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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do onWindows 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. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Cellphones and driving (Was: What can you do on Windows 10...)
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Cellphones and driving (Was: What can you do on Windows 10...)
"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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Cellphones and driving (Was: What can you do on Windows 10...)
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. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Cellphones and driving (Was: What can you do on Windows 10...)
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Cellphones and driving (Was: What can you do on Windows 10...)
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Cellphones and driving (Was: What can you do on Windows 10...)
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. \ _ / ( ) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Cellphones and driving (Was: What can you do on Windows 10...)
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
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". |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|