Have you taken into account the statistical bias of your sample? That is, given your assumption that "poor" black people are prone to all of these other uncommon behaviors (crime, poor money management, etc), do you not find it plausible that there is a correlation with people who order food for delivery?
In other words, maybe other demographics who are less prone to crime, spending money they don't have, and non-tipping behavior, also order pizza less often? I find that good budgeting applies to television purchasing just as much as to meal planning.
As for pay by the mile insurance, only those who dont drive much (distance) will get this insurance when the competition allows for drive all you want insurance. At some point, you are better off not paying by the mile.
Yes, but the point of this legislation is that some people DO want pay by the mile insurance, in places where insurance is a requirement of owning a car, and the market is not driving the insurance company to provide it. As long as the government mandates having insurance, which artificially influences the market, then I think they should also influence the market to keep the prices fair.
Maybe you don't watch enough TV, or shop for insurance much. I don't either, but still keep abreast of such issues. There is plenty of competition between insurance providers for different market segments. If one provider increased their profit margin significantly, they would lose business to their competitors.
Well, first, I think it is safe to assume that the companies with billions of dollars riding on this decision who have already implemented these insurance plans have probably already considered all of the relevant factors.
But, to directly address your point... Regular driving decreases risk everywhere. In a city it may decrease risk more, but the ratio is still ridiculously below 1:1 (my example demonstrated 1:10, but it is probably far lower than that even).
If an infrequent driver gets in a wreck *EVERY MILE*, which you must admit is a ridiculously exaggerated level of increased risk even if you add in every factor you can think of, but only drives 1 mile per year, that person will still get in less wrecks than a "power" driver who only gets in a wreck every 100000 miles but drives 150000 miles per year.
Thanks for the tip. Looks like both their plans are better than what I have with AT&T... The equivalent $0.10/min + $1/day plan has free nights and weekends, which I don't have now, or the prepaid minutes plan lets me skip the $1/day fee. I might be switching, have to check coverage here.
I agree. Odometer checks seem far less invasive, and cheaper, than GPS. Also, already illegal to tamper with, while I can think of all sorts of ways to interfere with GPS tracking.
Because no provider offers a 100 minute plan. I use less than 100 minutes per month. At 10 cents per minute and $1 per day used I spend about $20/mo. I could get a LOT more minutes for $40/mo, but I don't need them.
Read my post again. I agree that they might have a much higher chance while they are driving, but they still drive less. If I get in 1 accident every mile and you get in 1 accident every 10k miles, then I have a "much higher chance" of getting in accidents than you. But if I drive 1 mile per year and you drive 100k miles per year you are still going to get in 10x as many accidents as I do.
Assuming that market forces remain in action, causing the profit margin of the insurance company to remain constant (if their average policy price increases, they will lose more customers than they gain), they will have to lower some policy prices as others raise.
Even if driver safety is inversely proportional to driving time, it is so at some ratio less than 1:1.
That is, consider 3 people. Bob drives 1 mile a year, and has a 1% chance of getting in an accident for every mile he drives. Tom drives 100 miles a year and has a.1% chance of getting in an accident for every mile he drives. Jim drives 10000 miles a year and has a.01% chance of getting in an accident for every mile he drives.
Bob is going to get in one accident every 100 years. Tom is going to get in 1 accident every 10 years. Jim is going to get in 1 accident every year.
To be more realistic I would say decrease the %s by a factor of 1000, and increase the miles by a factor of 10.
Why does Bob's insurance cost almost as much as Jim's, currently?
I don't think soldering irons are a requirement for this idea. Breadboards, or even springboards, would be much more appropriate, I think. Cost per student goes up, but overhead goes down.
You can use http://www.google.com/latitude/intro.html on phones from most providers, with little or no additional software on the phone. This is old technology. As grandparent said, why is this news just because the iPhone does it now too?
