Oh, but they are. They've bought cheap texting rates.
They're now taking it a step further and following the lead of the Hollywood and studio executives with entitlement complexes, who demand unskippable commercials and ad skipping is stealing, not just if they switch channels or fast forward on a PVR ("copyright infringement"), but even if they leave the room for a bathroom break ("I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom.")
Further to your point, too many times Apple maps will choose *what it thinks* is the correct search result, without giving you a choice at all. That result is sometimes dependent on where your map view currently covers, e.g. "Mount Everest" finds at least 5 different things this way, none of which are the actual mountain. It also sometimes prioritizes commercial (Yelp?) results over less major geographical marks like small towns.
This seems like an extension of Apple's general philosophy of reducing "confusion" to end-users by reducing choice. This works fine in hardware product land, it has no place in a global search and maps app. What they should do is give contextual results (near current location and near current map viewing area) if any, then other choices based on distance and/or significance. For example if I search for "New York" I expect to see results for the city first, not nearby locations of New York Fries.
The "pay attention" rationale doesn't hold water since they're not preventing people reading paper books or the newspapers they sometimes give out when you board.
Also, it's pretty well proven portable electronics like smartphones and tablets do not affect takeoffs/landings. Although there's airplane modes in many of them to disable wifi and cell transmissions, the idea is that all electronics are supposed to be off... and simply "sleeping" them does not turn it off. Even moving electronic components aren't a big deal--people were taping takeoffs and landings on camcorders long before solid state memory recorders came around.
Disallowing kindles/ereaders is especially hilarious considering they're effectively "off" all the time except when changing pages... and who remembers to turn off their kindle's wifi? I just realized I've flown 4 times without doing that (it's the basic version--the wifi disables airplane mode at some point to try downloading new ads).
No, I think the old rule was indeed to prohibit electrical/electronic devices back when they were new enough that they didn't know how to shield aircraft systems properly from a wide range of devices, and the "pay attention" rationale, while a good idea regardless, is just a way to avoid making significant bureaucratic/regulatory changes.
What is pathetic is that every one of us who did the testing on the DP and CP told MSFT repeatedly this was a BAD move, and if you'd have asked any of us retailers we'd have been happy to point out why.
Microsoft may have been trying to copy Apple--badly--yet again.
It's well known by now that the opinions of techies and Slashdot readers in general were a bad predictor of whether a new Apple product would be a success. The original iPod was famously slammed, the iPhone and iPads are toys that don't get real work done.
So Microsoft, not yet having learned that they'll fail at almost anything recent that they ape from Apple, decided the techies were off their rocker and their opinions were not to be trusted, and they'd do the exact opposite of what they said.
Apple has almost zero lobbying presence in Washington. Politicians may be idiots, but they don't blindly hop onto anything for free, and they're certainly not blind to the fact they're NOT receiving any real money from one of the biggest companies in the country.
Remember, the DOJ didn't hesitate to take on Microsoft, a hugely successful company in the mid-90s that was far closer to monopoly status than Apple ever will be over a general market area.
the vast majority of Android users are people buying it because the phones are cheap.
You mean low cost, not cheap. Android phones can do everything an iPhone or Windows Phone does, at a lower cost. So it is not cheap, it is a more valuable option for the customer.
This "low cost" Android-using Slashdot user disagrees: "I own an Android device myself. But the only thing on it that's usable at all is Maps. There are tons of super-cheap Android devices sold that don't have great touch screens and thus people don't use them much except for the basics like email and maps and texting."
Yeah yeah, it's one person's opinion, he didn't specify what Android device or if it's even a phone, and one anecdote doesn't make it data. But, his opinion/experience is just as valid as yours.
And the reason for that is because the underlying platform is more 'open' and less tightly controlled by a bunch of perverted sadists and corporate trolls.
Okay maybe his opinion is more valid. You're showing just a hint of bias there.
They arent tasty, and they arent exactly protein of high quality, besides the cholesterol problems. And they are darn ugly too. Besides I remember when I was in Angola that they were cheap than most food in upmarket restaurants, and even so. When eating lobster, what counts more is the preparation than the quality of the ingredient actually. Medium/Tiger prawn are so much more tastier than lobster.
"Aren't tasty"? Really? I usually eat them straight out of the shell (preparation: steamed, rarely boiled). No extra fatty butter or other sauce. Mind you, I don't over-salt or over-flavour my regular food either, maybe that's why you don't get any taste out of them? I don't recall un-sauced shrimp (prawn) being any tastier, just a different taste and texture.
I mean, I have an easier time understanding people that believe the moon landing was a hoax. I don't subscribe to that theory, but I can at least understand them. It was a big deal, we really only have the government's say-so that it happened and that they didn't just send a probe to land stuff. Just 1 source: the government.
Two governments, actually. The USA says it happened. The USSR didn't say it didn't happen.
These were bitter cold war rivals, not ten years before they almost came to nuclear war over Cuba, and the USSR still didn't call them on it--and they had a half dozen missions to do that, too. On top of all the other scientific rationale, this one really cements it. Anyone who then takes the conspiracy theory further and claims the USA and USSR were colluding in a moon hoax belongs in a padded cell.
Much as this demonstrates a serious problem antivaxers have caused in the US, what does the boy catching the disease in Switzerland say about the state of measles vaccination/prevention in *that* country?
I have to give credit to Apple that even users of the positively ancient iPhone 3GS still get first tier support. You would be hard pressed to find an Android phone from that era with official support for Jelly Bean. Maybe one of the Nexus phones?
Um, no, that's not entirely true.
Ask anyone who has installed IOS5 or IOS6 on an old iPhone 3G, or even a 3Gs. Its horrible.
I'm part of that anyone. Had a 3GS, upgraded to iOS5, it was fine. Every month or so input lag became a factor but a manual shutdown+start fixed that (don't make a big deal of the restart, I have friends whose Androids and Blackberrys need to be restarted far more often for far more serious issues). Battery was eventually replaced but it was almost 3 years old by that point. The friend I sold the 3GS to got updated to iOS6, and aside from the Maps which she hates, the phone is still doing great. I have other 3GS friends on iOS6 and they have no serious issues, certainly none that qualify as "horrible".
The 3G update to iOS4 was admittedly a disaster.
Large portions of new and marvelous best-thing-ever features are just not present on the old phones, (even those features that do not technically require new hardware elements, or are so slow as to be unusable. Battery life goes to hell, even with after Apple attempts to fix it. Most people who do this immediately hop on the net looking for a way to revert, the rest give up and run out to buy the latest iPhone (which was the plan all along). There is a lot of advice to simply not upgrade old phones.
Even iPhone 4 users are wary about updating to IOS6.
If anything the fact that you can install IOS6 on older devices speaks only to how little the iPhone has really progressed over time.
Damned if they do (3-year old phone supports latest iOS = very little tech progress), damned if they don't (older phones can't use all the features of latest iOS, some of which *do* require newer hardware).
Every service I pay for, like internet, cable, cell phone, credit cards... all operate and bill on a cycle based on the day of month when you signed up, not the first of the month itself. Even most of our business services are like this.
Given the general ridiculousness of patents, the propensity of large companies like Apple (by no means the only offender, but the one in question in this case) to submit patent applications on trivial things, and the VERY long history of wireless energy transfer at this point, I feel that the default position is that the patent should have never been awarded or even applied for and the onus is on anyone else claiming otherwise.
And given how criminals tend to be, well, criminal, the default position is that they're guilty and the onus is on them to prove their innocence. I mean, who cares about due process?
One is the state making accusations of wrongdoing against an entity, with monetary or restrictive consequences.
The other is an entity petitioning the state to recognize and grant them a temporary monopoly, with monetary rewards potentially enforced by the state against other entities.
Naturally, the two are somehow equivalent and should be handled in the same way.
My engineering undergrad degree in Canada totalled about $15K in today's dollars (graduated 2002). Given exchange rates at the time, that would be around $10K USD. I didn't consider that cheap, but I suppose it's all relative.
Granted tuition has gone through the roof in recent years, and attending the same university now, the same 4-year degree would cost around $40,000.
College now is the high school diploma of years past. It's good, but it's a fairly cheap commodity now. If someone doesn't have one, then they are just missing a cheap commodity.
Figuratively speaking, of course. And only because HR auto-filters don't cost anything.
Unlike a high school diploma, the path to a bachelor's degree isn't exactly cheap.
It would be nice for Canada, Norway, and Siberia, though. Not so nice for the United States (except for Alaska); we have a very good climate for agriculture right now, and don't really want to have the climate of Mexico move up to Kansas. Oddly, Canada, Norway and Russia are the most adamant of the countries that are trying to block restrictions on greenhouse effect gas emissions. That's probably just a coincidence, though, since those countries are also major fossil-fuel exporters.
Can't speak for Norway and Russia, but Canada is adamant only because the current Conservative government is dictating policy. And *they* are in power in part because a sizable majority (60%) of votes were split amongst several centrist/left wing parties, whereas there's only one middle-far right wing party.
Some of the centrist/left parties are a mess though, so we can't exactly blame voters for shunning them.
As opposed to letting the American Taliban in the form of Romney (he played the extremist, he can suck it up and accept the label) and Ryan and all the "legitimate rape" morons (open or closeted) get into power and run roughshod over sensible people?
We know Obama failed to keep major promises, and some have nothing to do with Republican interference. He was still the least worst of the options. Sometimes you have to take a hit because inaction is even worse. And unfortunately the US is a de facto 2-party system where voting by ideals alone, even if it's "both mainstream parties suck, I'm voting a 3rd party" or spoiling a ballot means you have zero chance of getting even token representation. In a 2-party system they *don't* care that you cast a protest ballot, both sides see it as "well at least the other side didn't get that vote either."
In Canada we have one middle-to-far right (by global standards) conservative party in power, and 3-4 significant centrist-left parties depending on province. The Conservatives got a majority with about 35-40% of the vote, thanks to idealistic voting that split ballots among the others.
I don't like 2-party systems any more than you do (I assume), but in a first-past-the-post system that's what it eventually boils down to. And none of the parties have the balls to do the right thing for the country and its people, because fixing the electoral system they weaken their future prospects.
Thus, even the costs associated with T-bone crashes increased, and although this study did not break down the cost into medical and non-medical costs, one can reasonably assume that although the injury rate decreased because the total number of accidents decreased, the severity of injuries was probably greater, resulting in increased medical costs. That's just not a very good trade.
>
I would contest that assumption.
The more deadly T-bone is a) impact from redlight runner at high speed b) into the SIDE of a car, where there's no front-end-sized crumple zone and side-impact airbags are a recent thing, so older cars don't have them.
There's T-bones where the just-accelerating car hits the side of speeding redlight runner, but this doesn't happen as often (the speeder's side is exposed for less time) and if it does, the green-light driver is does not suffer as great an impact, even if they're subsequently hit by a neighbouring car when the impact knocks them into their lane (both were accelerating from stop). The red-light running car might then spin out and/or crash into something else, of course, but that's much harder to say with certainty.
Meanwhile, cars have been built and tested for front and rear end collisions for decades. You have a large crumple zone in the front, a fair amount in the back, plus seats and headrests to cushion a rear-ending. A tailgater slamming into a braking car in front of them will be less damaging for occupants of both, compared to a T-bone where the victim is much more likely to suffer a greater injury than the redlight runner.
This is not an argument for or against redlight cameras, merely comparing effects of crash types. If it had to happen to me, I'd prefer a rear-ending over a side-impact any day.
I was almost hit by a "rolling right on red" driver. The 2-second all-way red was already over, I had the green light and white walk sign, the driver didn't give a damn that he'd already faced 2+ seconds of red and kept going. The slowest he got during the turn was probably 20 km/h and there was tire squeal as he turned. Thank goodness I don't (usually) blindly go ahead on a walk signal, and saw that with his approach speed there was no way he'd stop in time if I stepped onto the road. My not stepping ahead was apparently interpreted as my giving him permission to run the red.
A red light (or stop sign for that matter) is NOT an optional stop for right turns. It's full-stop, proceed if clear.
In short: Fuck them, government can make as much revenue from those drivers as they like.
This means that US pirates should convert their savings to CAD$ immediately. The way things are going, this means when they're hit with a $200,000 judgment in five years, they can pay it off with a $20 Canadian bill.
Although it was funny as hell when Mom came to visit, gave a $5 USD bill at the Tim's drive through for a $4.95 order and was told it wasn't enough.
When visiting California last year I had one or two Canadian pennies in the mix when I paid for some trivial things. At two different places they refused them.
Pennies. We're not talking dimes or quarters, here. But whatever.
When I mentioned in jest that it was technically more valuable than an American penny at the day's exchange rates, one laughed and apologized for not being allowed to take it, the other place the cashier was not amused.
I'm currently spec'ing a custom PC for flight-sim purposes (X-Plane), where a Mac Pro is both out of date CPU-wise and far too expensive to start with. In benchmarks, the CPU and graphics card I'm looking at totally destroy those on the base Mac Pro, and the entire built system is almost $900 less, too, even with an OEM Windows license (if I go Linux I save even more).
But I won't be building it myself, it's $40 for assembly/testing services with 30-day build warranty, and optional 1-year warranty for $20. So for a mere $40 I *don't* have to figure out heat sinks, thermal paste, etc.
I've been using Macs at home since 1993, and my 2012 Macbook Pro will still be my day-to-day machine. But for some purposes a Mac just doesn't make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, but they are. They've bought cheap texting rates.
They're now taking it a step further and following the lead of the Hollywood and studio executives with entitlement complexes, who demand unskippable commercials and ad skipping is stealing, not just if they switch channels or fast forward on a PVR ("copyright infringement"), but even if they leave the room for a bathroom break ("I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom.")
Further to your point, too many times Apple maps will choose *what it thinks* is the correct search result, without giving you a choice at all. That result is sometimes dependent on where your map view currently covers, e.g. "Mount Everest" finds at least 5 different things this way, none of which are the actual mountain. It also sometimes prioritizes commercial (Yelp?) results over less major geographical marks like small towns.
This seems like an extension of Apple's general philosophy of reducing "confusion" to end-users by reducing choice. This works fine in hardware product land, it has no place in a global search and maps app. What they should do is give contextual results (near current location and near current map viewing area) if any, then other choices based on distance and/or significance. For example if I search for "New York" I expect to see results for the city first, not nearby locations of New York Fries.
which he described as the best part of the iPhone experience at the iPhone launch event.
Not to say iOS6 Maps *is* better, but... Things aren't allowed to change in almost 6 years? That like 3 or 4 generations in tech-land.
"Well Apple maps just takes you through a different national park and dumps you there. 45C is also 113F. And there is no phone reception or water."
Think of it as evolution in action.
They don't have a chance of getting to Darwin to accept the award, it's over 3000 km NNW of Mildura.
The "pay attention" rationale doesn't hold water since they're not preventing people reading paper books or the newspapers they sometimes give out when you board.
Also, it's pretty well proven portable electronics like smartphones and tablets do not affect takeoffs/landings. Although there's airplane modes in many of them to disable wifi and cell transmissions, the idea is that all electronics are supposed to be off... and simply "sleeping" them does not turn it off. Even moving electronic components aren't a big deal--people were taping takeoffs and landings on camcorders long before solid state memory recorders came around.
Disallowing kindles/ereaders is especially hilarious considering they're effectively "off" all the time except when changing pages... and who remembers to turn off their kindle's wifi? I just realized I've flown 4 times without doing that (it's the basic version--the wifi disables airplane mode at some point to try downloading new ads).
No, I think the old rule was indeed to prohibit electrical/electronic devices back when they were new enough that they didn't know how to shield aircraft systems properly from a wide range of devices, and the "pay attention" rationale, while a good idea regardless, is just a way to avoid making significant bureaucratic/regulatory changes.
