for assistance because of my current position. My lack of insurance usually means I won't be able to get long term help unless I make that choice. I'm a fucking white male. That fact alone means I most likely won't see the light of day from behind the wall of paper work and red tape that would be thrown up in my face. Gotta take care of the fucking illegals and minorities first. So I don't have the obsessive need to live like most people... So sue me, and get your money's worth before the government takes it all...

Re:STUPID by jamesh · 2012-07-03 18:18 · Score: 1

I know 100 people who need to spend some time in a ditch *smacks fist into hand*.

You know this is just an excuse to install a GPS in every car. Then once they've done that, automatic speed enforcement! Bam!

Yeah that would be pretty cool - having the traffic flowing smoothly at the same speed instead of some people doing 20 under in the fast lane and "important people" weaving in and out of traffic at 20 over the limit.

I don't know why but driving seems to stress me out more and more as I get older.

Re:Every passing motorist already calls emerg. svc by Chrisq · 2012-07-03 18:19 · Score: 1

Far better if they prevented idiots from getting behind the wheel. That would save many more lives.

It would but the only realistic way to do that is to perfect driverless cars (which not many people would object to), then make the use compulsory (which a lot of people would object to).

Re:Every passing motorist already calls emerg. svc by SuricouRaven · 2012-07-03 18:19 · Score: 1

The big cities do. The biggest cities in the US are still only a couple of centuries old - they were planned carefully, and during most of their growth designed to accomodate cars. European cities, though, can be millenia old and inhereted road layouts optimised for walking. So while the cities of the US are usually built to a grid plan, the cities of Europe resemble a bowl of spagetti.

Re:STUPID by jamesh · 2012-07-03 18:21 · Score: 2

That was my first thought too, but in a lot of cases (in Australia at least) reception on those back roads is pretty ordinary at best, and would likely drop to nothing when upside-down in a ditch, so i'm wondering about the usefulness of this idea... it would certainly have it's uses but if the primary use-case is the "upside down in a ditch on a back road" then i'm not so sure.

How will it determine if assistance is needed? by rcasha2 · 2012-07-03 18:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

One problem is: How will it tell apart a serious accident in which people were hurt, and one in which the car was damaged but the people inside were unscathed. Once it gets installed in all cars, this could result in emergency services rushing to places where they are not needed, wasting time.

Re:How will it determine if assistance is needed? by bieber · 2012-07-03 20:04 · Score: 1

If the people were left unscathed, then they'll be free to cancel the alert. It's a problem easily enough solved with a "Don't send the paramedics, please" button.
Re:How will it determine if assistance is needed? by rcasha2 · 2012-07-03 20:54 · Score: 1

Would that be foremost on their mind? Even if they're unhurt they probably have caused significant damage to their car, got out of their car to inspect the damage, check on the other car, fill in insurance forms etc. The alert might not get cancelled until some time after.
Re:How will it determine if assistance is needed? by itsdapead · 2012-07-03 22:15 · Score: 2

One problem is: How will it tell apart a serious accident in which people were hurt, and one in which the car was damaged but the people inside were unscathed.
If the airbags went off, its probably worth sending a paramedic on a motorbike - if only to check that people weren't injured by a small explosive device going off inches from their face.

--
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Re:How will it determine if assistance is needed? by ianare · 2012-07-04 02:48 · Score: 2

And how will you determine if people didn't get hurt without sending someone to check on them?
At impacts likely to trigger the device, it's entirely possible for someone to be hurt and not even realize till the next day or so. This happens with neck and back injuries, not enough to notice until the person stretches or makes a bad movement, and then *extreme pain*
So, better safe than sorry.
Re:How will it determine if assistance is needed? by DaveGod · 2012-07-04 08:36 · Score: 1

It's a call system so presumably there's something going through the speakers and then someone from the call centre is talking to you (there's also a data packet if you cannot speak).
Often it will be worthwhile for the police to be made aware of an accident even if nobody is hurt. Stationary vehicles blocking the road after accidents can cause congestion - and more accidents.
Re:How will it determine if assistance is needed? by arisvega · 2012-07-11 23:05 · Score: 1

One problem is: How will it tell apart a serious accident in which people were hurt
I guess, to a first approximation, by using accelerometer data: e.g. a simple spike would be a crash, a large spike would unfortunately be a harsher crash, a large spike followed by several smaller ones would be crash followed by tumbling, and no initial spike but several relatively small ones would be perhaps slipping off-track and tumbling.

