Home

Bugatti Veyron Lake Crash May Be Insurance Fraud [VIDEO]

22.05.12

There was always something uproarious about the Bugatti Veyron that crashed into a Texas lagoon, conveniently captured on video and shared on the Internet for the everyone to see.

The driver, Andy House, claimed he had to swerve to avoid a pelican on the means while trying to pick up his cell phone that dropped. To make it even more suspicious, the foreign was left idling in the water for 15 minutes until it died – ensuring that it would be a totaled agency by the time any authorities got  to it.

And House’s explanation for not turning off the engine? He claimed he was being bitten by mosquitoes and didn’t yearn for to return to the car to turn off the engine. While we live in a country where everyone is innocent until proven repentant, the details laid out in House’s scenario seems to really go against him. His insurance Theatre troupe paid out $2 million for the car, even though House only secured a $1 million interest-unobstructed loan for the vehicle.

There are also claims going around that House tried to pay a confidential informant to shoplift the Bugatti and set it on fire in order to claim the insurance on it, essentially doubling the initial investment from the loaner. The guaranty company is now firing back, claiming fraud. A federal judge has declared that the declare must go before a jury. They’re also stating that House violated the terms of the policy, claiming that he put over 1,200 miles on the agency in the three weeks he owned it.

We don’t know about you, but we’re pretty sure that mosquitoes would be the last of our worries if we were annoying to save our million dollar (and change) investment. Besides, no one ever saw a pelican of any sort in any of the videos. Kind luck with this one Mr. House.

Check out the video of the Veyron nose-diving into the lake after the contravene, if you haven’t done so already.

Source: AutoGuide.com

Salesforce's Benioff: Biometric Bracelet Could Connect You to Products

22.05.12

Benioff's idea was brief and simple: Not just applications, but people working remotely, can get a improve understanding of customers' needs if they had vision into the context of where they are and what they're doing. As demonstrated earlier in the day, a monetary sales team might have immensely greater comprehension of the urgency of a customer's needs if they were to see that she was at the bank, that she was talking to a loan office-holder, and that she had started filling out the paperwork for a mortgage application.

You're not being very helpful

The roadblock preventing that sales crew from knowing this information already lies with the customer's ability or willingness to share. Imitate my logic, if you will, as it weaves its way past a dense forest of psychology and pathology. Not everyone tweets everything, you see. And that's a question, because your needs while you're at a gas station or a coffee shop may be very different from when you're starting to fill out a mortgage diligence. What's keeping you from tweeting, "I'm filling out loan paperwork?" Is your keyboard not big enough? Is there not time enough in-between your other tweets where you let slip that you were in the car, and that you got out of the car? Has the proper hashtag "#MORTGAGEAPP" not been created yet?

"Products need to become much more social," says Benioff. But they can only do that if people can talk to products, and people don't talk to products. At least they don't now. This is where the bracelet comes in. It could talk to products in the idiom of products . Maybe it can tell your car that you're standing next to it. Imagine if your ignition key only worked for you but not for anyone else? Your biometric bracelet could categorize you as the proper bearer of the key. If someone stole your bracelet, it wouldn't work for that person because the bracelet might be informed your fingerprint and your heartbeat rhythm.

This vision starts to make sense. Create if a first responder station could immediately respond if you were in an accident and couldn't reach the OnStar button yourself. Conjecture being able to audit the location(s) of your teenage son throughout the day and night. There is enormous benefit to the conception of something being able to signal who and where you are.

From information in isolation, it becomes academic to move to information in the aggregate. How many teenage boys within a understood county or district are outside of school between the hours of 1:00 and 2:00 pm? How many get into accidents? What are they driving? Very recently minutes before Benioff showed off his bracelet, Salesforce senior vice president Kraig Swensrud demonstrated Radian6, the associates's tool for displaying real-time, live social data about interests, activities, and conversations. With Radian6, you skilled in which customers are talking about what products and when. And it's just as academic to move to information in the aggregate. How many customers over 40? Spear? At home? At the bank? Filling out a mortgage application?

Where to put the filter

This is tomorrow's box, the one that faces society when, as Benioff predicts, it abandons e-mail in favor of tenacious, live connections. In today's social networks, there are "groups" (Facebook) and "circles" (Google +) that let users demonstrate their own filters, for restricting the degree to which information gets automatically shared. How will we fix similar filters once it becomes possible for our location, our present activity, and our heart chew out to become broadcast to every salesman on the planet? And how do we decide the extent to which our 24/7 broadcast of special information gets aggregated into bar charts and pie charts? We may tell ourselves that no one can tell who and where we are from an aggregate design, but in reality, it's just as academic a process to drill down as it is to build up.

So do we create "circles" for who gets our generosity rate and who doesn't? Doctors, certainly. Bankers, maybe. Politicians, very likely not. And how do we decide who these people are who deserve to see our personal data? Perhaps we could create rules. Only bankers in our county? Only doctors connected with folks we know? Maybe our friends have gone to certain doctors before. Perhaps we can find that out.

Perhaps if we do some drilling down ourselves. Let's see a map of all the doctors my friends have ever visited. Let's see how well they rated. On second thought, let's see how well they rated among folks I worry about. Do you suppose this doctor follows his own exercise regimen and goes jogging every afternoon? Between 2 and 5? Let's find out.

If that's not something we're permitted to be versed... then for heaven's sake, why? Why would a legitimate businessperson put a filter on his personal dope? Doesn't he want to attract customers? Doesn't he care about his business? How will we learn more about this ourselves? To paraphrase Marc Benioff, how can we become friends with our products?

Perhaps if we ask the products themselves. Surely there must be aggregate text available from the stores he's visited, the clothes he's tried on, the Coke machines he's walked whilom. And now you see what I'm getting at. Once you place something in the public domain, you can't bottle it up any more. If the cloud "knows" where you've been, and your leach says you don't want certain people (or things) knowing about it, what is to stop an emissary from deducing this information from other sources with which you've had contact, including (and especially) other things over which you have no command?

Source: ReadWriteWeb