That was the norm up until logistical complexity and evolution of tactics made it infeasible to have commanders leading from the front. But even Churchill commanded a battalion in WWI.
There is no such prohibition. The truth is no research is being done because there is no need for it and no indication that it would uncover anything useful. In areas where race does have an effect - such as medicine - research is done and is not controversial.
The AF plane was not at risk of stalling. However, the freezing pitot tubes led the stall alarm to sound due to airspeed being under-reported. The pilots, not realising, put the stick forward and kept this up all the way into the deck.
Yes, but you're attempting to put cart before horse. There is a difference between explaining responses and predicting responses. Black kids often have lower test scores. But we're still nowhere near understanding the socioeconomics well enough to say that there is *any* genetic component. And even if there is a marginal difference, my original post applies.
Yes, there are differences. But the way to think of it is this (using some made up numbers to illustrate the point). White people run at around 8.5 m/s. Black people run at around 8.7 m/s. But 95% of white people can run between 6.5 and 9.5m/s, and 95% of black people can run at between 6.6 and 9.7m/s. So if you've got a person running at 8m/s, you can't say anything about his race, and if you've got his race, you can't really say anything about how fast he runs. Yes, you can predict that Olympic sprinters will probably be black, but what have we learnt of use that we can apply to a particular individual? Not much.
Not neccesarily. Once enough data is gathered it becomes possible to distinguish good agressive drivers from bad aggressive drivers, I'd guess by measuring consistency. The bottom line is you're doing something different from the people that crash and telematics is the only scalable way to work out what form an insurers point of view.
Yeah, cool, except your incidence is wrong - incidence occurs per mile driven, and if you want to get fancy it depends on the type of mile, and severity ranges from "Oops, I crumpled your fender" to "this family of four are tetraplegic and require 24 care forever" or "I just killed thirty kids on a school bus". A more accurate expense ratio, is something of the order of 30-40%, depending on insurer. Oh, and the motor industry in the US hasn't made a 5% profit for years. It's been in loss year on year for something like a decade. Oh, and 1500 people is far to small a pool. One medium claim and you'll be (corporately) dead. So thanks for your contribution to the science of underwriting but sorry, you need to do a hell of a lot more thinking before you're ready to open your own shop.
Basically, insurers divide customers for a class of business - such as motor - into risk pools. Each member of a risk pool has a roughly equal probability of claiming. So in turn, each risk pool gets charged a premium that covers the cost of claim for that risk pool. So the unsafe drivers are paying for the claims of the unsafe drivers, and the good drivers are paying for the claims of the good drivers.
Once all the good drivers have selected themselves into the telematics pool, your premiums will shoot up anyway. Consider improving your driving skills.
Motor insurance in the UK and US runs at a loss. They pay more claims than they take in premium. Have done for years. So, yeah, on an aggregate level they are not at all interested in reducing premiums.
You didn't "fall outside" the model, you fell into a group that typically has higher accident rates. Keep shopping till you find an insurer whose rating model fits your usage patterns. Dare I say it, telematics was invented for people like you.
Actually, no. The whole point of this is to learn what are the actual attributes of a driver that correlate with accident rates. And the number one attribute is the number of sudden, sharp braking incidents.
Simply altering the speed limit on a piece of road has little effect on driver behaviour because drivers are already habituated to that road. And you're right, posted speed limits are often unsuitable to conditions or vehicle capabilities (in both directions).
The issue with speed is not one of incidence - incidence rises only slightly with speed, commensurate with, as you say, reaction times and so forth. The issue is with severity, which goes up in excess of the increase of speed - in short, vehicles in an accident dump all their kinetic energy, and I'm sure I don't have to remind any/.er of the formula for *that*.
Actually, in the US and UK the motor insurance industry runs at a loss in total. There is huge price competition and no matter how you assign rating factors you inevitably end up being selected against. The problem is simple: there are safe drivers and unsafe drivers, and at the moment all insurers can do is apply generalisations.
Many animals have the interesting property that their mortality rates level off or decline after a certain age. In human terms, that's equivalent to people in their 80s dying off at the rate of 40 year olds, and carrying on indefinitely (which would give at current UK mortality rates an expectation of remaining life of around 600 years).
Yeah, I used to think like that. Then I worked out that being a dick to people around me is actually not OK. I get it, it's really easy to think like this when you're a straight white male. But it's just bullshit. Grow up and get over it.
Yeah, that might just have something to do with the far better treatment of rape victims in Sweden. In the UK, for example, around one in ten rapes is actually reported.
Well, congratulations for not knowing the difference between a civil claim and a criminal offence. If you get sued, the court decides on the balance of probability. On that basis, you're better off with more data, not less.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell of a guess considering that it leads to things like a glowing screen in front of you. Idiot.
That was the norm up until logistical complexity and evolution of tactics made it infeasible to have commanders leading from the front. But even Churchill commanded a battalion in WWI.
There is no such prohibition. The truth is no research is being done because there is no need for it and no indication that it would uncover anything useful. In areas where race does have an effect - such as medicine - research is done and is not controversial.
The AF plane was not at risk of stalling. However, the freezing pitot tubes led the stall alarm to sound due to airspeed being under-reported. The pilots, not realising, put the stick forward and kept this up all the way into the deck.
Yes, but you're attempting to put cart before horse. There is a difference between explaining responses and predicting responses. Black kids often have lower test scores. But we're still nowhere near understanding the socioeconomics well enough to say that there is *any* genetic component. And even if there is a marginal difference, my original post applies.
Yes, there are differences. But the way to think of it is this (using some made up numbers to illustrate the point). White people run at around 8.5 m/s. Black people run at around 8.7 m/s. But 95% of white people can run between 6.5 and 9.5m/s, and 95% of black people can run at between 6.6 and 9.7m/s. So if you've got a person running at 8m/s, you can't say anything about his race, and if you've got his race, you can't really say anything about how fast he runs. Yes, you can predict that Olympic sprinters will probably be black, but what have we learnt of use that we can apply to a particular individual? Not much.
Not neccesarily. Once enough data is gathered it becomes possible to distinguish good agressive drivers from bad aggressive drivers, I'd guess by measuring consistency. The bottom line is you're doing something different from the people that crash and telematics is the only scalable way to work out what form an insurers point of view.
Yeah, cool, except your incidence is wrong - incidence occurs per mile driven, and if you want to get fancy it depends on the type of mile, and severity ranges from "Oops, I crumpled your fender" to "this family of four are tetraplegic and require 24 care forever" or "I just killed thirty kids on a school bus". A more accurate expense ratio, is something of the order of 30-40%, depending on insurer. Oh, and the motor industry in the US hasn't made a 5% profit for years. It's been in loss year on year for something like a decade. Oh, and 1500 people is far to small a pool. One medium claim and you'll be (corporately) dead. So thanks for your contribution to the science of underwriting but sorry, you need to do a hell of a lot more thinking before you're ready to open your own shop.
Basically, insurers divide customers for a class of business - such as motor - into risk pools. Each member of a risk pool has a roughly equal probability of claiming. So in turn, each risk pool gets charged a premium that covers the cost of claim for that risk pool. So the unsafe drivers are paying for the claims of the unsafe drivers, and the good drivers are paying for the claims of the good drivers.
You have a choice how you drive. You don't have a choice whether you get cancer.
Once all the good drivers have selected themselves into the telematics pool, your premiums will shoot up anyway. Consider improving your driving skills.
Motor insurance in the UK and US runs at a loss. They pay more claims than they take in premium. Have done for years. So, yeah, on an aggregate level they are not at all interested in reducing premiums.
You didn't "fall outside" the model, you fell into a group that typically has higher accident rates. Keep shopping till you find an insurer whose rating model fits your usage patterns. Dare I say it, telematics was invented for people like you.
Actually, no. The whole point of this is to learn what are the actual attributes of a driver that correlate with accident rates. And the number one attribute is the number of sudden, sharp braking incidents.
The issue with speed is not one of incidence - incidence rises only slightly with speed, commensurate with, as you say, reaction times and so forth. The issue is with severity, which goes up in excess of the increase of speed - in short, vehicles in an accident dump all their kinetic energy, and I'm sure I don't have to remind any /.er of the formula for *that*.
Actually, in the US and UK the motor insurance industry runs at a loss in total. There is huge price competition and no matter how you assign rating factors you inevitably end up being selected against. The problem is simple: there are safe drivers and unsafe drivers, and at the moment all insurers can do is apply generalisations.
Truly, a life spent focusing on the fundamentally important.
That word, fiat....it does not mean what you think it means. In turn, that makes it difficult to take any of your opinions on this topic seriously.
Yes, and if you talk to an actual pilot you will learn that we are still ightyears away from not ever needing pilots.
Many animals have the interesting property that their mortality rates level off or decline after a certain age. In human terms, that's equivalent to people in their 80s dying off at the rate of 40 year olds, and carrying on indefinitely (which would give at current UK mortality rates an expectation of remaining life of around 600 years).
Yeah, I used to think like that. Then I worked out that being a dick to people around me is actually not OK. I get it, it's really easy to think like this when you're a straight white male. But it's just bullshit. Grow up and get over it.
[citation needed] on several levels.
Yeah, that might just have something to do with the far better treatment of rape victims in Sweden. In the UK, for example, around one in ten rapes is actually reported.
Well, they are, but it's largely down to the sheer volume of sugar they get through, not the type.
Well, congratulations for not knowing the difference between a civil claim and a criminal offence. If you get sued, the court decides on the balance of probability. On that basis, you're better off with more data, not less.