What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?

On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:04:10 +0000 (UTC), Bob J Jones
wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The ONLY first-order effect of safety related laws is revenue generation.

As I have already told you, the fact that the effect of various safety
related laws could not be detected is not evidence that there is no
effect.

Thank you for saying that, and for moving to the next stage of acceptance.

I've been saying that in one form or another for what seems several
days and you have been totally ignoring it. What woke you up now?

And now, you are making assumptions.

Remember, in my very first response to Mayayana, I said to Mayayana that
everyone who finally realizes their argument has no facts to support it,
ALWAYS resorts to stating what you just stated.

Go back and look since I know you better than you know yourself, so I
predicted that you'd say this (sans any supporting facts, of course).

The fact is that you can't account for the elphant in the room, and, in
fact, anyone who thinks like you do is in the same situation.

You don't know this, but nospam knows very well that, over the years, my
next response is to explain to you that what you posit is that, in effect,
super intelligent and cunningly clever aliens cleverly manipulated the good
accident rate data such that it hid precisely in sudden time, in huge
magnitude, and then in plateau in every state in the nation, the EXACT
deleterious effect of cellphone related accidents.

Trust me, I understand your argument.
EVERYONE who finally realizes their entire belief system rests on an
imaginary foundation does what you just did.

Everyone.
So I don't blame you.

It's a sign of progress, actually.
You are mentally trying to cope with the elephant in the room.

So your instinctive way of coping is to throw rocks at the data.
(Later you'll throw sharpened sticks. Then you'll use iron and bronze
swords.)

You're progressing.
That's good.

Your thinking is still in the stone age, since what you are trying to do is
discredit the good data by a preposterous superstitious alien force.

But at least your attempt at discrediting the good data is a step in the
right direction since you can't move forward in the process of adult
logical thinking until you come to grips with reality.

1. The orbit of Mercury is perturbed.

And so too are you. Is mercury your problem?

2. The universe is expanding.
3. The effects of quantum entanglement are real
etc.
4. And, there is no increase in accident rates.

It's normal for you to *hate* those facts.
Part of being an adult logical thinker is accepting those facts.

Until you accept them, you will only throw imaginary stones at them.
Like you just did (and which I predicted you'd do, long ago since everyone
does that until they progress to the next stage.)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:09:57 +0000 (UTC), Bob J Jones
wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Thank you for saying that, and for moving to the next stage of acceptance.

--- Repetitive garbage snipped ---

It's a halucination.

--- more garbage snipped ---

You have deliberately deleted without acknowledging the fact:

The fact is that the accident rate in the US has not shown a single
blip due to the extraordinarily huge and stupendously sudden
skyrocketing rates of cellphone ownership (and presumed use while
driving).

I wouldn't expect a blip. The uptake of cellphones has been
progressive and spread over many years.

Your particular elephant undoubtedly is a halucination.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:22:03 +0000 (UTC), Bob J Jones
wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Nope.

See my previous response to you, where the fact that you claim that your
"skill set" allows you to disregard well known facts, simply fits PERFECTLY
into the bottom quadrant of Dunning-Kruger scale of self-assessment of
skills.

When I wrote "Nope" I was responding to your "You have to throw
intuition out the window to UNDERSTAND what nospam said."

You should know that "nope" is common argument by nospam and drawn
your conclusions from that.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

in the example, the call was 15 seconds earlier, long before a drunk
driver was even an issue.

How long does it take to put a phone away in a pocket while driving?
The answer is 'it depends...'.

nobody said it had to go into the driver's pocket. you made that up.

it takes maybe 1 second to toss it on the seat or in the center console.



is the cellphone the cause of the crash? no. it was the drunk driver.

the call could also have been auto-answered without the driver doing
anything, so despite there being a call log, the driver *wasn't* using
the phone.

That he hadn't answered would show in the log.

what part of auto-answer is not clear?

Where the call was autoanswered. It's usually autoanswered by the
cellphone system. That's why you have to call in to find about the
calls.

nope. it's auto-answered on the phone.

http://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-co.../iOS-11-Settin
gs-Auto-Answer-Calls-iPhone-screenshot-002.png
https://www.androidcentral.com/sites...iles/postimage
s/690386/2012-07-27_14.12.41.png

the point is that apps running in the background on a phone in
someone's pocket could be using cellular *data* (not calling a voice
number), with zero effect on the driver.

That they are using data will show up in the Telco's log.

exactly!

So why are you arguing? That's evidence.

it's *meaningless* evidence.

what *won't* show up is when a phone is using data while it's in the
driver's pocket, with zero effect on the driver.

in other words, call logs can't prove the driver was using a phone.

That last argument is totally illogical.

it isn't.

all it shows is *something* occurred that involved the cellphone
network.

i've already given several examples of network activity that *doesn't*
involve the driver, which you keep ignoring.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:


The facts are that a number of accidents have been unequivocally traced
to the use of a cellphone by the driver.

nobody said cellphones are never a factor, but it's not as many as
people think.

The fact that there hasn't been
a "blip" in the accident rates merely shows that other factors affect
highway safety.

of course there are many other factors, yet people only focus on
cellphones.

