If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
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. 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. 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.) |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
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. 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. 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.) It's a halucination. It's perfectly natural for pepole to initially disbelieve in spacetime or massenergy or in the uncertainty principle or in the 10 dimensions of reality, etc. Until the human mind progresses from intuition to fact, everyone thinks these are "hallucinations" of Rutherford, Bohr, Planck, Faraday, Hertz, Watt, Einstein, etc. You're just at the stone age in acceptance of fact. So the fact that you conjure up "hallucinations" to explain fact, is normal. You haven't progressed yet in the process of adult logical thinking. But I trust you will get there. But you have to accept facts first. If you keep throwing sharpened sticks at facts, you'll never progress. Think. Think some more. Think. Try to UNDERSTAND the facts. And then throw "real" stones (not your hallucinatory stones) at the facts. We'll be here to explain the facts to you when you're ready to understand them. The Higg's Field is really there (like it or not, it seems). But if you don't believe that the Higg's Field exists, you'll never be able to understand how to create a Higg's Boson. Likewise, if you don't believe that the "good data" exists, then you'll forever be ignorant of what it is that is really happening. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
In , Eric Stevens
wrote: You, Eric Stevens, are only speaking intuition. Nope. Real world experience. Do you realize that I have been using as examples. many physics situations where "real world experience" fails for a reason? Do you understand anything that I've said? Nothing? Really? Nothing? You really believe that your "real world experience" trumps facts? If so, then your brain has died a long time ago. Nobody can speak to you in an adult logical manner then. Think about why I bring up quantum entanglement, for example. Do you think real world experience prepares ANYONE to understand it? The fact that you claim that your "skill set" allows you to disregard facts, simply fits PERFECTLY into the Dunning-Kruger scale of self-assessment of skills. Most people don't realize that EVERYONE is on the DK scale, and that the DK effect isn't one of stupidity, but of self assessment of skills. You seem to self assess very high, compared to your actual exhibited skills of comprehension of adult logical facts. That's scary. Until you realize that your intuition is right, but that the rationale for your intuition is actually misplaced, you'll *never* understand a single thing I'm trying to explain to you. You don't exhibit the skill set of an adult logical thinker yet. In fact, since you claim skills you clearly do not possess, you're actually so low on the DK scale of self assessment that any further logical thought process with you will be wasted. Hence, this is my last response to you, Eric Stevens, since you are clearly and obviously far too low on the DK scale of self assessment of skills to yet think clearly and logically about facts - like an adult should. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
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. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
Bloody static on the line! Time to complain to my NSP!
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
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...cle71022122.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. the article focuses only on cellphones yet completely ignores the fact that she was driving too fast for conditions and her abilities, just as she did in her first crash. the cellphone didn't cause the crash. her multiple bad decisions did. also, from that link, That same year, 10 percent of all teen drivers involved in fatal crashes were reported as distracted at the time of the crash. since they're dead, there is no way to know for certain if they were distracted or not, so that's nothing more than an assumption, but regardless, if 10% were distracted, then 90% of teens involved in fatal crashes were *not* distracted. this young driver killed her mom and sister while driving on her *learner's* *permit* and *not* due to a phone: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/.../learners-perm it-car-wreck/76007788/ NEWTON, Iowa ‹*A 14-year-old*girl with a learner's permit was driving with her family Tuesday*when she lost control and*rolled their sport-utility vehicle*on Interstate 80, resulting in the death of her mother and sister, Iowa state troopers said. .... It's still unclear how BryNeisha lost control of the vehicle;*she may have over-corrected while passing a semitrailer truck, Ludwig*said. Texting is not considered a factor in the crash. while cellphone use is a risk factor, so are many *other* risk factors, ones which are far more serious than phones, namely *other* *passengers*: https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/06/23009.jpg from the above infographic (nhtsa data), only 12% of crashes are due to cellphones. that means 88% of crashes are due to *something* *else*, all of which are legal and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. do you really expect passengers to be banned? Re your references to adult conversations and logic: I used to teach logic. One of the hardest things for students to grasp was the difference between a valid argument and a sound one. They believed, as probably most people do, and you certainly do, that logical proof guarantees factual truth. It doesn't. yep. see above. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
In , nospam
wrote: one does need a 'skill set' to understand what the facts actually mean, and it's not what you think it is. I agree with nospam and I said in the first post on this topic that people, like Wolf K, who desperately want to "prove" that cellphones "cause" accidents will always resort to attempting to use anecdotal evidence as proof - simply because there is no evidence in the reliable record that supports their intuition. They have no facts. They only have great campfire stories. So, Wolf K, true to form, pointed to a great campfire story. Let's look at this campfire story, shall we? http://www.charlotteobserver.com/new...e71022122.html - Teenager runs a stop sign. - Teenager is broadsided by oncoming traffic. - Teenager writes about the experience for her "senior project". - A year later, teenager "had been" (note the tense) on the phone. - She misjudged the Highway 120 exit to I5. What Wolf K found was a great story. It's a really nice story to tell around the campfire. Like the day I saw a snake that I thought jumped in the air like a bunny. But great stories are not science. They're simply great stories. Everyone who can't prove their point resorts to desperate techniques. That is what Wolf K. is doing. And that is what I said would happen in my opening with Mayayana. It always happens with people like Wolf K who can't comprehend facts. People like Wolf K try to explain away the elephant in the room. Look at my original post on this topic where I predicted this. It's only natural because the facts make Wolf K. very uncomfortable. That's actually a good sign that Wolf K is desperate to prove his point. It means he realizes facts are incontrovertibly against his intuition. So it's actually a good sign that Wolf K is resorting to fantastic campfire anecdotal stories to "prove his point", because it proves he realizes there are no facts that back up his position. That's the starting point we ALL have to have gotten to first. Until we realize cellphones don't change the accident rate, we are lost. Only when we realize that cellphone use has no effect on the accident rate can we progress to the next stage in understanding why that is the case. But Wolf K, at least, isn't there yet. He's still at the desperate stage of campfire stories. It will take time before Wolf K progresses past the campfire story stage. I'll wait. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
In , nospam
wrote: all i'm saying is that cellphone call logs are meaningless. I agree. The call logs are a red herring which people who are desperate to prove that cellphone use while driving adds to the accident rate have no facts. So what they try to do is fabricate facts, where they feel that the call logs will help them fabricate those facts. But even if EVERY SINGLE ACCIDENT since about 1993 or so was attributed to cell phones, it still wouldn't change the fact in the good data that the accident rate has not changed its slope in all fifty states, individually or collectively, since before, during, and after the meteoric rise in cellphone ownership rates (and presumed use while driving). The call log is a red herring because the elephant in the room is the good data that shows there is no measurable effect. Until people come to grips with that fact, they can't even begin to comprehend the other arguments by nospam of the crying baby, twiddling with the radio, hot coffee, etc. There is a simple answer to all of this, but very few people are ready for that simple answer because they're still stuck in the stone age of reason, where they only believe in the campfire stories they read about which makes the news simply because it's a great campfire story. HINT: Insurance companies "know" who is more likely to have an accident. HINT: Distractions abound in the hundreds in even the shortest commute. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
In news
wrote:
Bloody static on the line! Time to complain to my NSP! Proof yet again, that Frank Slootweg acts like a child acts. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
In , Wolf K
wrote: And unlike you, he admitted it. Proof yet again that you, Wolf K, act like a child when presented with fact. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
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. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
On Sun, 06 May 2018 10:53:38 -0400, nospam
wrote: --- snip --- 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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
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*. i originally said it could be determined if there was dashcam video. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:22:33 +0000 (UTC), Bob J Jones
wrote: In news wrote: Yes it means that you have failed to understand the background to the statistics. Hehhehheh ... you have obviously never looked at the good data. Since I've had this argument in the past, nospam knows, at least, that if and when we're ready to actually show you the good data, we can. But you're not ready for actual data yet. You haven't progressed to that stage. Jeez.... I'm a life member of SAE(Intl) and among other things I've investigated motor vehicle accidents for more than 30 years before I retired. I've since got rid of my technical library but I've had hundreds of pounds of data of all kinds. You are both an idiot and a troll. --- long tail of garbage snipped --- -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
On Sun, 06 May 2018 10:53:39 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: "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." again, not normally, it isn't. That's because normally nobody tries. However I used to investigate accidents for a living and I know from experience what can be learned when you try. Suffice it to say that in this part of the world (New Zealand) the Serious CRash Investigation Unit of the NZ Police always obtains cellphone records if there is a cellphone in a car involved in the crash. It's standard practice. of course it's standard practice. that doesn't make it accurate. I think you mean reliable, in which case I agree with you. Most items of evidence are not reliable on their own. simple example: a driver could have answered a call and told the caller that he's driving and he'll call back later. 15 seconds later, a drunk swerves into his path, resulting in a collision. Could he have avoided the drunk if he wan't distracted by the phone call? he wasn't distracted. How do you know? 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...'. assume he was traveling at 60mph, or a mile per minute, to make the math easy. in 15 seconds, he'd have covered 1/4 mile, or 1320 feet (402 meters), more than 4 football fields worth of distance. 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. tl;dr cellphone logs won't show that it was a drunk driver. It probably was if the accident occurred in Russia. dashcams are popular there, so what happened would be on video. *might* be on video. 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. wtf does a domestic power meter have to do with driving? It has an app which makes and receives calls on the cellphone network. that doesn't answer the question. 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. 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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|