--
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
Re:How will it determine if assistance is needed? by arisvega · 2012-07-11 23:06 · Score: 1

That said, I think it would be extremely stupid to not include an accelerometer into the device-

--
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.

Re:STUPID by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-07-03 18:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Your argument seems to be based around the idea that it's impossible for you to ever be aided by this service. Instead of castigating you for your unrecognized selfishness, I'll try to appeal to it. First though, we need to at least attempt to break through your self-deception, because a rational conversation isn't possible with it. If I fail, well, at least I tried.

Have you ever encountered black ice? If you haven't, talk to someone who has, whose opinion you trust. If such a person exists, you'll find out that sometimes, it hits, and there is absolutely no way you could have avoided it short of never driving, ever. If it forms just right, you can't see it, period, not with three extra eyes and binoculars. If it forms on a turn, and you hit it, your car will slide, and there is no amount of driving skill that will prevent it, not even if you were the best driver that ever lived. Physics and all that jazz.

And there's all those other idiots on the road, too. What if that hot shit drops his joint in his lap and jerks the wheel just as you're passing, running his car into your lane at the last possible instant causing a head-on collision and knocking you both out? I know you're a magnificent driver, but daddy's money bought little Mr. Hot-Shit a car that turns faster than yours, and the random jerking of the wheel happened to replicate a perfect turn that pushed that car to the limit of its lateral grip, so no matter how astounding your reflexes and command of the machine you pilot, the immutable laws of the universe are dictating a crash. Even though you're perfect, you can't react to something before it happens, provided you're a believer in free will.

So now that we've established that even though you're perfect (and you are), it could still happen to you, what's the price you're willing to pay to drastically reduce the chance that you die, or perhaps just lose a leg? I know you've got a price, since you've made that your argument. I guess $500 isn't worth it to you. I'm curious. What is?

--
<xml><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></xml>

Re:STUPID by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 18:59 · Score: 0

Even though you're perfect, you can't react to something before it happens, provided you're a believer in free will.

Not believing in free will doesn't give you more predictive power. Indeed, even if the observable universe were completely deterministic, you couldn't completely predict it for the simple reason that you are part of it and therefore cannot have complete information about it.

Re:STUPID by tsa · 2012-07-03 19:04 · Score: 1

I bet you don't like Obamacare, do you?

--

-- Cheers!

Re:STUPID by tsa · 2012-07-03 19:07 · Score: 2

There have been tests with automatic speed enforcement, and the subjects said it was very relaxing to not be able to go faster than the speed limit.

--

-- Cheers!

Not a fetish by Kupfernigk · 2012-07-03 19:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Modern wiring harnesses are designed to be (a) fast to assemble and disassemble) (b) reliable (c) as foolproof as possible, hence the different connectors. Those of us with long memories can recall when cars had hardly any wiring at all, yet it was always going wrong (cables frayed, bullet connectors pulled, contacts corroded, mechanics connected the wrong wire during a service and nobody noticed till the brakes started the indicators flashing).

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."

Re:Not a fetish by sjames · 2012-07-03 19:46 · Score: 1

Yes, but that design is focused on assembly rather than on modification or repair. If you are altering the factory wiring (by disconnecting OnStar), it can be a real pain.
Besides that, why would I want to pay for the hardware that I never in a million years want active and help them fluff up their sales figures?
If I find myself in the market for a new car, I will let them know that including OnStar is a deal breaker.
Actually, I don't remember cars from the '60s having many problems with wiring (other than British cars). The key was to not let a mechanic mess with it.
Re:Not a fetish by tehcyder · 2012-07-04 01:58 · Score: 2

Actually, I don't remember cars from the '60s having many problems with wiring (other than British cars).
You obviously never drove an Italian or French car then. Oh, and it was the 1970s when British cars were really bad, not the 1960s.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Not a fetish by sjames · 2012-07-04 04:35 · Score: 1

I had to include at least the late '60s for the British cars, I saw one go up in flames due to an electrical issue and no fusebox.

Not quite right... by Kupfernigk · 2012-07-03 19:19 · Score: 0

Once a dysfunctional group gets any power at all, it leverages it. Mildly sociopathic Libertarians manage to get mod points, mod up less mild sociopaths, and before long the monkeys have the key of the banana plantation as they all mod one another up in a circular hell (the reference is to Huis Clos by Sartre). Apply this to your own specific interest group. (Note to Libertarians: if you mod me down you are betraying your own principles. Cognitive dissonance is your friend here.)

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."

Re:STUPID by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 19:35 · Score: 0

Dear STUPID,

Glad to see you agree to oppose it.

