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

On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:52:19 +0000 (UTC), Bob J Jones
wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

You are not an educated person.
That is clear from what you write.
I have degrees also, probably far more than you do.
But that doesn't make me an educated person.

That you are clearly in the bottom quadrant of the DK scale is obvious that
you self assess your skill set at such an awkwardly high level which most
of us clearly see as far too high when we assess your skill level.

I assess your skill level, for example, as extremely low, since you clearly
can't see past your own intuition.

If you intuit, for example, that an accident must have been caused by fault
brakes, and yet, there is absolutly zero evicdence to support your claim,
it would be the same situation as you're intuiting here.

Only when you can progress past your intuition will your claim of being an
engineer contain any merit.

Right now, all you've shown to us is your inherent intuition.
Guess what?

Even the dumbest of the dumb has the same inherent intuition.
Even the least educated of the least educated has the same intuition.

Your intuition carries you no further than the inherent intuition of the
dumbest of the dumb and of the least educated of the least educated.

It's only when (and, in this case, 'if') you show you can progress past
your inherent intuition that your (currently hard-to-believe) claim of
being an engineer with education would carry even a single iota of merit.

*Show us that you can think past your inherent intuition.*

For example, read this hypothesis...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/fJBY472ds3E/HTFDCGF-BQAJ

If you've progressed past the limits of your intuition, and if you really
are an engineer (as am I, although not in this particular field), then you
are invited to help other sentient logical thinking adults flesh out why
cellphone use has no measurable effect on the overall accident rate.

Judging by results you are not obviously in the category of " sentient
logical thinking adults".
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 7 May 2018 14:29:10 +0000 (UTC), Bob J Jones
wrote:

In , nospam
wrote:

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

Hello nospam,

You're the only one on this thread who has progressed to the level of
understanding what I'm going to say next, so this is just to you, as I
don't think I'll be replying much more, as the conversation has dropped
down to the childish level what with Eric Stevens and Wolf K dominating the
conversation.

This is likely my last adult discourse on this thread, unless another adult
shows up who possesses logical thought processes.

Given these facts:
1. Distractions "must" be causing (probably most) accidents

An assumption.

2. Cellphones must be an "added distraction" that didn't exist prior
3. And yet, the accident rate is wholly unaffected by cellphones

Which is not correct. In any case you have made no attempt to show
that it is true.

My tentative hypothesis is the following:
A. There are many (probably hundreds to thousands) of distractions
B. Some people handle those thousands of distractions in every commute
C. Some people don't handle those thousands of distractions in every
commute

I wonder why? How many distractions at one time can a driver safely
handle?

Insurance companies "know" (statistically) who those people are.
It has a lot to do with intelligence (e.g., good driver discounts).
It has a lot to do with age (e.g., mature driver discounts)
It has a lot to do with vehicle (e.g., sports car penalties)
It has a lot to do with respect for laws (e.g., traffic ticket penalties)
It even has something to do with gender (e.g., boys pay more than girls)

Distractions exist, in the thousands in every single commute.
These people WILL have accidents, no matter what.

What I posit is may be happening is this situation before cellphones:
A. Distraction #1 causes the most accidents
B. Distraction #2 causes the next most accidents
C. Distraction #3 causes the 3rd most number of accidents
C. Distraction #4 is next
D. Distraction #5 is next
E. Distraction #6 is next
F. Distraction #7 is next
G. Distraction #8 is next
H. Distraction #9 is next
I. Distraqction #10 is next
... and so on for thousands of distractions in every commute ...

I posit that the accident rate hasn't changed due to the extreme magnitude
and timing of the "added" distraction of cellphones, simply because it
became in the list above, somewhere displacing one other distraction.

That's your hypothesis upon which you have been basing your argument
for several days.

So, for example, if cellphones are at level "G" (#8) above, they simply
moved #8 to position #9, and down the line.

The point is that cellphones can not possibly be in the top few, simply
because the accident rates haven't changed - but cellphones exist - in huge
numbers - so the only question is WHICH DISTRACTION did they replace.

You don't know any of that. You have merely assumed it. Where is your
data? Where is your analysis?

The answer to that question is meaningless - since it's clearly not in the
top few - but I posit cellphones did replace only the POSITION of an
existing distraction, which simply moved that distraction down one level.

I realize this hypothesis will be lost on almost everyone on this newsgroup
who has posted, so I will not respond to any childish responses.

I will respond to adult logical thinking but not to the mindless childish
drivel that seems to be prevailing now that Wolf K, Frank Slootweg, and
Eric Stevens have joined the rabble.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens