Cameo wrote on Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:40:53 -0000 (UTC) :

>>> Believing that a cellphone is safer is just fooling yourself.
>>
>> And yet, cellphones had absolutely no effect on the USA accident rate.
>>
>
> This is such a hearsay as the one that claims that old drivers cause the
> majority of car accidents and therefore their driver licenses should not be
> renewed above a certain age. Actually, the statistics show that yunger
> drivers cause the majority of accidents.

It's telling that you claim the US Census Bureau statistics which have been
compiled for accidents in the USA for all fifty states since the 1920s
(48 states in the beginning) is... to you... "hearsay".

I cited the US Census Bureau statistics so many times I'm tired of citing
them. Click on the links before you claim every fact you don't happen to
like is "hearsay" please.

Better yet, find a reliable cite that backs up your belief system.
HINT: You can't. Nobody can. Because it's a myth.

All you'll find are shills by insurance companies, ticketing agencies, and
personal injury law firms trolling for customers.

Ask me how I know that.

On 10/06/2024 04:04, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 3:52 PM, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>>     Let me see... How do I manage to look at a map? Oh, yeah,
>>> I pull over. :)
>>
>> Trying to be a smart arse just makes you look a jerk.  There are many,
>> many driving situations where you can't just pull over to the side of
>> the road.
>
>   Just a bit of

.... attempted smartarse ...

> humor. Prior to a few years ago, everyone
> used maps. It worked.

So does using a Navigation app, with the great advantage that it can
advise you before you make a mistake.

> I still use maps. If I can't pull over then
> I wait until I can. Not rocket science. Believing that a cellphone
> is safer is just fooling yourself.

If it saves you a moment of panic from taken the wrong turn, that is safer.

>   I've been in a car where people were using driving directions
> exactly twice. One was Google. I think the other was a Mapquest
> printout. Google told us to take a crazy route that would have
> wasted an hour. It appeared sensible to a visitor, but as a local
> I knew it would have been a disastrous choice.
>
>    Mapquest had the right route, but had the direction wrong.
> It told us to take route x north when it should have been south.
> Both trips would have been easy to plan via map before leaving
> the house.

Both maps and online mapping can contain errors. In particular, printed
maps may not show important traffic details such as one-way streets,
correct lane for a given turning, etc.

> I don't mind if people can't read maps and want to use
> Google or Mapquest, but if you really need to look at your cellphone,
> you should pull over.

You don't need to look at it, it speaks instructions for you to follow.

> If you follow Google and then your passenger
> squeals that the directions are wrong, don't panic. Don't make any
> sudden move or veer into another lane. Don't slam on the brakes.
> Keep driving until you have a chance to pull over safely and consult
> a map. :)

That would be just as true if the passenger were reading a map.

You live in your Luddite world if you wish, but don't, as you did at the
start of this subthread, imperiously rant at everyone else for moving
with the times and overtaking you.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 6/10/2024 7:45 AM, Java Jive wrote:

> You live in your Luddite world if you wish, but don't, as you did at the
> start of this subthread, imperiously rant at everyone else for moving
> with the times and overtaking you.
>
And leave you with no excuse to have a self righteous
tantrum? I could never be so mean-spirited. :)

On 10/06/2024 12:56, Newyana2 wrote:
>
>    And leave you with no excuse to have a self righteous
> tantrum? I could never be so mean-spirited. :)

Hypocrite! I think any independent and fair-minded person reading this
thread would have no difficulty in deciding which of us is being
self-righteous.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:43:47 -0700, Bob F
<bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/9/2024 12:20 AM, Klyde wrote:
>> On 23 Apr 2024, JAB <here@is.invalid> posted some
>> news:v08acm$1kbd2$2@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> State Farm files patent for system to suppress calls and text while
>>> driving
>>>
>>> State Farm has filed a patent for a system that suppresses calls and
>>> notifications to a driver's phone while they are operating a motor
>>> vehicle, according to patent documents recently published by the
>>> United States Patent and Trademark Office.
>>>
>>> https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2024/04/22/state-farm-files-patent-f
>>> or-system-to-suppress-calls-and-text-while-driving/
>>
>> Get it done and implemented.
>>
>> We see prople driving along holding cell phones up to their face and
>> watching videos or having animated conversations.
>>
>> There was a repeat violator negro with no drivers license on a zoom call
>> court appearance with a judge while he was driving.
>>
>> These people need to be stopped, pulled from their vehicles and beaten
>> sufficiently to put them in the hospital for 30 days at their expense.
>>
>> The only calls that should be permitted from a moving vehicle are
>> emergency calls.
>>
>
>What conceivable reason would cause you to stop passengers in a car from
>using their phone, or the drivers phone?