2500 lives per year / 500 000 000 people in the EU * (generously) 100 years = .05% (i.e. 1 in 2000 since you're obviously mathematically impaired)

But if YOU want to pay $500 extra for every car manufactured, I won't stop you.

Re:STUPID by scsirob · 2012-07-03 19:37 · Score: 2

Although you are being ridiculed, I think you are right. It is damn near impossible to have an accident and not having ten or more witnesses. The cost is prohibitive and the privacy impact possibilities are scary. I for one will be happy to give the GPS antenna required for this system a tin foil hat.

The claims of 'up to' 2500 lives means that in reality it will be half of that at best. The EU has 500.000.000 inhabitants. "Possibly" saving 1000 is 0.00002% change in mortality rate. That means the money would be a lot better spent on fighting cancer, obesity or other life-threatening diseases.

--
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB

Denial of privacy by stooo · 2012-07-03 19:38 · Score: 1

The real question is : which manufacturers will disable the GSM part (still keeping GPS in sync) when not in an emergency ?
If this does not happen, tracking each and ever car in the country is trivial, for govt., ISPs/telcos, as well as for simple individuals (as has been demonstrated by researchers years ago)
Also, which car manufacturers will log the route ? (a lot of precedents already !)

I hope people will review these systems !

--
aaaaaaa

Re:Denial of privacy by cheros · 2012-07-03 21:31 · Score: 1

I suspect the sale of Chinese GSM jammers will go through the roof now this spyware is mandatory. The problem with such kit is that without proper rules (and hard, transparent evidence to show that such rules are actually being followed) it WILL be abused for other things - it's a given.
Ah, yes - of course those jammers will be made illegal too - after all, you need to keep the prices high..

--
Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.

Re:Every passing motorist already calls emerg. svc by sjames · 2012-07-03 19:54 · Score: 1

they were planned carefully

No, they weren't planned at all in many cases. The older cities have been retrofit for cars in-town. The newer cities were built with cars in mind but with little or no planning.

The local legend here is that a plow was harnessed to a wild hog. Where he plowed, they paved.

Re:STUPID by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 20:48 · Score: 0

Yeah that would be pretty cool - having the traffic flowing smoothly at the same speed instead of some people doing 20 under in the fast lane and "important people" weaving in and out of traffic at 20 over the limit.
I don't know why but driving seems to stress me out more and more as I get older.

It's because you're expecting people to conform to how YOU want to drive. The different speeds of traffic is NOT a fucking problem grandpa, the problem is that people like you have been given a license even though you can't drive for shit.

Specification please by jcdr · 2012-07-03 20:50 · Score: 1

Ok, it's mandatory now, but where is the exact specification of the system ?

I was involved in a eCall prototype device a few years ago and this was a totally crap technology. Basically this was a analog software modem on top of a GSM call, witch is a pretty stupid idea, given the fact that a SMS is a lot cheaper, reliable and faster to transmit the few data that eCall require. A few company proposed algorithms that aggressively abuse the GSM compression to pass a ridicule amount of data per second. All those algorithm are patented and require to pay licence to use them. Big business and big lose of time to only provide an expensive, slow and unreliable technology that is completely obsoleted by a 20 year old SMS. I hope that there have trow all of that crap into a trash.

Re:Specification please by jcdr · 2012-07-03 21:24 · Score: 2

For reference, here is the specification I have used for the work:
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/126200_126299/126267/10.00.00_60/ts_126267v100000p.pdf
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/126200_126299/126268/10.00.00_60/ts_126268v100000p.pdf
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/126200_126299/126268/10.00.00_60/ts_126268v100000p0.zip
The Qualcomm copyright information have been removed from the earlier revision. This do not grant that the algorithm is not protected by a patent.
While searching on the Internet, there is information that the new system is based on NG112 (VoIP based as I understand) or E100 (what that ?).
Re:Specification please by jcdr · 2012-07-03 21:50 · Score: 1

Really, a such complex claim cannot be without a lock in goal:
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/esafety/doc/ecall/pos_papers_impact_assessm/qualcomm.pdf
"8.2 In-Vehicle System Devices
Subject to certain standard terms and conditions (e.g., protection for
Qualcomm products as to the licensees or its customers patents),
Qualcomm will not charge a royalty rate for a license for its patents
essential to the 3GPP eCall in-band modem standard (3GPP TS 26.267
and TS 26.268) in subscriber devices that implement such modem
standard that is higher than the royalty rate that Qualcomm charges, or
may in the future charge, for a license under its applicable patents for
similar devices that do not implement such modem standard. For clarity,
the 3GPP eCall in-band modem standard does not include cellular
modem functionality or any other functionality in a handset or device."
If there wanted to make it really free, the claim would have been far more simple and shorter. My understanding is that you have to pay, no mater what, but there is no official price.
Re:Specification please by gronofer · 2012-07-03 22:39 · Score: 1

I'm also curious with anything based on cell technology, how the car obtains a life-time connection to a cell phone provider. Who would pay for it?
Re:Specification please by jcdr · 2012-07-03 23:39 · Score: 1

AFAIK, due to the fact that the system use an emergency call, no SIM card is required, so the cost will probably be billed to the emergency call center. I am not certain about that, Need verification.
Re:Specification please by jcdr · 2012-07-03 23:48 · Score: 1

AFAIK, the in vehicle mobile is probably offline except in case of a emergency event. Since this is a emergency call, it will start scanning to find any operator and pick one, maybe based one the signal quality or other factor. So I don't think that the in vehicle mobile is bound to any operator at all. I expect that the in vehicle mobile is SIM free.
Re:Specification please by fa2k · 2012-07-04 00:26 · Score: 1

AFAIK, due to the fact that the system use an emergency call, no SIM card is required, so the cost will probably be billed to the emergency call center. I am not certain about that, Need verification.
Another concern; Is it connected to the mobile network continually, or does it only turn on when there is an accident. I would hope the latter is the case, and then the potential for abuse and tracking would be almost null. There would be no way to contact the device remotely. If it's turned on all the time, the mobile company always knows where it is (which tower it's connected to), but the info is probably not logged. It would also waste some energy and could cause interference in some cases (for example, mobile phones are forbidden near radio telescopes, this would prevent cars from driving near). And finally, it would cause a large burden on the GSM network, with hundreds of extra nodes in busy places. So surely the GSM modules are off, right?
Re:Specification please by fa2k · 2012-07-04 00:42 · Score: 1

To answer my question, the wikipedia article says it's not clear if the mobile connection can be activated without a "crash". From ref. 3 in the WP article;

It is important to highlight that with the eCall service proposed, the in-vehicle system
will not continuously be tracked by a third party, as it will not be permanently connected
to the mobile communications networks, but only when it is activated in case of an
accident or manually by the vehicle occupants.
I wouldn't mind having this at all then.

Re:STUPID by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 20:54 · Score: 0

Yeah, we know, you want the freedom to hit a tree unencumbered by those pesky rescue services.

Re:STUPID by Jello+B. · 2012-07-03 21:11 · Score: 1

You dumbass. The affordable care act says you have to buy HEALTH insurance (if you can afford it), not life insurance.

Re:STUPID by thsths · 2012-07-03 21:21 · Score: 0

No, this system is designed to the resolve "single vehicle incidents", where typically a single male (irresponsible) driver at night loses control of the vehicle at excessive speed and gets knocked unconscious in the accident after hitting a tree.

While it is true that a fast response can save a lot of lives in these situations, I am not sure why I should have to pay for these idiots on the road. Even worse, risk compensation could mean that they drive even more aggressively, thus increasing the risk to sensible drivers on the road. It is certainly a double edged sword.

or : EU Transfers more cash to Germany. go figure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 21:45 · Score: 0

We already have the situation where it is too expensive to get a perfectly usable car through it's annual MOT ( road worthiness ) test because one of a bunch of sensors don't work or whatever. It means that good cars get scrapped, and ultimately the car manufacturers ( Germany ) sell more cars to the rest of Europe.
It's one area where no lobbyists are required , since the German Gov't has the keys to the Euro bank, and wants more.

It's time this scam was finished before we have to go back there with a bunch of new Spitfires.

Re:STUPID by f3rret · 2012-07-03 22:11 · Score: 1

No, I said I'm not perfect. If you didn't get that concept, maybe you need to go back to sku sku sku school, where they seem to have failed to teach our current sheep herd the most basic principles needed to get by in life, but some how managed to pass them through grade after grade until they got out into the real world. Woe is the general tax payer who actually has to pay for them and theirs...

Do you have any idea what it's like to listen to somebody read out loud and struggle to make it through a few paragraphs in a story because they can't fucking read? Did you know these same people are driving on our streets, unable to read or comprehend the guidelines motorists need to know? Oh wait, we're all winners, nobody is behind the curve...

Yes! Absolutely this technology could save my life! Do I want it in my vehicle? NO! Not until the day I decide I want it. At that time I can call On Star, provided by Government Motors.

