If Insurance companies are offering lower premiums for people who drive shorter distances then it's almost certainly because statistically they pay out less in claims to those drivers. Is there really some reason to suppose otherwise?
But they also factor in age and experience (and other things). A newly licensed 18 year old that only drive 10 miles a week will still pay much more than an experienced 40 year old that drives 200 miles a week.
"Should a driver with a 20 year perfect record pay the same as a 19 year old with 4 speeding tickets and 2 serious accidents? "
yes.
The 19 yr old is demonstrably more of a liability to the insurance company than the older person. Why should they be charged the same? (Yes, I agree that this particular fictional 19 year old should have his license removed, but that's a different discussion.)
Give everyone insurance ID cards which must be scanned to purchase gas. Then, the computer system at the pump can introduce coefficients based on a backend database of IDs and their rates.
You've just introduced location based tracking, whether you pay by card or cash. Big brother indeed.
On the surface, that sounds good. But how do you differentiate between drivers and their rates? Should a driver with a 20 year perfect record pay the same as a 19 year old with 4 speeding tickets and 2 serious accidents? Or differentiating between different cars. A VW Beetle vs a Mustang Cobra. Same insurance rate at the pump?
the Saturn V program cost $32 to $45 billion in today's dollars ($6.5 billion in 1960's dollars; the inflation is depressing, isn't it?)
You know what the real depressing thing is? Consider how much money we've simply pissed/given away to failed companies in TARP over the last year. Hell...we could have been back on the moon in 18 months.
Robert A. Frosch, head of NASA at the time (11 July 1979), or pres Jimmy Carter. Also, you might include the last crew; Carr, Pogue, and Gibson. They abandoned a moving vehicle, and let it crash...;)
The poster I was replying to stated LAUNCH VEHICLES. Before you snap replies, maybe you should read the friggin thread.
Semantics. Launch or delivery, START I & II counted missiles (sub and land based) as well as aircraft. Obviously different numbers for each, but they all counted.
The person upthread stated that aircraft do not count. I said yes, they did.
We shall have to wait and see what this treaty says, and how they are defined and counted.
Yes, START I & II specifically stated 'heavy bombers'. B-1, B-2, B-52 would be included, and not F-16/18/35. So...we reduce the overall number of launch vehicles to 500. Once you include sub and ICBM vehicles, the aircraft component could come down to some very low number.
It will be interesting to see exactly what this treaty says.
Anyway, we still have aircraft delivered nuclear warheads, and the plane that can deliver a warhead doesn't count against the launch vehicles limit.
Under START I & II, aircraft did count as launch vehicles. Verifiable destruction to include slicing the wings off B-52's, and leaving the carcass outside long enough to be photographed by a Russian satellite. Also, onsite inspections at various air bases and missile launch facilities on both sides.
Also, this is 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads so I assume there are some MIRVs in there.
'Launch vehicles' also includes aircraft. B-1, B-2, B-52, and F-16. All of these can also be used with conventional munitions. So bringing down the total number of 'launch vehicles' to 500 will, of necessity, bring the numbers of these aircraft down to some very low, possibly unsustainable, number.
I'd fully agree with bringing down the number of actual warheads. But when you include aircraft that can also be used for other functions, we may be getting into a place where the conventional forces are too small to do anything. The argument could be made that this is a good thing, but that's a discussion for another day.
Question: How does this: "I download that much when I hear a song I like on the radio, figure out which album it's on, and download the entire album to check out the other songs too. I've easily got more than a thousand albums downloaded"
square with:
"By most, I mean that I still want my favorite artists to stay in business."
Where is the flow of money from your pocket to your favorite artists that will allow them to 'stay in business'?
I know many reading this will say "but I buy WAY more now that I can sample it first!" And for a few, that may be true. But I'll bet the majority of people who download music do so because its free and easy. But primarily free.
AOL shut down Compuserv LONG ago, when they bought it. The only thing that remained was the name. The techy goodness that differentiated CS from the mass appeal of AOL was gone. They even dialed into the same modem bank, with exactly the same phone numbers.
[hanging head] Yes, I had an AOL acct and a CS acct at the same time.
Let's pull out just one state you cite - Maryland. 21-1205.1 (b)
"Roadway with bike lane or shoulder paved to a smooth surface. â"
(1)
Where there is a bike lane paved to a smooth surface or a shoulder paved to a smooth surface {COMAR October 29, 1979 defines smooth surface as a surface that has a texture equal to or better than the adjacent roadway and if the surface contains undulations which are no longer than the adjacent roadway.}, a person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter shall use the bike lane."
In other words, "If there is a bike lane, you must use it." It does NOT prohibit bikes on roads lacking a bike lane.