YOu've got me, I don't know. When I ride with my brother and his phone
rings, he always hands it to me or has me take it.

If you read the link, it's talking about the driver's phone, but it
doesn't say how it would distinguish the driver's phone if there were
two phones in the car. The simplest thing would be an icon on the home
page that would turn this thing on and off, but the same people who
would answer the phone now won't turn it on.

"State Farm gives three options for how a driver’s phone could connect
to the system:

Bluetooth interface configured to connect to a device associated
with the vehicle

[see below about the "beacon". Maybe they need a new improved beacon?
But if they're going to use a separate device in the car, that could
probably figure out the answer my question at the top. ]

Wireless communication interface configured to receive wireless
communication from a remote device
A processer coupled to the wireless communication interface and
the Bluetooth interface

After being connected by one of the three options, the system would
suppress any notifications once it determines the vehicle is operating."

State Farm is already trying to get its clients to use a "beacon" that
will record their driving info, and if they go slow enough, etc. they
get a premium dscount. This is probably not the primary page to learn
about it but otoh it probably gets to a lot of points the primary page
does not. Search for the word beacon.
https://www.statefarm.com/customer-care/faqs/drive-safe-save#accordion-59ab055521-item-46148a721a

For the beacon, a Reddit page suggests turning off your bluetooth if
you are a passenger, but I can imaginet the driver doing the same thing.

As part of a recent Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for advanced
impaired driving prevention technologies, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that distracted driving caused
12,405 fatalities in 2021 and a societal cost of $158 billion.

On 6/10/2024 7:21 AM, bad sector wrote:
> On 6/9/24 03:20, Klyde wrote:
>> On 23 Apr 2024, JAB <here@is.invalid> posted some
>> news:v08acm$1kbd2$2@dont-email.me:
>>
>>
>> Get it done and implemented.
>
> On re-reading the article I think insurance might be an inappropriate
> jurisdiction. Legislation could force cell providers to continuously
> monitor cell traffic in moving phones, isolate those in cars belonging
> to the owner etc. and automatically transfer data to police who could
> then also autamatically issue the official Darwin award. This may sound
> complex but is actually perfect AI turf producing resolutions in
> milliseconds. All you need is large fines and three strikes to lose
> license. It's doable, so is a mandatory self-disabling feature in phones
> that senses running engines in proximity and doppler closure-rates
> regardless of whether the phone is in a car or in the hands of some
> walking zika-barbie. Thousands of applications become possible all of
> them a walk in the park for AI; for example electronically tagged
> crosswalks that cause all cellphones within XYZ feet to shut up.
>

Are you familiar with "burner phone"?

On 6/10/24 08:49, Ed P wrote:
> On 6/10/2024 7:21 AM, bad sector wrote:
>> On 6/9/24 03:20, Klyde wrote:
>>> On 23 Apr 2024, JAB <here@is.invalid> posted some
>>> news:v08acm$1kbd2$2@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>
>>> Get it done and implemented.
>>
>> On re-reading the article I think insurance might be an inappropriate
>> jurisdiction. Legislation could force cell providers to continuously
>> monitor cell traffic in moving phones, isolate those in cars belonging
>> to the owner etc. and automatically transfer data to police who could
>> then also autamatically issue the official Darwin award. This may
>> sound complex but is actually perfect AI turf producing resolutions in
>> milliseconds. All you need is large fines and three strikes to lose
>> license. It's doable, so is a mandatory self-disabling feature in
>> phones that senses running engines in proximity and doppler
>> closure-rates regardless of whether the phone is in a car or in the
>> hands of some walking zika-barbie. Thousands of applications become
>> possible all of them a walk in the park for AI; for example
>> electronically tagged crosswalks that cause all cellphones within XYZ
>> feet to shut up.
>
> Are you familiar with "burner phone"?

Not intimately but if they are a problem you take them out, period. I'm
a fan of freedoms and liberties but when it comes to guns and motor
vehicles then fences must protect society from those lunatics who are or
used to be institutionalised in other countries. For guns yearly, for
cars maybe every five years a mandatory psy. eval. to begin with.

On 6/10/24 07:25, Andrew wrote:

> There's no way to discuss facts with you when your entire belief system is
> based on zero facts - which is why you strongly believe in a baseless myth.

For me the prerequisite facts are in the form of two incidents (cited
earlier) involving in one case my own and in another someone else's use
of a cell phone in a car. I do not need any others. Youtube is full of
videos of people stepping into swimming pools or into traffic while on
the phone, if you need more than that then I can be of no further
assistance to you.

My opinion of the issue was appended as a sig before, I'll repeat it
here not as a sig because some people prefer to block sigs as is their
right. That's my take on it, take it or leave it; no like, no read.

All species of mobile phones, media devices, Bluetooth or not, and
onboard presentation systems beyond what is essential for vehicle
control should automatically disable themselves within 10 meters of any
vehicle in motion at any speed. Hands-Free does NOT mean Brain-Free. In
the case of approaching vehicles (pedestrian use included) that distance
should be multiplied (prorated) for every 5 km/h of CLOSURE speed (i.e.
no such device should be operable within 200 meters of any vehicle
approaching at 100 km/h). Manufacturers of devices in which such an
automatic lockout feature is missing or can be disabled should first pay
large fines and then be barred from the jurisdiction market. With
respect to other road-hog conduct, in addition to intoxication or
attention-diverting use of lethal-technology while driving,
brake-checking and tailgating should also be HANGING crimes. Any
irresponsible vehicle handling should in fact be punished exactly as it
would be in the case of irresponsible weapons handling (which ALSO needs
to be beefed up).

In news:f1WdnTvtF5gCYfv7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com, bad sector
<forgetski@_INVALID.net> typed:

> ...I'm a fan of freedoms and liberties but when it comes to guns and
> motor vehicles then fences must protect society from those lunatics
> who are or used to be institutionalised in other countries. For guns
> yearly, for cars maybe every five years a mandatory psy. eval. to
> begin with.

How about voters? How about "journalists"? Surely these two categories present
more danger to society as a whole than gunowners or drivers.

[Default] bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> typed:

>Not intimately but if they are a problem you take them out, period. I'm
>a fan of freedoms and liberties but when it comes to guns and motor
>vehicles then fences must protect society from those lunatics who are or
>used to be institutionalised in other countries. For guns yearly, for
>cars maybe every five years a mandatory psy. eval. to begin with.

TRANSLATION: "I'm a fan of freedoms and liberties for me."

On 6/9/24 11:42, AJL wrote:

> In my burg (metro area of the 5th largest city in the US) when some
> drivers get pissed off they just start shooting at the perceived
> offender. It's called road rage. I try not to piss anyone off...

Guess it was bad luck that I mentioned it yesterday and this was on the
news this morning. Happens all the time here in the wild west...

<https://www.abc15.com/traffic/westbound-i-10-shut-down-in-downtown-phoenix-due-to-police-investigation>

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:08:35 -0400, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

>
>
>State Farm is already trying to get its clients to use a "beacon" that
>will record their driving info, and if they go slow enough, etc. they
>get a premium dscount. This is probably not the primary page to learn
>about it but otoh it probably gets to a lot of points the primary page
>does not. Search for the word beacon.
>https://www.statefarm.com/customer-care/faqs/drive-safe-save#accordion-59ab055521-item-46148a721a

also https://discussions.apple.com/thread/255610962?sortBy=best

And it seems the beacon connects to the OBDii connector, and though the
patent has just been filed, I think people are talking about what the
patent does. The link just above is about Siri not working when someone
is driving.

On 6/9/2024 1:42 PM, Ed P wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 10:43 AM, Bob F wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 12:20 AM, Klyde wrote:
>>> On 23 Apr 2024, JAB <here@is.invalid> posted some
>>> news:v08acm$1kbd2$2@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> State Farm files patent for system to suppress calls and text while
>>>> driving
>>>>
>>>> State Farm has filed a patent for a system that suppresses calls and
>>>> notifications to a driver's phone while they are operating a motor
>>>> vehicle, according to patent documents recently published by the
>>>> United States Patent and Trademark Office.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2024/04/22/state-farm-files-patent-f
>>>> or-system-to-suppress-calls-and-text-while-driving/
>>>
>>> Get it done and implemented.
>>>
>>> We see prople driving along holding cell phones up to their face and
>>> watching videos or having animated conversations.
>>>
>
>>> The only calls that should be permitted from a moving vehicle are
>>> emergency calls.
>>>
>>
>> What conceivable reason would cause you to stop passengers in a car
>> from using their phone, or the drivers phone?
>>
>
> I can see using it if they gave me a big discount on the premium.  Doubt
> it would ever be mandated.
>
> OTOH, I'm told years ago people did not have phones in cars but that was
> in ancient times.