I don't have to cost the government, YOU and other taxpayers, a dime! I don't have insurance. Why? I'm not married and I don't have any children. Who would benefit? Well insurance companies for one, and now if I still don't buy insurance I get fined / taxed (however you see it) thanks to Obamacare. Yep, I decide not to be a burden to society while I pay for those that do. Funny how what I worked for doesn't benefit me, but takes care of somebody else.

Fuck that!

Changing the topic a little aren't you? Annoyed that you got a little bit owned?

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.

Re:STUPID by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-03 22:13 · Score: 1

Same logic used to try to tax things deemed "unhealthy." Problem is, it seems to be a false dilemma. "Either get out of society, or stay and let me tax everything you do if it may affect me in some indirect way!" But there is a third option: in order to maintain a society that is truly free, pay the costs. I guess freedom isn't important if it means slightly higher taxes, huh?

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Re:STUPID by f3rret · 2012-07-03 22:18 · Score: 2

No, this system is designed to the resolve "single vehicle incidents", where typically a single male (irresponsible) driver at night loses control of the vehicle at excessive speed and gets knocked unconscious in the accident after hitting a tree.

While it is true that a fast response can save a lot of lives in these situations, I am not sure why I should have to pay for these idiots on the road. Even worse, risk compensation could mean that they drive even more aggressively, thus increasing the risk to sensible drivers on the road. It is certainly a double edged sword.

I am assuming that by 'risk compensation' you are referring to that phenomenon where as cars become safer and safer people become more reckless drivers. Well I don't think that'll apply in the case of this eCall thing, since it doesn't actually make you safer in the event of a crash. It just makes it so the emergency services know about it earlier.

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.

Re:STUPID by knarf · 2012-07-03 23:12 · Score: 1

Try to remember this post when you're upside-down in a ditch with two broken arms at 3 AM on a country road.

...with the message 'NO SIGNAL' displayed on the screen of your mobile phone...

--
--frank[at]unternet.org

Re:STUPID by angel'o'sphere · 2012-07-03 23:30 · Score: 1

The claims of 'up to' 2500 lives means that in reality it will be half of that at best.
No, it means that on average the previous ten years, every year roughly 2500 people died in car accidents because no ambulance was notified in time.
That means the money would be a lot better spent on fighting cancer, obesity or other life-threatening diseases. did you do the math?
Suppose 1 million cars get sold in germany, and every car costs now 20 Euros more. This is 20 million euros.
Are you sure you can save 1000 cancer patients with 20 million euros? Or teach enough people to not become obess?
And if you can: from where to you get the 20 million now?
The new safety system is payd by car customers, using the same amount of money to do something else, the money needs to come from somewhere as well!!

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Re:STUPID by Kjella · 2012-07-03 23:33 · Score: 1

Although you are being ridiculed, I think you are right. It is damn near impossible to have an accident and not having ten or more witnesses.

If you think that, you must live in the city. Outside the cities if you go off the road at night and tumble a few meters down so you're not in anyone's headlights chances are good nobody noticed and nobody will notice until morning even on somewhat traveled roads. Here's a typical example from Norway. Driver went off the road, the road is a little bit elevated from the terrain and at night nobody's going to see it. There are always tire tracks from old accidents, unless you see the car nobody's going to check it out. I found at least two recent fatal accident like that in April and in May here in Norway so for the whole EU area I think thousands per year is the right order. Of course not everybody could have been saved, but a lot of people suffer internal injuries in high impact crashes that must be treated or they will be fatal.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:STUPID by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 23:46 · Score: 0

You had a typo there. You probably mean Neoconcare.

Re:STUPID by mypalmike · 2012-07-03 23:52 · Score: 1

No, this system is designed to the resolve "single vehicle incidents", where typically a soccer mom on the phone (irresponsible) driver loses control of the vehicle

FTFY ;-)

--
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.

Re:STUPID by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 00:22 · Score: 0

The society argument only works so far, and so does the responsibility one. If I get into an accident that's my fault, then there is responsibility there. I am not a paramedic or a doctor. I can't fix what happens next. Systems like this might improve, slightly and in some edge cases, the possibility that others can, but there is still the non-zero possibility that they can't help either. Is THAT my responsibility? Because that's what you're trying to imply. BTW, I don't tend to carry a first aid kit with me when I walk everywhere, I don't always have a cell phone on me, etc. Riduculous? So's the notion of bugging and tracking every car to deal with edge cases.