And I REALLY like the link you posted, outlining the serious problems with the design of most bike lanes. i.e. they are quite often more dangerous than no bike lane.
And we really, really don't care about your location, except to look up your local laws and see if what you say is true.
Interstates and limited access highways are the exception. Bikes are legal on pretty much every other public road in the country.
And there is at least one exception to the prohibition on interstates: I-70 in Colorado
"Though bicycles and other non-motorized vehicles are normally prohibited on Interstate Highways, the USDOT has made an exception for the portions of I-70 through the Rockies where no other through route exists."
Exactly. No, I don't know the rules and laws of every state an jurisdiction. That is why I hedged a little. I DO know that in the vast majority of states, that is false.
A citation, perhaps, is in order. I'm truly interested in where this is, how it is worded, and how it is justified.
I think the point is that it would not matter if they did as the number of 'good guys' with guns would be larger than the number of 'bad guys' with guns.
Not really. How many people carry a weapon on them on a daily basis? Not flying, just around town. I've heard estimates of 2%. So, on a 100 person flight, you might have 2 people. All the bad guys have to do is load up one flight with 4-5 guys. And they have the advantage of timing, coordination, concealment, and fanaticism.
So pay a uniform "pre-bate" [1]to everyone equal to the "energy tax" they would pay
Hold the phone, homer. How about don't take it from me in the first place! The government can't send you a 'check' unless they take the money from you first.
That appears to be your entire (current) life. You can't sustain that.
But in the short term, for exercise, look into biking. No, it doesn't have to be ALL the way to work. Split the task. Drive, and bike in for the last 8-10 miles or so. At the end of your shift, bike back to the car and drive home. Or do the same but walking. Walk the last mile to and from work.
Slashdot Mirror
If Insurance companies are offering lower premiums for people who drive shorter distances then it's almost certainly because statistically they pay out less in claims to those drivers. Is there really some reason to suppose otherwise?
But they also factor in age and experience (and other things). A newly licensed 18 year old that only drive 10 miles a week will still pay much more than an experienced 40 year old that drives 200 miles a week.
"Should a driver with a 20 year perfect record pay the same as a 19 year old with 4 speeding tickets and 2 serious accidents? "
yes.
The 19 yr old is demonstrably more of a liability to the insurance company than the older person. Why should they be charged the same?
(Yes, I agree that this particular fictional 19 year old should have his license removed, but that's a different discussion.)
Give everyone insurance ID cards which must be scanned to purchase gas. Then, the computer system at the pump can introduce coefficients based on a backend database of IDs and their rates.
You've just introduced location based tracking, whether you pay by card or cash.
Big brother indeed.
On the surface, that sounds good. But how do you differentiate between drivers and their rates? Should a driver with a 20 year perfect record pay the same as a 19 year old with 4 speeding tickets and 2 serious accidents? Or differentiating between different cars. A VW Beetle vs a Mustang Cobra. Same insurance rate at the pump?
the Saturn V program cost $32 to $45 billion in today's dollars ($6.5 billion in 1960's dollars; the inflation is depressing, isn't it?)
You know what the real depressing thing is? Consider how much money we've simply pissed/given away to failed companies in TARP over the last year. Hell...we could have been back on the moon in 18 months.
Robert A. Frosch, head of NASA at the time (11 July 1979), or pres Jimmy Carter. Also, you might include the last crew; Carr, Pogue, and Gibson. They abandoned a moving vehicle, and let it crash...;)
The use of that sperm for procreation would be unethical (human cloning).
No, it wouldn't.
That is your opinion, not a fact. As you can see, someone else has a different opinion. Again, that is not a 'fact'.
The poster I was replying to stated LAUNCH VEHICLES. Before you snap replies, maybe you should read the friggin thread.
Semantics. Launch or delivery, START I & II counted missiles (sub and land based) as well as aircraft. Obviously different numbers for each, but they all counted.
The person upthread stated that aircraft do not count. I said yes, they did.
We shall have to wait and see what this treaty says, and how they are defined and counted.
"The central limits in START I are a limit of 1,600 strategic offensive delivery systems (launchers for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers) and 6,000 attributed warheads"
91139: Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START I & II): Verification and Compliance Issues
Yes, START I & II specifically stated 'heavy bombers'. B-1, B-2, B-52 would be included, and not F-16/18/35.
So...we reduce the overall number of launch vehicles to 500. Once you include sub and ICBM vehicles, the aircraft component could come down to some very low number.
It will be interesting to see exactly what this treaty says.
Anyway, we still have aircraft delivered nuclear warheads, and the plane that can deliver a warhead doesn't count against the launch vehicles limit.
