DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Religious Dick on January 08, 2012, 02:03:38 AM
-
Microsoft Patents ?Avoid Ghetto? Feature For GPS Devices
REDMOND, Wash. (CBS Seattle) ? Microsoft has been granted a patent for its ?avoid ghetto? feature for GPS devices.
A GPS device is used to find shortcuts and avoid traffic, but Microsoft?s patent states that a route can be plotted for pedestrians to avoid an ?unsafe neighborhood or being in an open area that is subject to harsh temperatures.?
Created for mobile phones, the technology uses the latest crime statistics and weather data and includes them when calculating a route.
The patent, written in a combination of tech-speak and legalese, was awarded to Microsoft earlier this week. It also described other uses for the new GPS technology.
One section of the patent mentioned that advertisers can use the technology to navigate a user through a newly set up ad campaign.
Microsoft declined to comment to CBS Seattle.
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2012/01/06/microsoft-patents-avoid-ghetto-feature-for-gps-devices/ (http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2012/01/06/microsoft-patents-avoid-ghetto-feature-for-gps-devices/)
-
That is a useful feature.
-
there are more poor whites in the US than any other single group
so are there any "white ghettos"?
-
The routing is based on crime statistics.
Has nothing to do with race.
-
Lots of interstate highways run right through the middle of "ghettos". I-95 does. If you stay on the turnpikes and interstates and such, you are probably not in much danger from hoodlums. Certainly not if you are in a moving vehicle.
There are more and more traffic cams everywhere, run by private companies for a share of the take. Police speed traps in the future are likely to employ drones, which can catch you changing lanes without signalling or some other infraction and issue you a ticket with a $200 fine.
I would say that information to avoid getting ticketed by cameras and/or drones would be more useful that protection from potential "ghettos". Not that I am opposed to either, It is not an either/or situation.
-
There are more and more traffic cams everywhere
I am actually a supporter of traffic cams. I now rarely sail thru on yellow
and I also come to a 100% complete stop at red lights before turning on red.
There is no doubt in my mind that people aware of traffic cams are less likely
to chance sailing thru yellow or run thru just changed red lights any more.
I used to get so sick of that....now when you see someone sail thru and
almost plow into you it's like "ha ha sucker enjoy the $75 red light ticket
you get in the mail for endangering lives so you can get to your destination
2 minutes earlier"
(http://usahitman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/traffic_camera.jpg)
-
Here is the problem with the traffic cams:
You are coming to a light. You are traveling the legal limit, but you see some guy doing 80 coming up behind you. If you stop, you will get rear ended. You look and see that there is no traffic coming from either direction.
So do you stop and get rear ended, or do you get fined?
I would have no complaints if they mailed out a warning and a minimal fine of $5 or $10, but that is NOT what they do. They contract the whole operation out to some company that gets most of the fine, and stick you with a $158 fine here in Miami-Dade County. I do not think that any private companies should be allowed to operate these things.
I drive safely and stop at all the lights, but I have on rare occasions passed through a light when I saw someone who obviously was not going to be able to stop speeding up from behind me. Perhaps four times in 40 years.
-
I was a bit ticked off...maybe even amused recently when I came up to a 4-way stop sign intersection...I came to a complete stop and as I went thru the intersection a police car at one of the corners turned on his flashing lights and pulled me over. The officer asked me "do ya know why I pulled you over?". I replied "no sir". He said "you ran that stop sign"....I replied "officer I came to a 100% stop I am sure of that". He said "oh I know you came to a complete stop but your vehicle was not 100% behind the white line". I said "gosh how much was I over?". He said "it doesnt matter, if you are not 100% behind the white line that is considered "running the stop sign". I figured he would give me a warning, but soon I was handed a $205 traffic ticket. I was like "wow".
-
Here is the problem with the traffic cams: you see some guy doing 80 coming up behind you.
If you stop, you will get rear ended. Perhaps four times in 40 years.
The "problem" with your line of thinking is....sure traffic cams are not perfect,
but not having having them isn't either when God knows how many horrible fatality
accidents have been caused over the years by people speeding through lights
that have just turned red.
-
I never proceed until I see that the intersection is clear.
Traffic cams run by profiteering corporations suck. I would gladly shoot them out if I knew I could get away with it.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/red-light-camera-backlash-cameras-causing-accidents/story?id=13925887#.TwufgsjnvWk (http://abcnews.go.com/US/red-light-camera-backlash-cameras-causing-accidents/story?id=13925887#.TwufgsjnvWk)
-
"A study this year by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety claims that in 14 of America's largest cities the cameras have saved 159 lives during a four-year period. The study also said that if all 99 of the country's largest cities had them installed, 815 lives could have been saved. The other side of the debate are statistics that show the cameras also cause accidents. A 2005 federal study demonstrated that while injuries from right angle or T-bone crashes decreased by 16 percent at red-light camera intersections, injuries from rear-end collisions increased by 24 percent".
so....hundreds of saved lives vs 24% increase in one type of accident injury?
i'll take those numbers any day.
-
I never proceed until I see that the intersection is clear.
I do too....but whats that got to do with a discussion about the general public's actions on the streets and highways, when it is clear that people are killed and injured across the country every day by people running red lights?
Traffic cams run by profiteering corporations suck.
So are you hateful towards any function the gvt bids out to private companies?
Should local gvts build, buy, repair, & operate their own cameras & that makes it all better?
Are gvt employees not "profiteers" of functions of the gvt?
If a function of gvt can be handled better and less costly to
the taxpayer then what is your opposition?
The taxpayer and public is sometimes better served by allowing
private companies to perform some functions the gvt has done in the past.
-
As far as i know, red lights are not suggestions. They mean stop. So if people obeyed the laws the lives touted in this study as being saved would be saved anyway. What the cameras do is add another layer of big brother ( even if the tickets are not enforceable) and more firmly entrench the nanny state, which I'm pretty sure you are not in favor of.
-
Here in Miami-Dade country, there is a thriving business in traffic court lawyers. You pay the lawyer $69, he gores to court for you, and if you have not had a ticket in the last three years, and you get no points on your license, you pay no fine and you are off the hook. That is if an officer issued the ticket. If a traffic cam issued the ticket, the lawyers will not take the case at all.
The fine is $158, according to the Miami Herald, and if you do not pay, they will take away your license.
The traffic cam companies take over HALF the fine money. This is a democracy. The people were never offered a chance to vote on some bunch of overcharging scoundrels ripping them off.
-
As far as i know, red lights are not suggestions. They mean stop.
So if people obeyed the laws the lives touted in this study as being
saved would be saved anyway.
As far as I know laws against driving under the influence, speed limits,
stop signs, ect x 100....are not suggestions, they mean what they mean,
so if people just obeyed laws the lives saved by police watching for these
type of violations would be saved anyway. ::)
What the cameras do is add another layer of big brother and more firmly entrench
the nanny state, which I'm pretty sure you are not in favor of.
What the cameras do is allow law violators that are injuring, maiming, and killing
innocent people to be caught and fined for their reckless behavior when in the past
it was just the rare threat of a policeman seeing the violation and giving the
violator a ticket....in other words enforcement was "hit and miss".
It's like now when you buy a fishing license it shows if you arent paying child support.
Technology is helping expose the reckless, scam artists, and law violators.
Now the "free ride" of recklessness is over"!
And it is saving lives. It's rather simple, dont want a traffic cam ticket?
Don't run red lights that endanger innocent people and children!
-
The traffic cam companies take over HALF the fine money. This is a democracy. The people were never offered a chance to vote on some bunch of overcharging scoundrels ripping them off.
And the people were never offered a chance to vote on ObamaCare.
The traffic cam company takes half the money?
Do you have a source for that?
Also even if they do take half the money, what do you think the costs are to develop, install, repair, operate thousands of cameras, keep cameras exposed to the elements in precise
working order? And do you really think the gvt could do all that cheaper?
-
The traffic cam company takes half the money?
Do you have a source for that?
=========================
That was what the Miami Herald said, quoting the Mayor of Coral Gables.
-
What the cameras do is allow law violators that are injuring, maiming, and killing
innocent people to be caught and fined for their reckless behavior when in the past
it was just the rare threat of a policeman seeing the violation and giving the
violator a ticket.
And yet the article states that in LA at least the tickets are unenforceable if contested. So what do they accomplish? Other than a means of ripping off those who do not know of the laws constitutional flaws.
-
Apparently they are not contestable in Florida, while they are in California. I bet there are different laws in each state. Or perhaps dumber lawyers.
-
So what do they accomplish? Other than a means of ripping off those who do not
know of the laws constitutional flaws.
ha ha...."ripping off" reckless people sailing
through red lights killing and maiming people... ::)
if....big "if"....the cameras are unconstitutional
they wont be long.....this is a no-brainer
oh it's constitutional if a cop is at the corner and sees the person run the light
but somehow...."oh no this is horrible, unjust, and a ripoff" if a camera catches
the person running the red light!
-
Yeah it's a nice feature of the constitution to be able to challenge your accuser in court.
-
It is bloody obvious that much of the time running a red light will not endanger anyone. It is also obvious that in some circumstances NOT running one could endanger some drivers in some situations.
The camera sees none of that, it just sends out a ticket.
'That is unfair.
-
It is bloody obvious that much of the time running a red light will not endanger anyone.
It is bloody obvious that because one can do something illegal and
cause no harm does not mean the law is any less important.
Someone could fire their gun into the air in a major city
and most of the time no one would get hurt, but sometimes
the bullet will kill someone.
It is also bloody obvious that almost anything has some degree of downside,
but we dont throw everything out because it has some degree of badside.
It is also obvious that in some circumstances NOT running one could endanger some drivers in some situations.
It is also obvious that in some circumstances locking your front door of you house could endanger someone in some situations like if an elderly person was having a heart attack and a locked door caused delays for paramedics entering the house.
But what dumbass is going to live for the rare exception and leave their house unlocked all the time?
The camera sees none of that, it just sends out a ticket. 'That is unfair.
Just like a cop many times does not see the whole story and gives a driver a ticket.
"But officer I sware I thought the guy behind wasnt going to stop so thats why I ran
the stop-sign".....TELL IT TO THE JUDGE!
-
Yeah it's a nice feature of the constitution to be able to challenge your accuser in court.
Traffic cams do not prohibit challenge in court.
Of course a traffic cam can't be cross-examined
but neither can a photograph and photographs
have often been used in trials and court cases.
Eventually this issue will be settled in court.
Many judges see the "confrontation clauses" as referring
only to witness testimony, not physical evidence such as photographs, film, ect....
And other judges dont see it that way.
We'll see....
But I betcha if we're around in 2030 most tickets will be issued this way including speeding.
-
The other use of stop light cameras could be to track citizens movements. Cop cars now are equipped with cameras that can read license plates and determine who owns the car and whether there are warrants against the driver or whether that vehicle has been stolen or not. We also know that storage and processing power is getting cheaper by the second. Wouldn't be hard for the authorities or even non authorized personnel to figure out your daily routine for good or ill use.
Not a big fan of big brother
-
Several years ago, I was returning from visiting a friend over on Miami Beach and was pulled over by a cop. He asked to see my registration and license and insurance and I handed over registrations for the past four years and my license and registration. Then he sat in his car for over half an hour yakking away on the microphone and doing something with his computer. Finally he gave back all my stuff and let me go. His only explanation was that he claimed that my license plate showed that my car was stolen.
I was driving a 1989 Hyundai Excel, which was 16 years old and fully paid for. All the lights were operational and I was going about 25 mph, slower than most of the rest of the traffic. All the papers were in order. I have no idea why he thought that he needed to verify anything for half an hour or why any respectable car thief would bother to steal an ancient cheapo Hyundai like mine.
-
Lots of interstate highways run right through the middle of "ghettos". I-95 does. If you stay on the turnpikes and interstates and such, you are probably not in much danger from hoodlums. Certainly not if you are in a moving vehicle.
The article specified that it is for use with pedestrian modes of GPS travel (which many phones have).
-
There is no doubt in my mind that people aware of traffic cams are less likely
to chance sailing thru yellow or run thru just changed red lights any more.
And in many cases cause more traffic accidents because they slam on their breaks as soon as the yellow comes on, causing people behind them to hit them. Many intersections with traffic cameras have *higher* rates of accidents than they had before the cameras were installed.
Traffic cameras are nothing more than a "revenue source" for the cities installing them. They are currently illegal in Minnesota because a state judge said they violated various rights.
-
Traffic cameras are nothing more than a "revenue source" for the cities installing them.
BINGO
-
Traffic cameras are nothing more than a "revenue source" for the cities installing them.
I agree with this. They might save the lives, of some, but result in more deaths by others.
They are currently illegal in Minnesota because a state judge said they violated various rights. I agree with this also.
Cities contract with private companies to share in the loot received from traffic fines.
What if the cities simply hired some sort of vigilantes to do the same thing that these traffic lights do? It would be the same deal, but a lot more people would be against it.