BTW, the bugging and tracking thing isn't strictly necessary. Aircraft have had these things for a very long time. The ELT devices are OFF until one of two things happens: the plane is subjected to G-forces indicative of an accident (or on occasion, a student pilot landing), or the pilot turns it on either before or after a crash. In the old days they were strictly radio transmitters for ground rescuers or search aircraft, but modern ones can be picked up by satellite. It's the same principle and, I believe, the same system as the locator beacons hikers can carry if they want to. All aircraft have them. They do not cause privacy violations, require cell phone connections, GPS, or any of the other crap that always seem to find their way into designs of this stuff for cars. So there is a solution that's been around for decades, doesn't invade privacy, doesn't need a subscription fee, and won't tell anybody where you are until you tell it to or until certain specific parameters are met. Sounds like it would meet the requirements for saving lives here. The troube is, the conspiracy theorists are right: it doesn't do those other things and for that reason solutions like that are never considered for the general public.

It would even be possible to design OnStar with privacy in mind for those who want it that way--your location is never sent until an accident or until you push a hardware button which always lights up when enabled. Want to leave it on all the time for convenience? That's up to you. It's called a choice.

Also, the microphone is hardwired to an indicator light NOT controlled by software. The cell connection is OFF until you let it be on, and there is a hardwired indicator light indicating that a transmission is being made. There is no stolen vehicle tracking or flashing the outside lights for cops or stuff like that because it is inherently impossible to secure such a system against abuse. Sorry about that. Lock your keys in your car? No problem. There's a switch on the outside of the car that will enable the cell transmitter so that the unlock function can still be made to work. It cycles off after 5 minutes.

It can be done. That it isn't done is indicative of either criminal lack of imagination or deliberately designing a system for abuse by authorities. Until then, I will not buy a vehicle with any transmitter installed, and if that is impossible I will physically disable or remove such a device.

Re:Every passing motorist already calls emerg. svc by Hognoxious · 2012-07-04 00:35 · Score: 1

I think there's a bit of grey between "infallible" and drives with an iPad on the wheel (yes, I've seen that).

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

idiocy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 00:55 · Score: 0

The EU economy is tanking, so let's make driving cost more.

What do you mean, you don't want one of these in your car?

It's not up to you. Think of the children! it's up to us. We decide what's good for you and your family. Yes, you have to pay, or we'll put you in jail.

But don't worry.

You can trust us. In this and all things. Well, you have to. You don't have a choice.

What's that? you're going to vote for someone else?

Good, isn't it? that's all we allow you to do, and it's useless.

What's that? you're going to form a new political party?

Oh yes. I forgot. You can vote and it that doesn't work, you can form a new party.

Fantastic, isn't it? we practically have tenure.

What's that? you thought you were free?

No. You're blind.

Re:STUPID by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 01:25 · Score: 0

There have been tests with automatic thought enforcement, and the subjects said it was very relaxing to not be able to think without limit.

FTFY

Food service and retail would shoot it down by tepples · 2012-07-04 01:35 · Score: 1

This could easily be encourage by adjusting taxes so that companies pay more for on site workers than they do for telecommuters.

The service industry, especially food service and retail that already pay minimum wage or close to it, would lobby hard against this.

Re:STUPID by tehcyder · 2012-07-04 02:58 · Score: 1

Your freedom must not come at the expense of mine

Unless everyone lived on some magical desert island, with no wants or needs unfulfilled, then your freedom is bound to come at the expense of someone else's - unless it is just the freedom to think your own thoughts in your own head, which no one can do anything about anyway.

"No man is an island..."

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:STUPID by tehcyder · 2012-07-04 03:10 · Score: 1

It is damn near impossible to have an accident and not having ten or more witnesses.

Only if you live in a city or town. In the countryside where I live people quite often end up in ditches a mile or two from the nearest house. Not the end of the world as most people have mobiles, and failing that you can always walk. But in the event of a more serious accident in a no-signal area, it would be a different story. And this is in the UK, which is quite densely populated.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Great idea! However... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 03:14 · Score: 0

Basically a fine idea. Of course, it wouldn't work here in Amerika, they'd swiftly pervert it somehow to use it to watch us. History proves this.
Also, what's the European Condition? "The resolution calls on the European Condition to make it mandatory..."
Peace.

Re:STUPID by tehcyder · 2012-07-04 03:14 · Score: 1

While it is true that a fast response can save a lot of lives in these situations, I am not sure why I should have to pay for these idiots on the road.

The same reason "you" (i.e. society) have to pay for sick people who drink, smoke, take drugs, don't exercise, eat badly, or get involved in preventable DIY accidents.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

No thank you! by p51d007 · 2012-07-04 03:51 · Score: 1

Sorry, call me a guy wearing a tin foil hat, but I DO NOT want an automated system like this, or On Star in any vehicle I drive, but, I'm sure that the sheeple will go for it, because "it's for the children" bla bla bla. Franklin said this in 1759 and it rings true today: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." If you install something like a phone system, which is nothing more than a fancy radio TRANSMITTER & RECEIVER, do you not think the government has the ability, legally or illegally to tap into it anytime they want? Once these become "commonplace", combine this with in car GPS, and the next step will be automated traffic tickets, or, automated warnings and automatic speed control. People don't understand the mind of a statist-socialist-marxist-control freak. They want the moon, but, know that if they ask for the moon, people will push back HARD, but, if you institute change over time, a little here, a little there that by the time they figure out what happened, it will be too late.

Re:STUPID by bhalter80 · 2012-07-04 04:07 · Score: 1

I actually invite automatic and 0-tollorance speed enforcement. This is for a couple of reasons
1) I'd like to see the speed limits changed to what people actually go but the casual enforcement doesn't get people outraged that the speed limit on a road designed for 75 is 55 (US Rt3 in MA)
2) This puts an end speeding tickets as revenue enhancers for the town/city/county/state as the incidences of speeding would drop considerably
3) Its very infrequent that someone going egregiously fast actually gets pulled over, which is a true safety problem. This would address that.

How to quit warm turkey by tepples · 2012-07-04 04:17 · Score: 1

One of the many reasons I don't own a cell phone is so I don't have to worry about being tracked or listened to.

These cell phones are OFF most of the time. They turn on only after a vehicle has had a collision. When you're involved in a collision, you want to be tracked by those who would give you needed medical attention.

It takes 30 minutes to get to work by car. A bicycle is a little out of the question

How much of that 30-minute commute is moving on a highway, how much is moving on a city street, and how much is remaining stopped until the traffic signal changes?

I smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. A bicycle is a little out of the question

Try having your first cigarette of the day one minute later each day. After two months, your body will be used to getting its first dose of nicotine an hour later, and you're likely to start feeling less of an urge to smoke.

Frog not just boiled, it's charcoal broiled by Catbeller · 2012-07-04 05:15 · Score: 1

GPS now calls the cops whether you want it to or not. Please tell me I'm paranoid again; I've built a lovely collection of I-told-you-so's. The GPS function of a phone is primarily a tracking device, and we are now smoking, charcoal-broiled frogs.

Re:STUPID by Jappus · 2012-07-04 06:09 · Score: 1

That was my first thought too, but in a lot of cases (in Australia at least) reception on those back roads is pretty ordinary at best, and would likely drop to nothing when upside-down in a ditch, so i'm wondering about the usefulness of this idea... it would certainly have it's uses but if the primary use-case is the "upside down in a ditch on a back road" then i'm not so sure.

Well, Europe (specifically the area governed by the EU) is not the same as Australia.

Here, you're very hard pressed to find places that do not qualify as someone's back road outside of a few mountain streets.

And well, if you drive off of a mountain street, the "golden" window where people can actually help you has usually already passed the moment your car lost contact with the street.

@19thNervourBreakdown Re:STUPID by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 06:10 · Score: 0

If you desire the advantages-and-disadvantages of having eCall in your car, then feel free to buy one and have it installed -- in your car.

Don't force it on the rest of us.

Re:STUPID by bitt3n · 2012-07-04 06:48 · Score: 2

1 in 100 seems an improbably high number of beneficiaries. Consider that this technology would only benefit victims of the subset of accidents more severe than those in which the individual remains capable himself of contacting emergency services, but less severe than those in which the individual is beyond help even of services immediately dispatched. One must also remove from this subset all accidents in which other people are available to call for immediate help. In densely populated areas, this number might be vanishingly small. On the other hand, $500 seems rather high as a per-vehicle cost estimate.

Ultimately, appeals to emotion, such as "what if it were one of your friends?" aren't helpful, because at some point additional protection becomes cost prohibitive, regardless of who is being protected. Further, It is quite possible that the same amount of money used to fund this service could save more lives were it used instead to redesign the top X most dangerous intersections in Europe.

--
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?

Re:STUPID by BVis · 2012-07-04 06:50 · Score: 1

Wow. Undoing my moderation so I can yell at your selfish self-absorbed short-sighted bitter ass.

Here's the fundamental point of fact that your little hardwired Paultard brain can't comprehend: YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PERSON ON THIS PLANET.