Under START I & II, aircraft did count as launch vehicles. Verifiable destruction to include slicing the wings off B-52's, and leaving the carcass outside long enough to be photographed by a Russian satellite. Also, onsite inspections at various air bases and missile launch facilities on both sides.
Also, this is 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads so I assume there are some MIRVs in there.
'Launch vehicles' also includes aircraft. B-1, B-2, B-52, and F-16. All of these can also be used with conventional munitions. So bringing down the total number of 'launch vehicles' to 500 will, of necessity, bring the numbers of these aircraft down to some very low, possibly unsustainable, number.
I'd fully agree with bringing down the number of actual warheads. But when you include aircraft that can also be used for other functions, we may be getting into a place where the conventional forces are too small to do anything.
The argument could be made that this is a good thing, but that's a discussion for another day.
Question:
How does this:
"I download that much when I hear a song I like on the radio, figure out which album it's on, and download the entire album to check out the other songs too. I've easily got more than a thousand albums downloaded"
square with:
"By most, I mean that I still want my favorite artists to stay in business."
Where is the flow of money from your pocket to your favorite artists that will allow them to 'stay in business'?
I know many reading this will say "but I buy WAY more now that I can sample it first!" And for a few, that may be true. But I'll bet the majority of people who download music do so because its free and easy. But primarily free.
Replying to myself:
On second read, Mr. Lomax appears to be just some dude on the plane, and not the repairman.
The quote should probably read:
"It was reassuring [to the other passengers] to know the person who had fixed it was still on the aeroplane"
The sentence just above that talks about applause from the other passengers.
AOL shut down Compuserv LONG ago, when they bought it. The only thing that remained was the name. The techy goodness that differentiated CS from the mass appeal of AOL was gone.
They even dialed into the same modem bank, with exactly the same phone numbers.
[hanging head] Yes, I had an AOL acct and a CS acct at the same time.
anyone rational in their life wouldn't ever make life changing decisions based on someone they never met in real life
A goodly percentage of teenage girls are not 'rational'. Most adults know this. Who was the bully in this situation?
Oh please. A 13 yo girl, talking to what she thought was a boy who she knew and liked her. Not anonymous, and not 'validation'.
Teen girls are bags of hormones. Not surprising that one could be pushed over the edge. Especially by a devious, malicious, adult.
Hell yes the family should have been more involved in her life. But Lori Drew should not have been involved at all.
Who sought out whom?
Let's pull out just one state you cite - Maryland.
21-1205.1 (b) "Roadway with bike lane or shoulder paved to a smooth surface. â" (1) Where there is a bike lane paved to a smooth surface or a shoulder paved to a smooth surface {COMAR October 29, 1979 defines smooth surface as a surface that has a texture equal to or better than the adjacent roadway and if the surface contains undulations which are no longer than the adjacent roadway.}, a person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter shall use the bike lane."
In other words, "If there is a bike lane, you must use it." It does NOT prohibit bikes on roads lacking a bike lane.
And I REALLY like the link you posted, outlining the serious problems with the design of most bike lanes. i.e. they are quite often more dangerous than no bike lane.
And we really, really don't care about your location, except to look up your local laws and see if what you say is true.
Interstates and limited access highways are the exception. Bikes are legal on pretty much every other public road in the country.
And there is at least one exception to the prohibition on interstates:
I-70 in Colorado
"Though bicycles and other non-motorized vehicles are normally prohibited on Interstate Highways, the USDOT has made an exception for the portions of I-70 through the Rockies where no other through route exists."
Exactly. No, I don't know the rules and laws of every state an jurisdiction. That is why I hedged a little. I DO know that in the vast majority of states, that is false.
A citation, perhaps, is in order. I'm truly interested in where this is, how it is worded, and how it is justified.
1) Bicyclists don't have a right to be on the road where I live unless there are bike lanes.
If you live anywhere in the US, I'll bet you're wrong.
I think the point is that it would not matter if they did as the number of 'good guys' with guns would be larger than the number of 'bad guys' with guns.
Not really. How many people carry a weapon on them on a daily basis? Not flying, just around town. I've heard estimates of 2%.
So, on a 100 person flight, you might have 2 people. All the bad guys have to do is load up one flight with 4-5 guys. And they have the advantage of timing, coordination, concealment, and fanaticism.
So pay a uniform "pre-bate" [1]to everyone equal to the "energy tax" they would pay
Hold the phone, homer. How about don't take it from me in the first place! The government can't send you a 'check' unless they take the money from you first.
That appears to be your entire (current) life. You can't sustain that.
But in the short term, for exercise, look into biking. No, it doesn't have to be ALL the way to work. Split the task. Drive, and bike in for the last 8-10 miles or so. At the end of your shift, bike back to the car and drive home.
Or do the same but walking. Walk the last mile to and from work.