No, but it doesn't seem to be too much of a leap to infer accident rates in taxicabs from accident rates in automobiles generally. The difference in death rates per passenger-mile between automobiles and commercial aircraft is huge--like, orders-of-magnitude huge. So I doubt that any difference between commercial taxicabs and private automobiles is going to matter.
For starters, out-of-state citations would invariably show up on your driving record. As it stands now, pretty much all states share information on serious MV violations like DUI, MV homicide, and reckless driving/operating to endanger, and on license suspensions and revocations. Some but not all states trade information on lesser violations like speeding or disregarding a stop sign via various regional compacts. Typically adjoining states share information, but the gaps in the compacts can be interesting. MA and NH didn't share violation information until the mid 90s, and DE and MD didn't share violation information until the mid 80s. So it can happen sometimes that if you get a ticket out-of-state, it won't show up on your driving record and your insurance rates won't go up. (This assumes you simply plead "guilty" by mail and send in the fine.) A national driver license database eliminates that loophole. This is especially problematic for people who live in the Northeast where you can get across five or six states before lunch, and people who otherwise live near a state border or spend significant time in another state other than the one in which they live. You might argue that these people are then "paying what they should" and you'd probably be right, but the immediate effect is going to be a hit to the wallet. Knock-on effect might be that fewer people would choose to drive on long car trips.
Of course, the real solution to this would be to implement more realistic speed limits, not the current "post it at 65 and include a 10-15mph enforcement tolerance" nonsense.
I agree. And if they're being at all sane about this, the only thing they're really checking for is an absence of negative information that would tend to indicate problems with your spending habits. Y'know, a history of just running up huge credit card balances, without an obvious "life event" to prompt them. (e.g. they shouldn't count divorce or medical bills against you.) Or huge balances that might be a problem to pay off with the approximate salary they plan to offer you.
Credit checks are the new drug testing. They're the latest "because we can" tactic employed by HR to winnow resumes. Like drug testing, once they find out it isn't an efficient tactic, and they're excluding otherwise desirable candidates, they'll stop.
The biggest problem with the whole thing is that the information on credit reports is so often inaccurate. I have an uncommon last name. It's almost, but not quite, unique within the United States. I'd hate to be "John Smith," though.
I don't know what employers are using. Are they actually looking at open trades and payment history, or just at FICO score? I hope they're not just looking at FICO score. Many things about FICO scoring are counterintuitive. For example, making payment on a long-past-due debt can *lower* your score. Making a payment "resets the clock" and makes the debt seem current, and FICO heavily weights current activity. Then there's the fact that it's better to have five cards with a $5,000 limit each than to have one card with a $25,000 limit. And if you close out your oldest card, that can drop your score. Like that card you got fresh out of college, with the 25% interest rate. You might think you're better off closing that account and using the ones you got more recently that have better terms, but keep it open--one heavily-weighted factor is "age of oldest open account". And so on.
I lived in Delaware from 1984-99 and still keep up with the news from there. (I now live in the Boston area.)
Governor Minner just signed a needle-exchange bill. Story here. What scares me is all the cameras all over downtown Wilmington. Yeah, theoretically you're out in public and subject to observation, but actually observing you used to require a lot more effort than it does now. Like, a cop actually had to tail you or something. Or someone who knew you had to be in the same place and recognize you. Now you can observe a whole lot of people in an automated fashion from a central location. Add in facial recognition software and the situation is open to all kinds of abuse.
And then there are all the stories I'm reading about people ODing on heroin in Delaware. WTF?
India is, as I understand it, not exactly encouraging immigration. Witness the myriad "ha ha only serious" postings on/. message boards from laid-off coders who would be happy to emigrate from the US to Bangalore if it meant that they could write code at a wage that kept a roof over their heads.
But yes, I agree that from the standpoint of both economics and freedom the US and Europe are both getting pretty old-n-busted.
I'd vote for the moon as envisioned by Robert A. Heinlein, myself.
It's all about the Baby Boomers and the Boomers' convenience and self-centeredness.
When the Boomers were young--the 1960s and 1970s--they wanted the laws relaxed so they could go party and have fun. They lobbied for an 18 drinking age, for the decriminalization of pot, for free love and abortion and birth control pills and so on.
Now that the Boomers' kids are old enough to enjoy the fruits of what the Boomers sowed, and get into trouble thereby, the Boomers want to take it all back to make their job as parents easier. GPS tracking, restricted "junior operator" licenses, 21 drinking age, "abstinence only" sex education, "zero tolerance" on darn near everything.
I'd like to see what happens to this nonsense if we have a return of the draft. One of the most compelling arguments to lower the drinking and voting ages in the US was "I can get my butt shot off in Vietnam but I can't have a beer or vote." Age of majority in many states back then was 21 for drinking, voting, or both.
The rates due to drunk driving in general went down significantly since the age was raised, because raising the age went along with a general campaign against drunk driving. Fewer people of all ages drive drunk today. Drinkers of any age are much more likely today than twenty years ago to employ a designated driver, take a cab home, drink at home rather than at a bar, or whatever other strategy ensures that they won't be on the road while intoxicated.
The 21 drinking age is, and always has been, about marginalizing a politically impotent group of people as a supposed solution to a problem.
In fact, my ex recto guess is that the 21 drinking age has created its own set of problems. Why is it that we never used to hear about college frosh drinking themselves to death 20 years ago? Because when you're allowed access to something forbidden--be it drugs, or high-calorie desserts, or booze--the tendency is to consume it to excess because you never know when you're going to get it again. You also don't have the opportunity anymore for older folks to teach younger ones to drink responsibly.
(Oh, and lest you think I'm some whiny undergraduate, I'm nearly 40. I came of age right when all these changes were going on.)
Slashdot Mirror
No, but it doesn't seem to be too much of a leap to infer accident rates in taxicabs from accident rates in automobiles generally. The difference in death rates per passenger-mile between automobiles and commercial aircraft is huge--like, orders-of-magnitude huge. So I doubt that any difference between commercial taxicabs and private automobiles is going to matter.
Indeed. You're way more likely to die as a result of the cab ride to the airport.
Why am I picturing this as a Gary Larson cartoon, with the dinosaurs lounging in an underground "den" that has wood paneling and a big-screen TV?
For starters, out-of-state citations would invariably show up on your driving record. As it stands now, pretty much all states share information on serious MV violations like DUI, MV homicide, and reckless driving/operating to endanger, and on license suspensions and revocations. Some but not all states trade information on lesser violations like speeding or disregarding a stop sign via various regional compacts. Typically adjoining states share information, but the gaps in the compacts can be interesting. MA and NH didn't share violation information until the mid 90s, and DE and MD didn't share violation information until the mid 80s. So it can happen sometimes that if you get a ticket out-of-state, it won't show up on your driving record and your insurance rates won't go up. (This assumes you simply plead "guilty" by mail and send in the fine.) A national driver license database eliminates that loophole. This is especially problematic for people who live in the Northeast where you can get across five or six states before lunch, and people who otherwise live near a state border or spend significant time in another state other than the one in which they live. You might argue that these people are then "paying what they should" and you'd probably be right, but the immediate effect is going to be a hit to the wallet. Knock-on effect might be that fewer people would choose to drive on long car trips.
Of course, the real solution to this would be to implement more realistic speed limits, not the current "post it at 65 and include a 10-15mph enforcement tolerance" nonsense.
I agree. And if they're being at all sane about this, the only thing they're really checking for is an absence of negative information that would tend to indicate problems with your spending habits. Y'know, a history of just running up huge credit card balances, without an obvious "life event" to prompt them. (e.g. they shouldn't count divorce or medical bills against you.) Or huge balances that might be a problem to pay off with the approximate salary they plan to offer you.
Credit checks are the new drug testing. They're the latest "because we can" tactic employed by HR to winnow resumes. Like drug testing, once they find out it isn't an efficient tactic, and they're excluding otherwise desirable candidates, they'll stop. The biggest problem with the whole thing is that the information on credit reports is so often inaccurate. I have an uncommon last name. It's almost, but not quite, unique within the United States. I'd hate to be "John Smith," though. I don't know what employers are using. Are they actually looking at open trades and payment history, or just at FICO score? I hope they're not just looking at FICO score. Many things about FICO scoring are counterintuitive. For example, making payment on a long-past-due debt can *lower* your score. Making a payment "resets the clock" and makes the debt seem current, and FICO heavily weights current activity. Then there's the fact that it's better to have five cards with a $5,000 limit each than to have one card with a $25,000 limit. And if you close out your oldest card, that can drop your score. Like that card you got fresh out of college, with the 25% interest rate. You might think you're better off closing that account and using the ones you got more recently that have better terms, but keep it open--one heavily-weighted factor is "age of oldest open account". And so on.
I think facial recognition software keys off face shape, so makeup won't help. Get yourself a nice Guy Fawkes mask instead.
I lived in Delaware from 1984-99 and still keep up with the news from there. (I now live in the Boston area.)
Governor Minner just signed a needle-exchange bill. Story here. What scares me is all the cameras all over downtown Wilmington. Yeah, theoretically you're out in public and subject to observation, but actually observing you used to require a lot more effort than it does now. Like, a cop actually had to tail you or something. Or someone who knew you had to be in the same place and recognize you. Now you can observe a whole lot of people in an automated fashion from a central location. Add in facial recognition software and the situation is open to all kinds of abuse.
And then there are all the stories I'm reading about people ODing on heroin in Delaware. WTF?
I'm surprised they're not finding some way to blame internet piracy.
"We could tax...thingy". I propose that as protest, people start singing "The Internet Is For Porn".
You are Randal Schwartz and I claim my five pounds.
Sounds like New England weather.
Homeschooling is beginning to look more and more attractive every day. At least I'll be able to teach my kids what "rights" are.
It's lacking in atmosphere, but the food more than makes up for it. :-)
Seriously, Heinlein posits the moon having been settled, with domes and stuff.
India is, as I understand it, not exactly encouraging immigration. Witness the myriad "ha ha only serious" postings on /. message boards from laid-off coders who would be happy to emigrate from the US to Bangalore if it meant that they could write code at a wage that kept a roof over their heads.
But yes, I agree that from the standpoint of both economics and freedom the US and Europe are both getting pretty old-n-busted.
I'd vote for the moon as envisioned by Robert A. Heinlein, myself.
It's all about the Baby Boomers and the Boomers' convenience and self-centeredness. When the Boomers were young--the 1960s and 1970s--they wanted the laws relaxed so they could go party and have fun. They lobbied for an 18 drinking age, for the decriminalization of pot, for free love and abortion and birth control pills and so on. Now that the Boomers' kids are old enough to enjoy the fruits of what the Boomers sowed, and get into trouble thereby, the Boomers want to take it all back to make their job as parents easier. GPS tracking, restricted "junior operator" licenses, 21 drinking age, "abstinence only" sex education, "zero tolerance" on darn near everything. I'd like to see what happens to this nonsense if we have a return of the draft. One of the most compelling arguments to lower the drinking and voting ages in the US was "I can get my butt shot off in Vietnam but I can't have a beer or vote." Age of majority in many states back then was 21 for drinking, voting, or both.
The rates due to drunk driving in general went down significantly since the age was raised, because raising the age went along with a general campaign against drunk driving. Fewer people of all ages drive drunk today. Drinkers of any age are much more likely today than twenty years ago to employ a designated driver, take a cab home, drink at home rather than at a bar, or whatever other strategy ensures that they won't be on the road while intoxicated.
The 21 drinking age is, and always has been, about marginalizing a politically impotent group of people as a supposed solution to a problem.
In fact, my ex recto guess is that the 21 drinking age has created its own set of problems. Why is it that we never used to hear about college frosh drinking themselves to death 20 years ago? Because when you're allowed access to something forbidden--be it drugs, or high-calorie desserts, or booze--the tendency is to consume it to excess because you never know when you're going to get it again. You also don't have the opportunity anymore for older folks to teach younger ones to drink responsibly.
(Oh, and lest you think I'm some whiny undergraduate, I'm nearly 40. I came of age right when all these changes were going on.)
Move to Boston. The mortgage payments here will make that spiffy graphics card look cheap.