12 posts • joined Tuesday 18th April 2006 11:16 GMT
You joke, but you (and 95% of other drivers) probably are, at least in terms of financial cost to insurance companies.
Some of the worst drivers will cause huge claims against them, so a large percentage of drivers will have lower claims than the average (i.e. mean). It might not be quite 95%, but I doubt it will be much less.
Nice idea, but you need the safe 19yos to subsidise the dangerous ones.
For example, 1000 teenagers insure their cars for a total revenue of £2m. 10% of those make a claim with an average cost of £20k, meaning the insurer breaks even.
If they only charged the accident-free drivers £400 then the total revenue would be £560k and the insurer would be making a huge loss. To break even, they would need to charge the dangerous drivers £16,400. Basically if you had an accident you wouldn't be able to drive again until you were 25 unless you had loads of money.
Even with the current system this is a problem. I know a female driver under 25 who had a slow speed collision with a push chair. The police put the blame firmly with the mother (checking that the road was clear for herself and forgetting that she had a push chair sticking out in front of her), but the mother is seeking compensation for the child's injuries. As such my friend is not currently driving, and has had to turn down jobs because they required you to operate your own car.
Assuming the stats are accurate, I can't see any reason why people would be trading in their old samsung phones for a new iPhone, which is what the article implies.
I suspect what is happening is that loyal Samsung customers are trading up from an old Samsung model to a new one in case the new one gets banned (or because they think all Samsung phones are being banned).
Why should it make the online advertisers nervous? They'll just ignore Do Not Track, at least for IE10 users. This totally defeats the point of the feature.
Give it a chance
Most of the people who are likely to download a browser without prompting won't be using IE as their main browser, so it's not surprising that marketshare hasn't rocketed.
Give the corporations a chance to roll it out to their desktops and let Microsoft push out an update for non-technical folks and it'll start seeing some more significant gains.
Oh, by the way, there was a blog post on planet.mozilla.org complaining about exactly this sort of article written about Firefox. His complaint was that they were comparing direct downloads of Firefox 4 with auto-updates of Firefox 3.6.
Where do you get the quarter billion figure from? The article metioned an account balance of a quarter *m*illion, but says he won't give any more figures. Simple typo?
Blame HTTP and your browser, not Google
Anyone want to point out that it's not google that sends the search terms to the site you visit, but your browser (assuming it's not Chrome of course). Sure, Google could prevent the information from being shared, but the same issue would still exist for every other website out there.
If they are really worried, I'm sure it wouldn't be to hard to extend/modify a browser to never send referrer headers.
If you thing Q12 is bad (and it doesn't just apply to gay men, it covers any man who has ever had sex with another man - even if it was just receiving one blow job years ago), then look at Q16. A woman who has had sex with the said one-blow-job-man must wait 12 month before giving blood.
Cannot be directly compared with IE
Remember that Mozilla's bug finding & fixing process is much more open than those of Microsoft and other companies, therefore bugs which might have been quietly fixed in a private organisation become public knowledge with Mozilla.
The good news is that Firefox 220.127.116.11 has no known vulnerabilities rated higher than 'Less Critical' (2/5)