I did a search on "highway fatality rates USA by year", and found
reports that the rates increased about 8% overall from 2014 to 2016.
That's quite a jump.

too bad you don't understand what it is you're looking at.

the fatality rate has been steadily *decreasing*, while miles driven
continues to rise, with cellphone usage having *skyrocketed* in the
past 35 or so years that cellphones have been available.

the trend is *very* clear:

http://blog.fusedgrid.ca/wp-content/...atalities-USA-
Historic-1900-to20111.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...affic_deaths_p
er_VMT%2C_VMT%2C_per_capita%2C_and_total_annual_de aths.png

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Here's a report (one of many found a few seconds) about cellphone
conversation/texting causing a crash. Twice, 2nd time fatal, which is
why it made the news.


http://www.charlotteobserver.com/new...rticle71022122.
ht
ml

You don't need a "skill set" to recognise the facts in this case.

one does need a 'skill set' to understand what the facts actually mean,
and it's not what you think it is.

I claimed nothing about what the facts mean. I merely offered a report
of some facts. it's up to you to interpret them. Which you did.

actually, you did claim what the facts mean, which is that a cellphone
caused a crash not once, but twice.

it didn't. the driver caused both crashes by making multiple poor
decisions.

On Sun, 06 May 2018 17:51:40 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

there is *no* way to know if a driver was actively using a phone and
therefore distracted, versus if it was a passenger using a phone or if
the phone was in the driver's pocket and automatically answered a
call/text or had an app running in the background, with no effect on
the driver. in fact, the driver might not even know such activity took
place until later.

Of course there are ways. There may be witnesses. The driver may have
had the phone rammed through his teeth. The person to whom he was
talking may have heard the crash ... and so on.

no way *via* *call* *logs*.

That was the previous paragraph.

Then in a new paragraph you stared off saying "there is *no* way to
know if a driver was actively using a phone and therefore distracted
....", and that was what I was responding to.


i originally said it could be determined if there was dashcam video.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

there is *no* way to know if a driver was actively using a phone and
therefore distracted, versus if it was a passenger using a phone or if
the phone was in the driver's pocket and automatically answered a
call/text or had an app running in the background, with no effect on
the driver. in fact, the driver might not even know such activity took
place until later.

Of course there are ways. There may be witnesses. The driver may have
had the phone rammed through his teeth. The person to whom he was
talking may have heard the crash ... and so on.

no way *via* *call* *logs*.

That was the previous paragraph.

Then in a new paragraph you stared off saying "there is *no* way to
know if a driver was actively using a phone and therefore distracted
...", and that was what I was responding to.

context is everything.

you are also ignoring what i mentioned early on:

i originally said it could be determined if there was dashcam video.

On Sun, 06 May 2018 18:43:55 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

in the example, the call was 15 seconds earlier, long before a drunk
driver was even an issue.

How long does it take to put a phone away in a pocket while driving?
The answer is 'it depends...'.

nobody said it had to go into the driver's pocket. you made that up.

Of course. The whole scenario is made up.

it takes maybe 1 second to toss it on the seat or in the center console.

But he didn't do that.


is the cellphone the cause of the crash? no. it was the drunk driver.

the call could also have been auto-answered without the driver doing
anything, so despite there being a call log, the driver *wasn't* using
the phone.

That he hadn't answered would show in the log.

what part of auto-answer is not clear?

Where the call was autoanswered. It's usually autoanswered by the
cellphone system. That's why you have to call in to find about the
calls.

nope. it's auto-answered on the phone.

That's unusual. What does the phone do next?

http://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-co.../iOS-11-Settin
gs-Auto-Answer-Calls-iPhone-screenshot-002.png
https://www.androidcentral.com/sites...iles/postimage
s/690386/2012-07-27_14.12.41.png

the point is that apps running in the background on a phone in
someone's pocket could be using cellular *data* (not calling a voice
number), with zero effect on the driver.

That they are using data will show up in the Telco's log.

exactly!

So why are you arguing? That's evidence.

it's *meaningless* evidence.

Nonsense. It supports that the drivere was not using the phone.

what *won't* show up is when a phone is using data while it's in the
driver's pocket, with zero effect on the driver.

in other words, call logs can't prove the driver was using a phone.

That last argument is totally illogical.

it isn't.

all it shows is *something* occurred that involved the cellphone
network.

i've already given several examples of network activity that *doesn't*
involve the driver, which you keep ignoring.

Because the evidence which matters activities which show that the
driver could/could-not be using the network.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 6 May 2018 21:36:56 +0000 (UTC), Bob J Jones
wrote:

In , Wolf K
wrote:

I read this thread is to see if "Bob Jones" will say something funnier
than the last time.

Proof yet again that Wolf K possesses the mind of a child.

I wish he would give it back to you. :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 6 May 2018 19:18:50 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-05-06 18:22, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:09:57 +0000 (UTC), Bob J Jones
wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Thank you for saying that, and for moving to the next stage of acceptance.

--- Repetitive garbage snipped ---

It's a halucination.

