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

nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

absent dashcam video of both the road *and* the driver, there is no way
to know exactly what happened and when.

matching up cellphone call logs with the *assumed* time of the crash
(which is what they do now) means nothing.

You are welcome to argue that in court. You might even get away with
it.

there's nothing to get away with. call logs are meaningless.

Tell that to the judge.

no need. he'll know it has no merit.

Wrong. Many cases in the UK (and in other countries) have used call logs as
evidence to support the prosecution case. Convictions for careless or
dangerous driving involving phones are common.

since the exact time of a crash is almost always unknown, there is *no*
way to prove whether any cell phone activity occurred moments before (a
possible factor in a crash), well before (not a factor), or *after* the
crash (to call for help).

Exact time may not be known but a reasonably close approximate time
is. Close proximity in time plus circumstances plus witness statements
(if any) may lead to reasonable assumptions.

assumptions are not proof.

if it was, a ****load of people would be in jail.

Most people don't end up getting caught or having accidents.

In article , Chris
wrote:

absent dashcam video of both the road *and* the driver, there is no way
to know exactly what happened and when.

matching up cellphone call logs with the *assumed* time of the crash
(which is what they do now) means nothing.

You are welcome to argue that in court. You might even get away with
it.

there's nothing to get away with. call logs are meaningless.

Tell that to the judge.

no need. he'll know it has no merit.

Wrong. Many cases in the UK (and in other countries) have used call logs as
evidence to support the prosecution case. Convictions for careless or
dangerous driving involving phones are common.

then the defense team are incompetent.

as i said:
since the exact time of a crash is almost always unknown, there is *no*
way to prove whether any cell phone activity occurred moments before (a
possible factor in a crash), well before (not a factor), or *after* the
crash (to call for help).

Exact time may not be known but a reasonably close approximate time
is. Close proximity in time plus circumstances plus witness statements
(if any) may lead to reasonable assumptions.

assumptions are not proof.

if it was, a ****load of people would be in jail.

Most people don't end up getting caught or having accidents.

which means phones aren't a direct cause of crashes.

and why focus *only* on phones but not all of the *other* forms of
distraction, including eating food, fiddling with the radio, reading
paper maps (which is no longer common but once was) and many other
things.

bad drivers don't need phones to be bad.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Driver tests done on driver-training simulators show that talking on the
phone, handheld or hands-free, is equally distracting. The drop in
driver competence is equivalent to DUI.

similar results with food, radio, kids, etc., but nobody is calling for
a ban on any of those.

"Wolf K" wrote

| Ontario has passed a "distracted driving" regulation (-- provincial
| driving offence), which includes eating, etc.
|
| And people have been pulled over and fined for eating their breakfast in
| the car....
|

I don't remember ever being cut off by someone
eating a sandwhich. Those people are at least
trying to pay attention. Just yesterday a young
woman ran a stop sign in front of me, never looking
in my direction. I then ended up behind her, as
she braked and accelerated erratically on an
onramp. I didn't see a phone in her hand. I suspect
she was trying to follow a GPS device on her
dashboard -- yet another thing that should be
banned unless one is parked.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Driver tests done on driver-training simulators show that talking on the
phone, handheld or hands-free, is equally distracting. The drop in
driver competence is equivalent to DUI.

similar results with food, radio, kids, etc., but nobody is calling for
a ban on any of those.

Ontario has passed a "distracted driving" regulation (-- provincial
driving offence), which includes eating, etc.

And people have been pulled over and fined for eating their breakfast in
the car....

that's the exception, not the rule.

meanwhile, vehicles ship with cupholders and food vendors with
drive-thrus are common.

long ago, there were pads of paper affixed to the dashboard or even the
windshield, so drivers could write stuff down while driving.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Ontario has passed a "distracted driving" regulation (-- provincial
| driving offence), which includes eating, etc.
|
| And people have been pulled over and fined for eating their breakfast in
| the car....

I don't remember ever being cut off by someone
eating a sandwhich. Those people are at least
trying to pay attention.

how often do you look specifically for sandwiches?

Just yesterday a young
woman ran a stop sign in front of me, never looking
in my direction. I then ended up behind her, as
she braked and accelerated erratically on an
onramp. I didn't see a phone in her hand. I suspect
she was trying to follow a GPS device on her
dashboard --

probably not. it sounds like she's just another incompetent driver.

yet another thing that should be
banned unless one is parked.

a gps is useless when parked.

On Sat, 5 May 2018 10:37:50 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-05-05 10:08, nospam wrote:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Driver tests done on driver-training simulators show that talking on the
phone, handheld or hands-free, is equally distracting. The drop in
driver competence is equivalent to DUI.

similar results with food, radio, kids, etc., but nobody is calling for
a ban on any of those.


Ontario has passed a "distracted driving" regulation (-- provincial
driving offence), which includes eating, etc.

And people have been pulled over and fined for eating their breakfast in
the car....

Nanny states dictating what you can or can't do.

Good ol' Ontario showing us what will happen if we continue to vote
for liberals: taxes and fines.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 nospam wrote:

Just yesterday a young
woman ran a stop sign in front of me, never looking
in my direction. I then ended up behind her, as
she braked and accelerated erratically on an
onramp. I didn't see a phone in her hand. I suspect
she was trying to follow a GPS device on her
dashboard --

probably not. it sounds like she's just another incompetent driver.

Or Chinese? :P
--
Quote of the Week: "At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of
ants, one of the ants said: 'O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest
Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it.'"
--Surah 27. The Ant, The Ants, line 18
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
| |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
\ _ /
( )

On Sat, 5 May 2018 10:37:50 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-05-05 10:08, nospam wrote:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Driver tests done on driver-training simulators show that talking on the
phone, handheld or hands-free, is equally distracting. The drop in
driver competence is equivalent to DUI.

similar results with food, radio, kids, etc., but nobody is calling for
a ban on any of those.


Ontario has passed a "distracted driving" regulation (-- provincial
driving offence), which includes eating, etc.

And people have been pulled over and fined for eating their breakfast in
the car....

.... and applying makeup.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 05 May 2018 04:27:11 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Same here with the fallacy that cellphone use raises the accident rate.
The facts show no effect whatsoever on the accident rate. None.

It may be true that no one has been able to extract from the overall
noisy data evidence of cell phones influencing the accident rate. But
it also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell
phone at the time of an accident.

not reliably, it isn't.

The telco records will have that information.

the telco records don't show what the driver did or did not do or what
road hazards may have existed at the time.

I never claimed they did.

actually, you did:
The telco records will have that information.

"that information", as you will see if you read above, was "But it
also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell phone
at the time of an accident."

all the telco has is logs. they don't know what the driver was doing,
if the driver was actively using the phone, or if the fault was due to
another driver or pedestrian.

Who claimed cellphone records contain all the answers?

absent dashcam video of both the road *and* the driver, there is no way
to know exactly what happened and when.

matching up cellphone call logs with the *assumed* time of the crash
(which is what they do now) means nothing.

You are welcome to argue that in court. You might even get away with
it.

there's nothing to get away with. call logs are meaningless.

Tell that to the judge.

no need. he'll know it has no merit.

You should consider the terms 'balance of probabilities' or even
'reasonable doubt'. Absolute certainty is never required.

since the exact time of a crash is almost always unknown, there is *no*
way to prove whether any cell phone activity occurred moments before (a
possible factor in a crash), well before (not a factor), or *after* the
crash (to call for help).

Exact time may not be known but a reasonably close approximate time
is. Close proximity in time plus circumstances plus witness statements
(if any) may lead to reasonable assumptions.

assumptions are not proof.

if it was, a ****load of people would be in jail.

.... and they are.

even if you could match it up, it could have been the passenger using
the phone, or the phone could have been in use *without* any human
input due to an app running in the background while the phone is in a
pocket or bag.

I agree, it could be a passenger or even an app, but the number called
can often help sort that out.

apps don't call numbers.

You try telling my domestic power meter that.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In news
The reason it is hard to detect the accident increase due to cell phones
is that safety features on newer cars reduce collisions.

I posit that this is not true, but you are working in the right direction.

So you're thinking in the right way in that you're trying to reason out why
the "good data" shows zero effect whatsoever from an astoundingly huge and
explicitly precise perturbation in both magnitude and timing.

Remember the double-slit experiment.

You're working in the right direction if you come up with an hypothesis
that fits the facts of the double-slit experiment.

Likewise...

You're working in the right direction if you come up with an hypothesis
that fits the facts that the accident rate in the USA shows zero effect
either way to the humongous and sudden explosion of cellphone ownership
rates (and presumed some use while driving).

However ... while everyone on this planet knows about safety issues and
safety laws, these have been studied (particularly the safety laws), and
there is zero primary effect on safety from safety laws. Zero.

The only effect anyone has ever found in the reliable record, which I must
add, includes car seats and seat belts in addition to cellphone laws, is on
length of hospital stay - which is clearly a non-first-order effect.

The effect of safety improvements (e.g., third brake lights, traction
control, tire pressure sensors, better guardrails, better reflectivity in
signs, etc.) has often been credited with the slowly trending accident rate
in the USA over the years.

Remember, the accident rate has been tending downward in all 50 states,
individually and collectively - but there was zero statistitical change in
that slowly trending accident rate at the overwhelmingly sudden and huge
perturbation in the cellphone ownership rate.

There are theories that account for this fact - but nobody here is ready
for the theory until they accept the good data first.

It's like the double-slit experiment.
You're not ready for the answer until you accept the good data.

However there
is certainly evidence aplenty that using a cell phone increases your
chance of having an accident while the poor friendless good driver with
no one to talk to at the moment is living longer. It seems that
cellphones have just about eaten up all the advantages that technology
has offered the auto industry.

Intuition is not going to work to explain what is really going on.
Any theory has to account for the elephant in the room.

How BIG is an elephant? Huge, right?|
How SUDDEN does an elephant enter the room? Instantaneously, right?

How big was the cellphone ownership rate in the USA?
How sudden was the cellphone ownership rate in the USA?

Huge, right?
Stupendously huge, right?

And yet ... the accident rate didn't even blip.
Think about that because that is "good data".

It's like the double-slit experiment.
Intuition is not going to work to explain what is going on.

We'll be much better off when we have automaton drivers with builtin
reflexes that prohibit a rider on a cellphone taking any part what so
ever in controlling the vehicle. Basically, I trust software, even
written by Detroit, far more than I do any idiot on a cellphone while
controlling a car. I'm tiered of assholes weaving into my lane,
realizing at the last minute that this is their turn off, running red
lights because their attention is elsewhere, etc. I know it's phone
calls since I often see them "talking with their hands" and the rest of
the vehicle is empty.

Studies show you are right: hands free makes no difference. It's the
redirection of attention to a live evolving situation - the phone
conversation - competing with a more urgent realtime activity: driving.

In the end, once you get your brain off of intuition and on to facts,
you'll understand exactly why holding a phone in your hands, talking to
someone, a crying baby, hot coffee, screaming kids, etc., all have no
measurable effect on the overall accident rate in the USA.

But you're not there yet so you can't accept the answer yet because, like
with the double-slit experiment, you have to throw intuition out the window
and you have to start fitting things to the "good data".

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

It may be true that no one has been able to extract from the overall
noisy data evidence of cell phones influencing the accident rate.

You are the first person (at least chronologically in this thread) to
actually think logically about the facts.

Remember, light is both a particle and a wave, which is not intuitive, and,
which nobody would believe except that the facts show it to be the case.

But anyone who looks at the double-slit experiment has to confront facts.
They just have to confront "good data".

Intuition doesn't work in the face of "good data".

It's the same here with "accident" causes.

Intuition only carries us a short distance.
In the case of "cause of accidents", we have to seek "good data".

And the overall accident record is "good data".
People who intuit don't bother looking at "good data".

People who intuit seek out "bad data".
The worst "bad data" is anecdotal data - which is what they seek out most.
The second worst bad data are in vitro studies which can prove anything.

Do you know how many in vitro studies "prove" the strangest things?
The problem with all those studies isn't that they're bad studies.
I'm sure they're run scientifically.

The problem with those studies is that they're "in vitro" and in vitro
studies can't always (and rarely can) reproduce the complexities of the in
vivo real world.

They just can't.
And the proof is simple.

If accidents rates skyrocketed which were caused by cell phone ownership
rates skyrocketing (and presumed some measure of use), then those in vitro
studies would be in line with the data.

But remember the double-slit experiment.

Whatever theory you come up with has to account for the facts.

And, the facts are that the accident rate has slowly trended downward
individually and collectively in all 50 states with nary the slightest blip
either way due to the utter almost incomprehensibly huge effect of
cellphone ownership rates (and presumed use) - either in magnitude or in
timing.

That's good data.
Once you understand that this is a fact, only then can we explain why.

it also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell
phone at the time of an accident. From this information it has been
possible to determine that you are more likely to have an accident
when using a cell phone than not. Interestingly it does not appear
that the use of hands-free makes much difference.

Once you accept the good data, and the fact that you can balance a
cellphone on the tip of your nose while driving and it still won't have any
effect on the overall accident rate, can we get down to what is really
happening.

Until people accept the facts, just like with the double-slit experiment,
they will NEVER come to the correct answer on anything related to cellphone
caused accidents.

Everyone is working on pure intuition. Not facts.

In news wrote:

Interestingly it does not appear
| that the use of hands-free makes much difference.

There's really no reason to think it would. That's
just an excuse used by phone addicts.

Mayayana is right, where the real problem is the same problem as with the
quantum mechanics issue of "spooky action at a distance" that even Einstein
deplored.

The fact is that the "good data" shows spooky action at a distance.
You can't deny these facts because they are the "good data".

Just as with cellphones, you can't deny the "good data".
The accident rate is completely unaffected by cellphone laws.

The only effect anyone can find is a non-first order effect on length of
hospital stay to *all* (yes, all) safety related laws in the USA (and those
laws include not only cellphones, but seat belts and car seats).

So, like with quantum entanglement, it doesn't really matter what is in
"between" the two particles - they affect each other.

My point of bringing in quantum mechanics is two fold.
1. Intuition is never going to work.
2. Any theory has to fit the facts.

It's the same with "hands free" issues.
1. Intuition won't work (it turns out hands free is meaningless)
2. Any theory has to fit the facts (cellphones themselves are meaningless)

The facts are that the accident rate in the USA has not been affected one
bit by either safety laws or cellphone laws or by the use of cellphones or
by the drinking of hot coffee, screaming babies, etc.

There's a reason for this - but nobody is ready for the reason until they
accept the facts first.

Intuition is not going work here since we all (including me) intuit wrong,
just as Einstein apparently intuited wrong on quantum entanglement.

No one
says, "I want a divorce" when they're a passenger
in a car moving through an intersection. But they
might say it to someone over the phone, assuming
that the person on the other end is also talking on
the phone and not trying to do something else.

You're intuiting ... but your intuition doesn't fit the facts.

It's almost as if you're trying to say that there is no such thing as
spooky action at a distance, and yet, your statement (like Einstein's)
doesn't fit the facts.

Until you accept the facts, nothing you intuit will be correct.
I'm saying this not as a challenge - but as one adult to another.

It's only logic that I speak.

When people talk on phones they're generally not
where they are, which is a risky disconnect if they're
also trying to do something else. I see that daily with
other drivers. I don't need to see them holding a
phone to know they're on the phone. It's obvious
in the erratic behavior. They're leaving it to other
drivers to pay attention for them.

You're intuiting again.
But your intuition doesn't fit the facts.

It turns out that almost NOTHING you will do in that car will have any
effect overall on the accident rate but you won't understand the
explanation of that fact until you accept things as they really are.

If all you do is work off of intuition, you'll NEVER understand the facts
of quantum entanglement.

Likewise...

If all you do is work off of intuition, you'll NEVER understand the facts
of why cellphone use has zero effect either way on accident rates.

In , nospam
wrote:

what you're missing is that there are *many* other activities that can
cause a distraction, including drinking coffee, eating food, fussing
with the radio, dealing with kids and much, much more.

distracted drivers don't need cellphones to be distracted.

Usually I am at odds with nospam, but on James Comey and cellphones, we're
in violent agreement.

So far, in this thread, only nospam has progressed to the SECOND STAGE of
understanding of why cellphone use has zero effect on accident rates.

It's like understanding the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Intuition won't help here.

Lots of people intuit a lot of things, and one of those intuitive things
that any person can intuit is that cellphone use MUST be causing accidents.
It must! It has to! Right?

Well, no.
The fact is clear.

They don't.
Nobody on this planet can find those accidents in the "good data".
They don't exist.

It's like the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle where intuition made
Einstein think "God doesn't play dice". But he does.

The "good data" shows that God does play dice with the universe.
So even Einstein's intuition was wrong.

You have to throw intuition out the window to UNDERSTAND what nospam said.

Only once you start thinking logically and accept the facts, can you then
progress to the second stage of WHY cellphone use has absolutely zero
effect on the overall accident rate.

I commend nospam for having gotten to the second stage, and, if you know
me, that's a big deal since I only speak logical fact.

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

not reliably, it isn't.

The telco records will have that information.

Think about the logic of that intuitive statement. Think. Really think.

While I applaud your desire to fit your intuition with facts directly from
the Telco, you have to realize that even if you could PROVE that every
accident in the USA from the ten-year period that cellphone ownership rates
exploded, you STILl have to account for the fact that the accident rate is
completely unaffected by the number (and presumed use) of cellphones while
driving.

All the telco records on the planet can't over ride that simple fact.

You are welcome to argue that in court. You might even get away with
it.

Your argument above reminds me of Macarthyism of the 1950s.
You have latched on to a flawed theory, and you'll prosecute to the end
anyone who disagrees with your flawed theory.

How did nospam disagree?
He simply spoke logic.

You, Eric Stevens, are only speaking intuition.

You don't have to agree with logic, but you should be an adult about logic
in that your logic should fit the facts.

I may be wrong, but you seem to dislike logic (am I right about that?), so,
it seems (if you dislike basic logic), that the discussion with you can't
proceed further as an adult discussion, using facts and logic.

Until you start thinking logically, you'll never understand the facts.