What is pathetic is that every one of us who did the testing on the DP and CP told MSFT repeatedly this was a BAD move, and if you'd have asked any of us retailers we'd have been happy to point out why.
Microsoft may have been trying to copy Apple--badly--yet again.
It's well known by now that the opinions of techies and Slashdot readers in general were a bad predictor of whether a new Apple product would be a success. The original iPod was famously slammed, the iPhone and iPads are toys that don't get real work done.
So Microsoft, not yet having learned that they'll fail at almost anything recent that they ape from Apple, decided the techies were off their rocker and their opinions were not to be trusted, and they'd do the exact opposite of what they said.
Apple has almost zero lobbying presence in Washington. Politicians may be idiots, but they don't blindly hop onto anything for free, and they're certainly not blind to the fact they're NOT receiving any real money from one of the biggest companies in the country.
Remember, the DOJ didn't hesitate to take on Microsoft, a hugely successful company in the mid-90s that was far closer to monopoly status than Apple ever will be over a general market area.
the vast majority of Android users are people buying it because the phones are cheap.
You mean low cost, not cheap. Android phones can do everything an iPhone or Windows Phone does, at a lower cost. So it is not cheap, it is a more valuable option for the customer.
This "low cost" Android-using Slashdot user disagrees: "I own an Android device myself. But the only thing on it that's usable at all is Maps. There are tons of super-cheap Android devices sold that don't have great touch screens and thus people don't use them much except for the basics like email and maps and texting."
Yeah yeah, it's one person's opinion, he didn't specify what Android device or if it's even a phone, and one anecdote doesn't make it data. But, his opinion/experience is just as valid as yours.
And the reason for that is because the underlying platform is more 'open' and less tightly controlled by a bunch of perverted sadists and corporate trolls.
Okay maybe his opinion is more valid. You're showing just a hint of bias there.
They arent tasty, and they arent exactly protein of high quality, besides the cholesterol problems. And they are darn ugly too. Besides I remember when I was in Angola that they were cheap than most food in upmarket restaurants, and even so. When eating lobster, what counts more is the preparation than the quality of the ingredient actually. Medium/Tiger prawn are so much more tastier than lobster.
"Aren't tasty"? Really? I usually eat them straight out of the shell (preparation: steamed, rarely boiled). No extra fatty butter or other sauce. Mind you, I don't over-salt or over-flavour my regular food either, maybe that's why you don't get any taste out of them? I don't recall un-sauced shrimp (prawn) being any tastier, just a different taste and texture.
Those attached to hotels I'm sure are subsidized by casino revenue, same as the cheap (compared to elsewhere) hotels themselves.
I mean, I have an easier time understanding people that believe the moon landing was a hoax. I don't subscribe to that theory, but I can at least understand them. It was a big deal, we really only have the government's say-so that it happened and that they didn't just send a probe to land stuff. Just 1 source: the government.
Two governments, actually. The USA says it happened. The USSR didn't say it didn't happen.
These were bitter cold war rivals, not ten years before they almost came to nuclear war over Cuba, and the USSR still didn't call them on it--and they had a half dozen missions to do that, too. On top of all the other scientific rationale, this one really cements it. Anyone who then takes the conspiracy theory further and claims the USA and USSR were colluding in a moon hoax belongs in a padded cell.
Much as this demonstrates a serious problem antivaxers have caused in the US, what does the boy catching the disease in Switzerland say about the state of measles vaccination/prevention in *that* country?
(Answer: the antivaxers are just as virulent there as they are in the US)
I have to give credit to Apple that even users of the positively ancient iPhone 3GS still get first tier support. You would be hard pressed to find an Android phone from that era with official support for Jelly Bean. Maybe one of the Nexus phones?
Um, no, that's not entirely true.
Ask anyone who has installed IOS5 or IOS6 on an old iPhone 3G, or even a 3Gs. Its horrible.
I'm part of that anyone. Had a 3GS, upgraded to iOS5, it was fine. Every month or so input lag became a factor but a manual shutdown+start fixed that (don't make a big deal of the restart, I have friends whose Androids and Blackberrys need to be restarted far more often for far more serious issues). Battery was eventually replaced but it was almost 3 years old by that point. The friend I sold the 3GS to got updated to iOS6, and aside from the Maps which she hates, the phone is still doing great. I have other 3GS friends on iOS6 and they have no serious issues, certainly none that qualify as "horrible".
The 3G update to iOS4 was admittedly a disaster.
Large portions of new and marvelous best-thing-ever features are just not present on the old phones, (even those features that do not technically require new hardware elements, or are so slow as to be unusable. Battery life goes to hell, even with after Apple attempts to fix it. Most people who do this immediately hop on the net looking for a way to revert, the rest give up and run out to buy the latest iPhone (which was the plan all along). There is a lot of advice to simply not upgrade old phones.
Even iPhone 4 users are wary about updating to IOS6.
If anything the fact that you can install IOS6 on older devices speaks only to how little the iPhone has really progressed over time.
Damned if they do (3-year old phone supports latest iOS = very little tech progress), damned if they don't (older phones can't use all the features of latest iOS, some of which *do* require newer hardware).
Every service I pay for, like internet, cable, cell phone, credit cards... all operate and bill on a cycle based on the day of month when you signed up, not the first of the month itself. Even most of our business services are like this.
Given the general ridiculousness of patents, the propensity of large companies like Apple (by no means the only offender, but the one in question in this case) to submit patent applications on trivial things, and the VERY long history of wireless energy transfer at this point, I feel that the default position is that the patent should have never been awarded or even applied for and the onus is on anyone else claiming otherwise.
And given how criminals tend to be, well, criminal, the default position is that they're guilty and the onus is on them to prove their innocence. I mean, who cares about due process?
One is the state making accusations of wrongdoing against an entity, with monetary or restrictive consequences.
The other is an entity petitioning the state to recognize and grant them a temporary monopoly, with monetary rewards potentially enforced by the state against other entities.
Naturally, the two are somehow equivalent and should be handled in the same way.
My engineering undergrad degree in Canada totalled about $15K in today's dollars (graduated 2002). Given exchange rates at the time, that would be around $10K USD. I didn't consider that cheap, but I suppose it's all relative.
Granted tuition has gone through the roof in recent years, and attending the same university now, the same 4-year degree would cost around $40,000.
College now is the high school diploma of years past. It's good, but it's a fairly cheap commodity now. If someone doesn't have one, then they are just missing a cheap commodity.
Figuratively speaking, of course. And only because HR auto-filters don't cost anything.
Unlike a high school diploma, the path to a bachelor's degree isn't exactly cheap.
It would be nice for Canada, Norway, and Siberia, though. Not so nice for the United States (except for Alaska); we have a very good climate for agriculture right now, and don't really want to have the climate of Mexico move up to Kansas. Oddly, Canada, Norway and Russia are the most adamant of the countries that are trying to block restrictions on greenhouse effect gas emissions. That's probably just a coincidence, though, since those countries are also major fossil-fuel exporters.
Can't speak for Norway and Russia, but Canada is adamant only because the current Conservative government is dictating policy. And *they* are in power in part because a sizable majority (60%) of votes were split amongst several centrist/left wing parties, whereas there's only one middle-far right wing party.
Some of the centrist/left parties are a mess though, so we can't exactly blame voters for shunning them.
As opposed to letting the American Taliban in the form of Romney (he played the extremist, he can suck it up and accept the label) and Ryan and all the "legitimate rape" morons (open or closeted) get into power and run roughshod over sensible people?
We know Obama failed to keep major promises, and some have nothing to do with Republican interference. He was still the least worst of the options. Sometimes you have to take a hit because inaction is even worse. And unfortunately the US is a de facto 2-party system where voting by ideals alone, even if it's "both mainstream parties suck, I'm voting a 3rd party" or spoiling a ballot means you have zero chance of getting even token representation. In a 2-party system they *don't* care that you cast a protest ballot, both sides see it as "well at least the other side didn't get that vote either."
