Even if they get a percentage of false positives for speeding, a bad driver will still tend to get an awful lot more speeding events logged than a good driver.
But they might not care at all about what the posted speed limits are. They might just care about how much high speed driving you do and how much low speed driving.
If you're driving over 90mph it's probably going to raise your premiums no matter where you are doing it. (Even on the German autobahns. Just because driving fast is legal, doesn't mean the insurance company can't charge you extra for doing it.)
Maybe you've just been lucky. Accidents don't happen often enough to be a great risk predictor for the future. From the sound of it, maybe when you do have an accident it will be a big one, and you'll total the car. And that'll be more significant than the 2 mild fender benders that the little old lady next door has had in 20 years.
People claim infrequently enough that there's probably not enough data even after 15 years to be sure how risky you are.
But they're not marketing this to you anyway. It's marketed at people have high premiums but believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are safe drivers. Young people, musicians...
Maybe I have a car that is driven by me during the day, and my daughter or wife at other times.
Why would they care? The insurance is on the car. If you have a bad driver driving it some of the time you can reasonably expect your premium to go up.
Should those people that _must_ drive in an accident prone area really be punished by paying higher premiums?
Of course. It means they are a higher risk. And of course if they park in high theft areas, that's another risk they can quantify.
They can ccululate data of everyone they monitor and correlate patterns against claims. They'll soon know what constitutes risky driving far better than anyone's theories.
No. They supply a "tom tom pro 3100" for navigating and supplying you with feedback. But switching that off will do you no good as they also fit a black box that works independently and comes on whenever you start the ignition.
What do you know, you didn't manage to out-think them in 3 seconds.
Unless this thing has a gyroscope or accelerometers, I don't know how useful the braking and turning data is.
The fact says it measures "G-force impact" amongst other things. Which implies it does have an accelerometer.
It's not just a consumer grade GPS. They supply a normal looking Tom-Tom sat nav, and there's also a fixed black box. Probably this or something very similar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJq08UNRbXY
For instance, if you get too many speeding tickets most insurance companies will raise your rates. But I have always been of the mind that people speeding are paying WAY more attention to the road than the average driver, and in the end probably are not as likely to get in an accident. Well, with these devices, now we would know...
I'd put heavy cash down on the outcome being you're a fucking idiot.
Wonderful, a system that will save the company a metric fuckton of cash and they'll pass on some unspecified fraction to us. How noble. I'm not saying it's a useless or immoral thing (quite the contrary), but it's hardly cause for public celebration when a company does something to increase their profits and it coincidentally helps the rest of us.
Insurance companies have always profiled drivers and charged them as much as they can get away with in a competitive market. The only change here is they'll have better information for profiling the driver. Good news if you're a lower risk driver, and vice versa.
Now how about using that system to charge someone like me, who drives maybe 1,500 miles a year, less than someone who drives at or above the American average of ~12,000 miles a year?
Obviously milage is one of the many risk factors they can and no doubt will take into account wit this system.
I wonder why they didn't implement the noise-reduction server-side given that they send the audio data anyway.
They also want the noise reduction for ordinary phone calls, so it has to be built in to the phone regardless.
Also, one of the tricks of noise reduction is to use multiple microphones. Doing the noise reduction on the server would mean sending multiple audio streams and not just one. And clean audio is probably more compressible than noisy audio too, which adds the the difference in data size.
And Foxconn (and indirectly Apple) have factories all over the world. Like Brazil for example.
The conversation is about the factories in China. Companies that have factories in China are part of the conversation, irrespective of whether they also have factories outside of China.
Wouldn't it be nice to have just one consumer electronics manufacturer that made all their stuff in the first-world and paid their workers decent wages?
With the intention of improving life in developing countries, or improving life in the first world? Because reducing the number of jobs in the developing world won't do anything to raise their standard of living.
And if it is about having more jobs in the first world, lets be honest about that, and not pretend we're doing it to save people from sweatshops.
Neither the article, nor comments here are excusing Apple, nor suggesting they don't need to improve.
They are just correcting the hysterics of the media and of the slashdot haters, which have been implying Apple is the big offender. It's the very opposite of the truth.
No. An architect creates concept drawings and/or models at the bidding stage. But most of the work is done once the successful bid has been selected. And the selected architect gets paid by the hour for that time.
This competition is based on complete books. Where all the work has been done by all the competitors up front. And it doesn't vary by amount of work put in.
I'm all for text-books being free. So long as the academic that wrote it was somehow paid at a suitable rate for the time he spent creating it.
A competition tends to mean X people create a work, and X-1 people don't get paid anything for that work. Its a morally vacuous way of getting work done on the cheap, whilst wasting most peoples time. It's neither socialist nor capitalist, but more closely fits slavery.
Slashdot Mirror
It's in a black box bolted somewhere in your car. Communicates with the display unit with bluetooth. It can't fall to the floor.
Even if they get a percentage of false positives for speeding, a bad driver will still tend to get an awful lot more speeding events logged than a good driver.
But they might not care at all about what the posted speed limits are. They might just care about how much high speed driving you do and how much low speed driving.
If you're driving over 90mph it's probably going to raise your premiums no matter where you are doing it. (Even on the German autobahns. Just because driving fast is legal, doesn't mean the insurance company can't charge you extra for doing it.)