--- more garbage snipped ---

You have deliberately deleted without acknowledging the fact:

The fact is that the accident rate in the US has not shown a single
blip due to the extraordinarily huge and stupendously sudden
skyrocketing rates of cellphone ownership (and presumed use while
driving).

I wouldn't expect a blip. The uptake of cellphones has been
progressive and spread over many years.

Your particular elephant undoubtedly is a hallucination.

The facts are that a number of accidents have been unequivocally traced
to the use of a cellphone by the driver. The fact that there hasn't been
a "blip" in the accident rates merely shows that other factors affect
highway safety.

I did a search on "highway fatality rates USA by year", and found
reports that the rates increased about 8% overall from 2014 to 2016.
That's quite a jump. The reports adduced a number of factors, none of
which could be conclusively proven without detailed data about every
single accident (including the unreported ones). Couldn't find more
recent numbers, but I only looked at the first couple of dozen hits.

The underlying problem with highway accident statistics is that we don't
fund the kind of thorough investigations into highway accidents that are
a matter of course for an aircraft accident. Thus, the data are
unreliable and incomplete. This means we are forced to depend on
"campfire stories", since they are the only reliable data we have.

I have referred previously to the quality of the data and this is what
I had in mind. To make matters worse many accidents are investigated
and reported on by people who have been trained and report by 'tick
the box' methods which automatically limit the range of conclusions
which can be reached.

BTW, "Bob Jones", a driver admitting they were using a cellphone is a
thoroughly dependable fact. The most dependable you're likely to get
unless and until "the taxpayer" is willing to fund more thorough
accident investigations.

Have a good day,
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the point is that apps running in the background on a phone in
someone's pocket could be using cellular *data* (not calling a voice
number), with zero effect on the driver.

That they are using data will show up in the Telco's log.

exactly!

So why are you arguing? That's evidence.

it's *meaningless* evidence.

Nonsense. It supports that the drivere was not using the phone.

it doesn't support anything.

network activity does not mean the driver was actively using a phone,
just as lack of network activity doesn't mean the driver wasn't using a
phone.

as i said, network activity could be from an app in the background
syncing data while the phone is in someone's pocket, or the device
could be in use by a passenger.

there are also many tasks that do not use network activity, including
choosing music or podcasts from what's stored on the device, checking a
map stored on the device or reading emails previously downloaded (and
possibly replying, to be sent later).

or, the phone could be in airplane mode, thereby preventing all network
activity, or the sim could even be removed (often done when in a
foreign country to avoid excessive roaming fees) or the device might
not have a cellular radio at all, such as an ipod touch or wifi-only
tablet.

like i said, call logs are meaningless.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I have referred previously to the quality of the data and this is what
I had in mind. To make matters worse many accidents are investigated
and reported on by people who have been trained and report by 'tick
the box' methods which automatically limit the range of conclusions
which can be reached.

in the usa, driving too slow is tallied as 'speed related', lumped in
with driving too fast (which is usually nothing more than above psl,
even though it's perfectly safe).

in fact, slower drivers are actually *more* dangerous than faster
drivers (unless it's recklessly fast).
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1bcba29cfb14959e85d5c03096965aa2

On Sun, 06 May 2018 20:47:33 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

there is *no* way to know if a driver was actively using a phone and
therefore distracted, versus if it was a passenger using a phone or if
the phone was in the driver's pocket and automatically answered a
call/text or had an app running in the background, with no effect on
the driver. in fact, the driver might not even know such activity took
place until later.

Of course there are ways. There may be witnesses. The driver may have
had the phone rammed through his teeth. The person to whom he was
talking may have heard the crash ... and so on.

no way *via* *call* *logs*.

That was the previous paragraph.

Then in a new paragraph you stared off saying "there is *no* way to
know if a driver was actively using a phone and therefore distracted
...", and that was what I was responding to.

context is everything.

you are also ignoring what i mentioned early on:

i originally said it could be determined if there was dashcam video.

So obvious it wasn't worthy of comment.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 06 May 2018 21:59:13 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the point is that apps running in the background on a phone in
someone's pocket could be using cellular *data* (not calling a voice
number), with zero effect on the driver.

That they are using data will show up in the Telco's log.

exactly!

So why are you arguing? That's evidence.

it's *meaningless* evidence.

Nonsense. It supports that the drivere was not using the phone.

it doesn't support anything.

network activity does not mean the driver was actively using a phone,
just as lack of network activity doesn't mean the driver wasn't using a
phone.

You are an expert at confusing arguments.

as i said, network activity could be from an app in the background
syncing data while the phone is in someone's pocket, or the device
could be in use by a passenger.

there are also many tasks that do not use network activity, including
choosing music or podcasts from what's stored on the device, checking a
map stored on the device or reading emails previously downloaded (and
possibly replying, to be sent later).

Yep

or, the phone could be in airplane mode, thereby preventing all network
activity, or the sim could even be removed (often done when in a
foreign country to avoid excessive roaming fees) or the device might
not have a cellular radio at all, such as an ipod touch or wifi-only
tablet.

like i said, call logs are meaningless.

I'm not going to go round for a third time with this discussion.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens