Microsoft Patents ?Avoid Ghetto? Feature For GPS Devices

[Religious Dick]

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/

[BT]

That is a useful feature.

[Christians4LessGvt]

there are more poor whites in the US than any other single group

so are there any "white ghettos"?

[BT]

The routing is based on crime statistics.

Has nothing to do with race.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Christians4LessGvt]

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"

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Christians4LessGvt]

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".

[Christians4LessGvt]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[BT]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/red-light-camera-backlash-cameras-causing-accidents/story?id=13925887#.TwufgsjnvWk

[Christians4LessGvt]

"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.

[Christians4LessGvt]

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.

[BT]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.