In Canada we have one middle-to-far right (by global standards) conservative party in power, and 3-4 significant centrist-left parties depending on province. The Conservatives got a majority with about 35-40% of the vote, thanks to idealistic voting that split ballots among the others.
I don't like 2-party systems any more than you do (I assume), but in a first-past-the-post system that's what it eventually boils down to. And none of the parties have the balls to do the right thing for the country and its people, because fixing the electoral system they weaken their future prospects.
Thus, even the costs associated with T-bone crashes increased, and although this study did not break down the cost into medical and non-medical costs, one can reasonably assume that although the injury rate decreased because the total number of accidents decreased, the severity of injuries was probably greater, resulting in increased medical costs. That's just not a very good trade.
>
I would contest that assumption.
The more deadly T-bone is a) impact from redlight runner at high speed b) into the SIDE of a car, where there's no front-end-sized crumple zone and side-impact airbags are a recent thing, so older cars don't have them.
There's T-bones where the just-accelerating car hits the side of speeding redlight runner, but this doesn't happen as often (the speeder's side is exposed for less time) and if it does, the green-light driver is does not suffer as great an impact, even if they're subsequently hit by a neighbouring car when the impact knocks them into their lane (both were accelerating from stop). The red-light running car might then spin out and/or crash into something else, of course, but that's much harder to say with certainty.
Meanwhile, cars have been built and tested for front and rear end collisions for decades. You have a large crumple zone in the front, a fair amount in the back, plus seats and headrests to cushion a rear-ending. A tailgater slamming into a braking car in front of them will be less damaging for occupants of both, compared to a T-bone where the victim is much more likely to suffer a greater injury than the redlight runner.
This is not an argument for or against redlight cameras, merely comparing effects of crash types. If it had to happen to me, I'd prefer a rear-ending over a side-impact any day.
I was almost hit by a "rolling right on red" driver. The 2-second all-way red was already over, I had the green light and white walk sign, the driver didn't give a damn that he'd already faced 2+ seconds of red and kept going. The slowest he got during the turn was probably 20 km/h and there was tire squeal as he turned. Thank goodness I don't (usually) blindly go ahead on a walk signal, and saw that with his approach speed there was no way he'd stop in time if I stepped onto the road. My not stepping ahead was apparently interpreted as my giving him permission to run the red.
A red light (or stop sign for that matter) is NOT an optional stop for right turns. It's full-stop, proceed if clear.
In short: Fuck them, government can make as much revenue from those drivers as they like.
So if I'm 20 feet above sea level now, my property value is expected to go up! Fuck yeah.
Sure they'll go up, but so will your property taxes.
And if you're close enough to the coast, the value might actually go DOWN if people no longer want to risk being so close to the water.
This means that US pirates should convert their savings to CAD$ immediately. The way things are going, this means when they're hit with a $200,000 judgment in five years, they can pay it off with a $20 Canadian bill.
Although it was funny as hell when Mom came to visit, gave a $5 USD bill at the Tim's drive through for a $4.95 order and was told it wasn't enough.
When visiting California last year I had one or two Canadian pennies in the mix when I paid for some trivial things. At two different places they refused them.
Pennies. We're not talking dimes or quarters, here. But whatever.
When I mentioned in jest that it was technically more valuable than an American penny at the day's exchange rates, one laughed and apologized for not being allowed to take it, the other place the cashier was not amused.
I'm currently spec'ing a custom PC for flight-sim purposes (X-Plane), where a Mac Pro is both out of date CPU-wise and far too expensive to start with. In benchmarks, the CPU and graphics card I'm looking at totally destroy those on the base Mac Pro, and the entire built system is almost $900 less, too, even with an OEM Windows license (if I go Linux I save even more).
But I won't be building it myself, it's $40 for assembly/testing services with 30-day build warranty, and optional 1-year warranty for $20. So for a mere $40 I *don't* have to figure out heat sinks, thermal paste, etc.
I've been using Macs at home since 1993, and my 2012 Macbook Pro will still be my day-to-day machine. But for some purposes a Mac just doesn't make sense.