Trophy categories are random and might disappear at a whim, so no evidence is left of them.
Where is your evidence for this statement. As far as I have found new trophies come out with new releases. They are quickly found and publicized. The site I referenced has all the trophies and "high speed" is not one of them. People have been posting about Snapchat trophies for a while and there are no posts about a "high speed trophy".
Anyways, they have trophies for the other filters, so users could reasonably expect there would be a Trophy on the speed filter,
That would be stupid logic. Snapchat has a temperature filter and a trophy for taking a snap below freezing. If someone stays in a car in the hot sun to try to get a non-existent "high temperature trophy" and dies should the temperature filter be removed? Just because there is a filter does not mean there is a trophy for going extreme.
Where in any of your comment is there any evidence that a "speed trophy" actually exists? I have presented my evidence that it does not exists. Please present yours.
That petition, with 348 supporters, just says "don't let us do stupid things". It also never mentions a supposed "speed trophy".
I never said there was no speed filter. Everything you post talks about the filter and nothing about the supposed "trophy".
The defence attorney probably knows a "speed trophy" does not exist so those bases are covered.
The speed filter exists and has valid uses if you are not an idiot. A "speed trophy" would be a bad idea but that is moot because there is no "speed trophy".
the FDA is allowing companies to continue to sell their products for up to two years while they submit their applications to the agency — and for another year during the approval process.
There is no "trophy" in Snapchat for "speed". Here is the list. (Note the link to the 8 new ones). She may have hoped there was a trophy but it does not exist.
It has been filed and has yet to go to trial. Anyone can file a lawsuit. It has little chance of success considering the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which grants gun manufacturers immunity from any lawsuit related to injuries that result from criminal misuse of their product.
I think that the lawyer floated the idea that Snapchat would not want the negative publicity associated with fighting a "brain injured accident victim" regardless of the validity of the case. They are hoping Snapchat would settle out of court. I really hope Snapchat doesn't as it just encourages this type of frivolous lawsuit.
You would need these sensors on every seat in the vehicle. That would be very expensive and error prone.
People could bypass the lockout by putting a sandbag in the passenger seat, so it wouldn't be a 100% solution. But an 80% solution may be better than nothing.
Considering that the people who will Snapchat wile driving already know they are breaking the law I would bet that they would override the sensors much more often. I woulds estimate that the sensors would be a 20% solution at best and be financially prohibitive to many new drivers.
I think most people would recognize that recording and displaying a speed,...
I would think that most people would know that showing off to friends does not justify doing something illegal and dangerous to everyone on the road. Should selfi stick manufacturers be held liable for people who take selfies in dangerous locations and die?
No one is showing off or competing, or trying to share their environmental temperature in the same way.
You showed a "red herring", Snapchat does not have that filter, so I showed a more reasonable possibility. Snapchat would never have a "Number of red lights run" filter as the very act is illegal. There is no way to legally use that filter. A speed filter can be used without exceeding the speed limit.
That logic is a stretch.
I don't agree. In both cases, speed and temperature, all Snapchat is doing is displaying a piece of data. It is the decision of the user to do something unlawful or unsafe to maximize it.
The TOS is between Snapchat and a user. This lawsuit is from an accident victim and not a Snapchat user. The TOS does not apply to the accident victim.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it was the driver who was taking the snap and the "trophy" does not exist.
Trophy categories are random and might disappear at a whim, so no evidence is left of them.
Where is your evidence for this statement. As far as I have found new trophies come out with new releases. They are quickly found and publicized.
The site I referenced has all the trophies and "high speed" is not one of them. People have been posting about Snapchat trophies for a while and there are no posts about a "high speed trophy".
Anyways, they have trophies for the other filters, so users could reasonably expect there would be a Trophy on the speed filter,
That would be stupid logic. Snapchat has a temperature filter and a trophy for taking a snap below freezing. If someone stays in a car in the hot sun to try to get a non-existent "high temperature trophy" and dies should the temperature filter be removed? Just because there is a filter does not mean there is a trophy for going extreme.
Where in any of your comment is there any evidence that a "speed trophy" actually exists? I have presented my evidence that it does not exists. Please present yours.
That petition, with 348 supporters, just says "don't let us do stupid things". It also never mentions a supposed "speed trophy".
I never said there was no speed filter. Everything you post talks about the filter and nothing about the supposed "trophy".
The defence attorney probably knows a "speed trophy" does not exist so those bases are covered.
The speed filter exists and has valid uses if you are not an idiot. A "speed trophy" would be a bad idea but that is moot because there is no "speed trophy".
transition and millions of truck and taxi drivers will be out of a job in the next 10 to 15 years due to driverless vehicles,
How long have we been saying driverless vehicles will be 10-15 years away?
the FDA is allowing companies to continue to sell their products for up to two years while they submit their applications to the agency — and for another year during the approval process.
They are not slowing down anything.
I've read that the new regulations require that manufacturers go through...
Citation please. They may only need to list the ingredients in order of content to comply.
You might have a case if this substance was not sold or sold only within one state. As it stands the Commerce Clause applies.
It still does not justify suing involved parties. Why not sue the car companies for not have speed limiters on cars?
The passenger could be doing the same the from the back seat and using the car speedometer. You can't ban stupid.
If fairly certain snapchat can delete entire trophies from their system.
There will always be evidence that it existed. I have yet to see any.
There is no "trophy" in Snapchat for "speed". Here is the list. (Note the link to the 8 new ones). She may have hoped there was a trophy but it does not exist.
That is why most drivers cary uninsured/under insured driver insurance.
That is why most drivers have uninsured/under insured driver insurance.
It has been filed and has yet to go to trial. Anyone can file a lawsuit. It has little chance of success considering the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which grants gun manufacturers immunity from any lawsuit related to injuries that result from criminal misuse of their product.
Money should not come from inappropriate sources either. Why not sue the car company for building a car that can go 107mph?
The 18 year old has insurance (I hope).
From the article;
Maynard's lawsuit is seeking unspecified damages from McGee and Snapchat, which it claims encouraged her to drive recklessly.
The driver is being sued in the same case.
From the article:
Passengers in McGee's vehicle have said she was trying to take a picture of herself while traveling over 100 mph when she hit Maynard.
The driver was taking the picture.
I think that the lawyer floated the idea that Snapchat would not want the negative publicity associated with fighting a "brain injured accident victim" regardless of the validity of the case. They are hoping Snapchat would settle out of court. I really hope Snapchat doesn't as it just encourages this type of frivolous lawsuit.
You would need these sensors on every seat in the vehicle. That would be very expensive and error prone.
People could bypass the lockout by putting a sandbag in the passenger seat, so it wouldn't be a 100% solution. But an 80% solution may be better than nothing.
Considering that the people who will Snapchat wile driving already know they are breaking the law I would bet that they would override the sensors much more often. I woulds estimate that the sensors would be a 20% solution at best and be financially prohibitive to many new drivers.
Here is the link to the new trophies (the link is in the update of the article). "Speed" is still not there.
I think most people would recognize that recording and displaying a speed, ...
I would think that most people would know that showing off to friends does not justify doing something illegal and dangerous to everyone on the road. Should selfi stick manufacturers be held liable for people who take selfies in dangerous locations and die?
No one is showing off or competing, or trying to share their environmental temperature in the same way.
You showed a "red herring", Snapchat does not have that filter, so I showed a more reasonable possibility. Snapchat would never have a "Number of red lights run" filter as the very act is illegal. There is no way to legally use that filter. A speed filter can be used without exceeding the speed limit.
That logic is a stretch.
I don't agree. In both cases, speed and temperature, all Snapchat is doing is displaying a piece of data. It is the decision of the user to do something unlawful or unsafe to maximize it.
The "open container" issue is linked to drinking in public and not driving so it is a different issue.
They are suing Snapchat and the driver. The more pockets in the suit and the deeper the pockets the higher the likelihood of a settlement.
The TOS is between Snapchat and a user. This lawsuit is from an accident victim and not a Snapchat user. The TOS does not apply to the accident victim.