I have State Farm and they solicited me a couple of times with the
discount and this says maybe 30%:

https://www.statefarm.com/customer-care/download-mobile-apps/drive-safe-and-save-mobile

I would not even do it for even a larger discount for them to see when I
exceeded the speed limit or maybe even farted while driving the car.

bad sector wrote on Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:38:45 -0400 :

> For me the prerequisite facts are in the form of two incidents (cited
> earlier) involving in one case my own and in another someone else's use
> of a cell phone in a car. I do not need any others. Youtube is full of
> videos of people stepping into swimming pools or into traffic while on
> the phone, if you need more than that then I can be of no further
> assistance to you.
>
> My opinion of the issue was appended as a sig before, I'll repeat it
> here not as a sig because some people prefer to block sigs as is their
> right. That's my take on it, take it or leave it; no like, no read.
>
> All species of mobile phones, media devices, Bluetooth or not, and
> onboard presentation systems beyond what is essential for vehicle
> control should automatically disable themselves within 10 meters of any
> vehicle in motion at any speed. Hands-Free does NOT mean Brain-Free. In
> the case of approaching vehicles (pedestrian use included) that distance
> should be multiplied (prorated) for every 5 km/h of CLOSURE speed (i.e.
> no such device should be operable within 200 meters of any vehicle
> approaching at 100 km/h). Manufacturers of devices in which such an
> automatic lockout feature is missing or can be disabled should first pay
> large fines and then be barred from the jurisdiction market. With
> respect to other road-hog conduct, in addition to intoxication or
> attention-diverting use of lethal-technology while driving,
> brake-checking and tailgating should also be HANGING crimes. Any
> irresponsible vehicle handling should in fact be punished exactly as it
> would be in the case of irresponsible weapons handling (which ALSO needs
> to be beefed up).

I am fully aware of how myths work so you didn't need to explain why you
believe in a biased myth that has no actual basis in reliable facts.

I presume by now that you've scoured the Internet for those facts and you
have found absolutely nothing that supports your mythical point of view.

Otherwise you would have stated facts instead of fomenting mere myths.

On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:16:49 -0400, Frank wrote:

> I have State Farm and they solicited me a couple of times with the
> discount and this says maybe 30%:
>
> https://www.statefarm.com/customer-care/download-mobile-apps/drive-safe-and-save-mobile
>
> I would not even do it for even a larger discount for them to see when I
> exceeded the speed limit or maybe even farted while driving the car.

I suspect the insurance companies want to have a new system of bonus malus
to squeeze even more money, almost like a taxation system, from its policy
holders by using this method - which is like a subscription based penalty.

On 6/10/2024 12:35 PM, Bill Powell wrote:
> bonus malus

Sure if you were speeding and had an accident I would expect them to gig
you for it.

On 6/10/24 12:32, Andrew wrote:
> bad sector wrote on Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:38:45 -0400 :
>
>> For me the prerequisite facts are in the form of two incidents (cited
>> earlier) involving in one case my own and in another someone else's use
>> of a cell phone in a car. I do not need any others. Youtube is full of
>> videos of people stepping into swimming pools or into traffic while on
>> the phone, if you need more than that then I can be of no further
>> assistance to you.
>>
>> My opinion of the issue was appended as a sig before, I'll repeat it
>> here not as a sig because some people prefer to block sigs as is their
>> right. That's my take on it, take it or leave it; no like, no read.
>>
>> All species of mobile phones, media devices, Bluetooth or not, and
>> onboard presentation systems beyond what is essential for vehicle
>> control should automatically disable themselves within 10 meters of any
>> vehicle in motion at any speed. Hands-Free does NOT mean Brain-Free. In
>> the case of approaching vehicles (pedestrian use included) that distance
>> should be multiplied (prorated) for every 5 km/h of CLOSURE speed (i.e.
>> no such device should be operable within 200 meters of any vehicle
>> approaching at 100 km/h). Manufacturers of devices in which such an
>> automatic lockout feature is missing or can be disabled should first pay
>> large fines and then be barred from the jurisdiction market. With
>> respect to other road-hog conduct, in addition to intoxication or
>> attention-diverting use of lethal-technology while driving,
>> brake-checking and tailgating should also be HANGING crimes. Any
>> irresponsible vehicle handling should in fact be punished exactly as it
>> would be in the case of irresponsible weapons handling (which ALSO needs
>> to be beefed up).
>
> I am fully aware of how myths work so you didn't need to explain why you
> believe in a biased myth that has no actual basis in reliable facts.
>
> I presume by now that you've scoured the Internet for those facts and you
> have found absolutely nothing that supports your mythical point of view.
>
> Otherwise you would have stated facts instead of fomenting mere myths.

I myself almost ran some construction workers over BECAUSE I was on the
phone, that's a fact but there was no accident, no report and no
statistics. I know that because I am a defensive driver; defensive
driving isn't based on facts or on statisrucs or on increaeses in
accident rates, it's based on suspicion, paranoia and prejuducial
treatment of all road situations. I trust my instincts, over a million
miles without accidents, argue with THAT.

On 6/10/24 10:27, max headroom wrote:
> In news:f1WdnTvtF5gCYfv7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com, bad sector
> <forgetski@_INVALID.net> typed:
>
>> ...I'm a fan of freedoms and liberties but when it comes to guns and
>> motor vehicles then fences must protect society from those lunatics
>> who are or used to be institutionalised in other countries. For guns
>> yearly, for cars maybe every five years a mandatory psy. eval. to
>> begin with.
>
> How about voters? How about "journalists"? Surely these two categories present
> more danger to society as a whole than gunowners or drivers.

Many people have moved the idea that voting should be tied to sobriety
tests among many others, I can't say I could not agree. Journalists say
what their bosses the media owners tell them to say and in their (the
owners') case I would propose the firing squad only because I feel
altruistic and in a good mood today.

In news:v478ti$hcu9$1@dont-email.me, Frank" <"frank <"frank "@frank.net> typed:

> I have State Farm and they solicited me a couple of times with the
> discount and this says maybe 30%:

> https://www.statefarm.com/customer-care/download-mobile-apps/drive-safe-and-save-mobile

> I would not even do it for even a larger discount for them to see
> when I exceeded the speed limit or maybe even farted while driving
> the car.

For now, it is optional....

In news:daicnUn8rJMG1fr7nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com, bad sector
<forgetski@_INVALID.net> typed:

> On 6/10/24 10:27, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:f1WdnTvtF5gCYfv7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com, bad sector
>> <forgetski@_INVALID.net> typed:

>>> ...I'm a fan of freedoms and liberties but when it comes to guns and
>>> motor vehicles then fences must protect society from those lunatics
>>> who are or used to be institutionalised in other countries. For guns
>>> yearly, for cars maybe every five years a mandatory psy. eval. to
>>> begin with.

>> How about voters? How about "journalists"? Surely these two
>> categories present more danger to society as a whole than gunowners
>> or drivers.

> Many people have moved the idea that voting should be tied to sobriety
> tests among many others, I can't say I could not agree....

I'd rather see a drunk who could pass the naturalization citizenship test vote
than a pinkie who believes that bigger = better applies to government.

> ... Journalists say what their bosses the media owners tell them to say ...

Nah, more likely their bosses only hire those who think "correctly."

On 6/10/24 15:47, max headroom wrote:
> In news:daicnUn8rJMG1fr7nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com, bad sector
> <forgetski@_INVALID.net> typed:
>
>> On 6/10/24 10:27, max headroom wrote:
>>> In news:f1WdnTvtF5gCYfv7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com, bad sector
>>> <forgetski@_INVALID.net> typed:
>
>>>> ...I'm a fan of freedoms and liberties but when it comes to guns and
>>>> motor vehicles then fences must protect society from those lunatics
>>>> who are or used to be institutionalised in other countries. For guns
>>>> yearly, for cars maybe every five years a mandatory psy. eval. to
>>>> begin with.
>
>>> How about voters? How about "journalists"? Surely these two
>>> categories present more danger to society as a whole than gunowners
>>> or drivers.
>
>> Many people have moved the idea that voting should be tied to sobriety
>> tests among many others, I can't say I could not agree....
>
> I'd rather see a drunk who could pass the naturalization citizenship test vote
> than a pinkie who believes that bigger = better applies to government.

I have no idea what the tests you refer to are or what they contain (I
can only presume that they would be the US exams) but maybe a Phd. in
accounting and familiarity with interrogation techniques could also help.

>> ... Journalists say what their bosses the media owners tell them to say ...
>
> Nah, more likely their bosses only hire those who think "correctly."

Same difference, if it isn't big money (owner) bias then it's the
mercentile nature of ad-revenue governing all that smells bad. If the
news isn't about the Virgin Mary stripping on a sidewalk then it isn't
sensational and detail-free but outrageous superficiality enough. What's
the alternative, lavatory walls? I have no answer.

On 6/10/2024 3:14 PM, bad sector wrote:
> On 6/10/24 15:47, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:daicnUn8rJMG1fr7nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com, bad sector
>> <forgetski@_INVALID.net> typed:
>>
>>> On 6/10/24 10:27, max headroom wrote:
>>>> In news:f1WdnTvtF5gCYfv7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com, bad sector
>>>> <forgetski@_INVALID.net> typed:
>>
>>>>> ...I'm a fan of freedoms and liberties but when it comes to guns and
>>>>> motor vehicles then fences must protect society from those lunatics
>>>>> who are or used to be institutionalised in other countries. For guns
>>>>> yearly, for cars maybe every five years a mandatory psy. eval. to
>>>>> begin with.
>>
>>>> How about voters? How about "journalists"? Surely these two
>>>> categories present more danger to society as a whole than gunowners
>>>> or drivers.
>>
>>> Many people have moved the idea that voting should be tied to sobriety
>>> tests among many others, I can't say I could not agree....
>>
>> I'd rather see a drunk who could pass the naturalization citizenship
>> test vote
>> than a pinkie who believes that bigger = better applies to government.
>
> I have no idea what the tests you refer to are or what they contain (I
> can only presume that they would be the US exams) but maybe a Phd. in
> accounting and familiarity with interrogation techniques could also help.

123, ABC. Interpreter!

>>> ... Journalists say what their bosses the media owners tell them to
>>> say ...
>>
>> Nah, more likely their bosses only hire those who think "correctly."
>
> Same difference, if it isn't big money (owner) bias then it's the
> mercentile nature of ad-revenue governing all that smells bad. If the
> news isn't about the Virgin Mary stripping on a sidewalk then it isn't
> sensational and detail-free but outrageous superficiality enough. What's
> the alternative, lavatory walls? I have no answer.

We are now a commodity (commodious might be more fitting.) audience,
reduced to passerby clicks. They get paid for us visiting a page of
disorganized distracting garbage that takes 60-100 MB of bandwidth just
to load these days.

On 6/10/2024 9:35 AM, Bill Powell wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:16:49 -0400, Frank wrote:
>
>> I have State Farm and they solicited me a couple of times with the
>> discount and this says maybe 30%:
>>
>> https://www.statefarm.com/customer-care/download-mobile-apps/drive-safe-and-save-mobile
>>
>> I would not even do it for even a larger discount for them to see when
>> I exceeded the speed limit or maybe even farted while driving the car.
>
> I suspect the insurance companies want to have a new system of bonus malus
> to squeeze even more money, almost like a taxation system, from its policy
> holders by using this method - which is like a subscription based penalty.

Free stats generation for baseline penalties. There are plenty of sheep
who will comply and baa baa the app on their phone.

On 6/9/24 13:34, Loran wrote:
> Ed P wrote:
>> I'm told years ago people did not have phones in cars
>
> https://youtu.be/Y_uRAp5q07M?t=114

Some cars did come with record players. IIRC, that's where the brand
name "Motorola" came from.

On 6/10/24 10:50, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> [Default] bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> typed:
>
>> Not intimately but if they are a problem you take them out, period. I'm
>> a fan of freedoms and liberties but when it comes to guns and motor
>> vehicles then fences must protect society from those lunatics who are or
>> used to be institutionalised in other countries. For guns yearly, for
>> cars maybe every five years a mandatory psy. eval. to begin with.
>
> TRANSLATION: "I'm a fan of freedoms and liberties for me."

-2