Maybe you've just been lucky. Accidents don't happen often enough to be a great risk predictor for the future. From the sound of it, maybe when you do have an accident it will be a big one, and you'll total the car. And that'll be more significant than the 2 mild fender benders that the little old lady next door has had in 20 years.
On average insurance wont get much cheaper. But it'll get cheaper for safe drivers and more expensive for unsafe drivers. Which is a good thing.
People claim infrequently enough that there's probably not enough data even after 15 years to be sure how risky you are.
But they're not marketing this to you anyway. It's marketed at people have high premiums but believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are safe drivers. Young people, musicians...
You've got to balance the amount of predictive power of the statistic against the admin involved in collecting it.
This system collects lots of different factors and feeds them back into the system automatically. There's no reason NOT to consider milage.
It's got an accelerometer.
Maybe I have a car that is driven by me during the day, and my daughter or wife at other times.
Why would they care? The insurance is on the car. If you have a bad driver driving it some of the time you can reasonably expect your premium to go up.
Should those people that _must_ drive in an accident prone area really be punished by paying higher premiums?
Of course. It means they are a higher risk. And of course if they park in high theft areas, that's another risk they can quantify.
They can ccululate data of everyone they monitor and correlate patterns against claims. They'll soon know what constitutes risky driving far better than anyone's theories.
No. They supply a "tom tom pro 3100" for navigating and supplying you with feedback. But switching that off will do you no good as they also fit a black box that works independently and comes on whenever you start the ignition.
What do you know, you didn't manage to out-think them in 3 seconds.
Unless this thing has a gyroscope or accelerometers, I don't know how useful the braking and turning data is.
The fact says it measures "G-force impact" amongst other things. Which implies it does have an accelerometer.
It's not just a consumer grade GPS. They supply a normal looking Tom-Tom sat nav, and there's also a fixed black box. Probably this or something very similar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJq08UNRbXY
For instance, if you get too many speeding tickets most insurance companies will raise your rates. But I have always been of the mind that people speeding are paying WAY more attention to the road than the average driver, and in the end probably are not as likely to get in an accident. Well, with these devices, now we would know...
I'd put heavy cash down on the outcome being you're a fucking idiot.
Wonderful, a system that will save the company a metric fuckton of cash and they'll pass on some unspecified fraction to us. How noble. I'm not saying it's a useless or immoral thing (quite the contrary), but it's hardly cause for public celebration when a company does something to increase their profits and it coincidentally helps the rest of us.
Insurance companies have always profiled drivers and charged them as much as they can get away with in a competitive market. The only change here is they'll have better information for profiling the driver. Good news if you're a lower risk driver, and vice versa.
Now how about using that system to charge someone like me, who drives maybe 1,500 miles a year, less than someone who drives at or above the American average of ~12,000 miles a year?
Obviously milage is one of the many risk factors they can and no doubt will take into account wit this system.
I wonder why they didn't implement the noise-reduction server-side given that they send the audio data anyway.
They also want the noise reduction for ordinary phone calls, so it has to be built in to the phone regardless.
Also, one of the tricks of noise reduction is to use multiple microphones. Doing the noise reduction on the server would mean sending multiple audio streams and not just one. And clean audio is probably more compressible than noisy audio too, which adds the the difference in data size.
And Foxconn (and indirectly Apple) have factories all over the world. Like Brazil for example.
The conversation is about the factories in China. Companies that have factories in China are part of the conversation, irrespective of whether they also have factories outside of China.
Samsung and LG both manufacture in China.
Unless you can read Chinese you wouldn't understand it if he did. And perhaps he already has.
Let's not confuse what he says and publishes with what someone else choses to translate.
Wouldn't it be nice to have just one consumer electronics manufacturer that made all their stuff in the first-world and paid their workers decent wages?
With the intention of improving life in developing countries, or improving life in the first world? Because reducing the number of jobs in the developing world won't do anything to raise their standard of living.
And if it is about having more jobs in the first world, lets be honest about that, and not pretend we're doing it to save people from sweatshops.
Neither the article, nor comments here are excusing Apple, nor suggesting they don't need to improve.
They are just correcting the hysterics of the media and of the slashdot haters, which have been implying Apple is the big offender. It's the very opposite of the truth.
Foxconn build according to designs and components supplied to them. They'll build whatever quality they are paid to build.
Anything to reject evidence that conflicts with your preconceived notions.
No. An architect creates concept drawings and/or models at the bidding stage. But most of the work is done once the successful bid has been selected. And the selected architect gets paid by the hour for that time.
This competition is based on complete books. Where all the work has been done by all the competitors up front. And it doesn't vary by amount of work put in.
If you try to exprapolate rules from a single occurence, then more the fool you.
I thought you had nothing, and sure enough you don't.
Due to patents and FCC regulations, I do not in fact have the freedom that you appear to claim that I have.
Just as well.
By that logic, why wouldn't the existence of antitrust and consumer protection law also be considered authoritarian?
To the same degree as your demands are. I'm not the one claiming to want more freedom though.
I'm all for text-books being free. So long as the academic that wrote it was somehow paid at a suitable rate for the time he spent creating it.
A competition tends to mean X people create a work, and X-1 people don't get paid anything for that work. Its a morally vacuous way of getting work done on the cheap, whilst wasting most peoples time. It's neither socialist nor capitalist, but more closely fits slavery.