The purpose of statutory damages is to make the process worthwhile for the plaintiff. Someone sending me a junk fax costs me maybe two cents and ten seconds of my time. A lifetime of such junk faxes doesn't add up to an amount worth a lawsuit. This is why the law provides for statutory damages, to dissuade the sender in some amount greater than the two to three cents worth of money and effort that they cost me, and to make it worthwhile for me to go after a single infringer (one lawsuit for $1000 is a lot more palatable than a thousand lawsuits for $1). The *AMOUNT* of statutory damages is up for debate (in the case of a junk fax, $500 per violation), but the concept is sound.
He is putting in 15 hours a day for 12 hours of pay right now. He could spend those 3 hours freelancing. Or take on 25% more responsibility at work, work real 15 hour shifts, and ask for a pay increase. Or get a part time job for 3 hours a day.
60 hours of accomplishing nothing (and burning gas). That time could easily be spent on freelancing, or leisure time, both of which are worth at least as much as his normal hourly wage by most value systems.
+1 to getting an apartment. If he is wasting 3 hours per day on a commute, that's 60 hours a month. More than enough to pay for a cheap studio apartment in some urban housing block even in the most expensive of cities.
Ditto. Or the Gnome suite (Abiword, Gnumeric, etc). Hell, I still maintain multiple installations of StarOffice. There are so many alternatives out there, but no one ever considers most of them.
I would suggest scaling down the cpu speed then. Significant power savings. My 1.6GHz Atom runs at 800MHz most of the time, and I am trying to find a way to run it slower.
I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong
You don't pay people for there work every day. There are thousands of artists out there right now whose work you are not paying for. Artists you've never heard of.
Why does it make a difference if you see their work or not? It doesn't affect them.
I am sure that is one argument presented. I would like to see statistics on the subject. While I expect that the chance of a particular driver hitting a worker is increased at night, there are so many fewer drivers on the road that I expect it is safer overall...
Slashdot Mirror
Do you realize that "sitting together at one computer" has nothing to do with Pair Programming?
Have you taken into account the statistical bias of your sample? That is, given your assumption that "poor" black people are prone to all of these other uncommon behaviors (crime, poor money management, etc), do you not find it plausible that there is a correlation with people who order food for delivery?
In other words, maybe other demographics who are less prone to crime, spending money they don't have, and non-tipping behavior, also order pizza less often? I find that good budgeting applies to television purchasing just as much as to meal planning.
As for pay by the mile insurance, only those who dont drive much (distance) will get this insurance when the competition allows for drive all you want insurance. At some point, you are better off not paying by the mile.
Yes, but the point of this legislation is that some people DO want pay by the mile insurance, in places where insurance is a requirement of owning a car, and the market is not driving the insurance company to provide it. As long as the government mandates having insurance, which artificially influences the market, then I think they should also influence the market to keep the prices fair.
Maybe you don't watch enough TV, or shop for insurance much. I don't either, but still keep abreast of such issues. There is plenty of competition between insurance providers for different market segments. If one provider increased their profit margin significantly, they would lose business to their competitors.
Well, first, I think it is safe to assume that the companies with billions of dollars riding on this decision who have already implemented these insurance plans have probably already considered all of the relevant factors.
But, to directly address your point... Regular driving decreases risk everywhere. In a city it may decrease risk more, but the ratio is still ridiculously below 1:1 (my example demonstrated 1:10, but it is probably far lower than that even).
If an infrequent driver gets in a wreck *EVERY MILE*, which you must admit is a ridiculously exaggerated level of increased risk even if you add in every factor you can think of, but only drives 1 mile per year, that person will still get in less wrecks than a "power" driver who only gets in a wreck every 100000 miles but drives 150000 miles per year.
Thanks for the tip. Looks like both their plans are better than what I have with AT&T... The equivalent $0.10/min + $1/day plan has free nights and weekends, which I don't have now, or the prepaid minutes plan lets me skip the $1/day fee. I might be switching, have to check coverage here.
I agree. Odometer checks seem far less invasive, and cheaper, than GPS. Also, already illegal to tamper with, while I can think of all sorts of ways to interfere with GPS tracking.
Because no provider offers a 100 minute plan. I use less than 100 minutes per month. At 10 cents per minute and $1 per day used I spend about $20/mo. I could get a LOT more minutes for $40/mo, but I don't need them.
Read my post again. I agree that they might have a much higher chance while they are driving, but they still drive less. If I get in 1 accident every mile and you get in 1 accident every 10k miles, then I have a "much higher chance" of getting in accidents than you. But if I drive 1 mile per year and you drive 100k miles per year you are still going to get in 10x as many accidents as I do.
Assuming that market forces remain in action, causing the profit margin of the insurance company to remain constant (if their average policy price increases, they will lose more customers than they gain), they will have to lower some policy prices as others raise.
Even if driver safety is inversely proportional to driving time, it is so at some ratio less than 1:1.
That is, consider 3 people. Bob drives 1 mile a year, and has a 1% chance of getting in an accident for every mile he drives. Tom drives 100 miles a year and has a .1% chance of getting in an accident for every mile he drives. Jim drives 10000 miles a year and has a .01% chance of getting in an accident for every mile he drives.
Bob is going to get in one accident every 100 years. Tom is going to get in 1 accident every 10 years. Jim is going to get in 1 accident every year.
To be more realistic I would say decrease the %s by a factor of 1000, and increase the miles by a factor of 10.
Why does Bob's insurance cost almost as much as Jim's, currently?
What does this have to do with my post?
I don't think soldering irons are a requirement for this idea. Breadboards, or even springboards, would be much more appropriate, I think. Cost per student goes up, but overhead goes down.
You can use http://www.google.com/latitude/intro.html on phones from most providers, with little or no additional software on the phone. This is old technology. As grandparent said, why is this news just because the iPhone does it now too?
The purpose of statutory damages is to make the process worthwhile for the plaintiff. Someone sending me a junk fax costs me maybe two cents and ten seconds of my time. A lifetime of such junk faxes doesn't add up to an amount worth a lawsuit. This is why the law provides for statutory damages, to dissuade the sender in some amount greater than the two to three cents worth of money and effort that they cost me, and to make it worthwhile for me to go after a single infringer (one lawsuit for $1000 is a lot more palatable than a thousand lawsuits for $1). The *AMOUNT* of statutory damages is up for debate (in the case of a junk fax, $500 per violation), but the concept is sound.
He is putting in 15 hours a day for 12 hours of pay right now. He could spend those 3 hours freelancing. Or take on 25% more responsibility at work, work real 15 hour shifts, and ask for a pay increase. Or get a part time job for 3 hours a day.
60 hours of accomplishing nothing (and burning gas). That time could easily be spent on freelancing, or leisure time, both of which are worth at least as much as his normal hourly wage by most value systems.
+1 to getting an apartment. If he is wasting 3 hours per day on a commute, that's 60 hours a month. More than enough to pay for a cheap studio apartment in some urban housing block even in the most expensive of cities.
Ditto. Or the Gnome suite (Abiword, Gnumeric, etc). Hell, I still maintain multiple installations of StarOffice. There are so many alternatives out there, but no one ever considers most of them.
Since alcohol has the same effect, and it is legal, then no, that isn't enough.
That seems to be what they did for Chrome. Do you disagree with this testing methodology?
I would suggest scaling down the cpu speed then. Significant power savings. My 1.6GHz Atom runs at 800MHz most of the time, and I am trying to find a way to run it slower.
Why? How often is the processor in your laptop idle? When my laptop is turned on, I am doing things. When I stop doing things, I turn it off.
I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong
You don't pay people for there work every day. There are thousands of artists out there right now whose work you are not paying for. Artists you've never heard of.
Why does it make a difference if you see their work or not? It doesn't affect them.
I am sure that is one argument presented. I would like to see statistics on the subject. While I expect that the chance of a particular driver hitting a worker is increased at night, there are so many fewer drivers on the road that I expect it is safer overall...