If you were, I'd say happy trails, go on with your bad self, you're perfectly suited to exist under those circumstances. But you're not. I'm not. Nobody is. Society currently functions because people help one another, even when they'd rather not (or it costs them money). Sometime in your life, someone helped you when they didn't have to. And, at some point, you benefited from a government program to the point where you got out of it more value than you put into it. Like it or not, most people don't see the world the way you do; they realize that by helping others, they themselves will be helped when they need it. We have rules and laws (and taxes!) that allow for that help to be provided to everyone in a given society. This is a good thing.

To reply to a previous posting of yours:

I don't have to cost the government, YOU and other taxpayers, a dime!

Fine, no problem. Don't ever drive on a road, drink water, eat food, or breathe air. Maintaining roads, ensuring safe drinking water, food and air.. all of it costs money. From the government. Lots more than you could ever pay yourself.

You remind me of the knuckle-dragger who yelled out "YES!" when Ron Paul was asked at a debate if an uninsured person arriving at an emergency room after an accident should be allowed to die. When that comes to pass, I bet you'll be singing a different tune when some asshole in a giant SUV 5 times bigger than they need to carry 20lb of groceries drives over your front fender at speed on a highway, and you don't have your insurance card with you. Enjoy bleeding to death after the ambulance refuses to transport you because they won't get paid for it.

I'm a fucking white male. That fact alone means I most likely won't see the light of day from behind the wall of paper work and red tape that would be thrown up in my face. Gotta take care of the fucking illegals and minorities first.

Your racism and hyperbole are almost endearing. Illegals and minorities are people too, just like you, no more or less important. The reason that you're seeing more "illegals and minorities" taking advantage of public services is because on average, those populations tend to be poorer. Our current standard of living exists because of the exploitation of the less powerful. (Try finding a head of lettuce picked by an American citizen. Enjoy paying $5 for the privilege. Or, you could grow your own fucking lettuce, if you hate participating in civilization so much.)

To answer your upcoming (predictable) questions: No, I don't like paying taxes. Yes, I think the government is bloated and ineffective. No, I don't think that everything should come from the government. But, unlike you, I don't have some paranoid delusional fear that the government wants to take everything I own. Taxation is not theft; theft is depriving someone of material goods with nothing given in return. I get plenty back from the government for the taxes that I pay. Do I get everything back penny for penny? Probably not. It doesn't keep me up at night, because I know that that money is being put to use somewhere else for some purpose that I could never effectively pay for as an individual. Am I angry that people game the system so that they can remain lazy? Sure. But like I just said, it doesn't keep me up at night. I can pay my bills. I don't sweat how much more I could take home if the evil gubmit would stop "stealing" from me.

And I don't like people, either. But on the other hand, I don't want poverty to be a death sentence.

--
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Re:STUPID by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-07-04 07:51 · Score: 1

Finally, someone with valid points!

There are plenty of good reasons for not doing this. I just don't feel that the reasons the original poster gave are among them. Doing something even more effective is a great reason though.

--
<xml><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></xml>

Re:STUPID by TuringCheck · 2012-07-04 09:22 · Score: 1

In Europe you get at least 2G signal pretty much anywhere you can reach by car. Tunnels are exceptions but someone would notice you there.

Also emergency calls are handled differently by phones and cells. An 112 call may pass through where a regular call cannot.

Still Free by andersh · 2012-07-04 14:41 · Score: 1

Radio is still free in Europe, as far as I know. Satellite radio is not offered here, and I don't want it either. The largest national broadcaster here is [still] trying to push DAB radios.

Britain, island of scum by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 14:45 · Score: 0

Your country doesn't have the skills, know-how or ability to make anything remotely like a Spitfire any longer. Please, just leave the EU as soon as possible, you won't like losing access to your main markets - but we will certainly get over "losing" you.

Many different economies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 15:04 · Score: 0

The EU is not one economy, that's what fools like you never seem to understand. Germany is doing great, Scandinavia is just fine and so on. Greece and Spain are at the other end.

modewelt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 19:13 · Score: 0

Ich mag sehr viel Ihre Art der Präsentation.http://www.schuhewelle.com/

Re:STUPID by robsku · 2012-07-08 02:11 · Score: 1

Excellent reply, even though most likely wasted on the person you are replying for, but it's nice to see someone who clearly "thinks like American" (usually this type of replies are still hugely different from yours because written by people "thinking like European/Canadian/etc." - not sure if you know what I mean, that was a stupid way to put it) but is not one of these extremist lunatics. Also for other readers your post is probably insightful - I would mod up if I had points.

--
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.

Slashdot Mirror

EU Parliament Adopts eCall Resolution

212 comments