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

On Wed, 2 May 2018 13:40:29 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

[snip]

Is my view fear of the future? I don't think so. I see
technophilia and technophobia as two sides of the
same coin. Both attitudes are simplistic projections,
viewing tech as an entity that will either improve
our lives or ruin them. Having a cellphone to make

Agreed. I use technology where it is useful. Where it is not, I
pass. This seems a very foreign viewpoint to some.

calls on the road is a great idea. Walking into a tree
while looking at a video of a cat using a toilet
because one can't put down one's cellphone....
not so much.

Well, one could argue that it does help thin the herd. You might
find this amusing or alarming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6Wpc9s35ZY

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

"Gene Wirchenko" wrote|

| Well, one could argue that it does help thin the herd. You might
| find this amusing or alarming:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6Wpc9s35ZY
|

I like that one. Yet most states still allow cellphones
while driving. Last week I was sitting in a park watching
a young father halfheartedly throw a football with his
son, probably about 7. The father was on the phone
the whole time, treating the game of catch as a
"manageable distraction". I suppose he probably
would have said he was "multitasking" if I'd asked him,
but it seems unlikely he was even aware of what he
was doing.

In news wrote:

I like that one. Yet most states still allow cellphones
while driving. Last week I was sitting in a park watching
a young father halfheartedly throw a football with his
son, probably about 7. The father was on the phone
the whole time, treating the game of catch as a
"manageable distraction". I suppose he probably
would have said he was "multitasking" if I'd asked him,
but it seems unlikely he was even aware of what he
was doing.

Hi Mayayana,

Q: Where are the accidents?
A: They don't exist.

Warning: OFF TOPIC!
I only speak fact.

I'm posting this because I like you and because I respect you.

So I am posting this FACT as one adult to another.

I realize this is completely off topic, where, as you know, I try to stay
on topic because I ask questions that have technical answers and then I
leave, so I don't use the chitchat model of Usenet that most others use (I
use the Q&A model).

While I agree with you on the father:son football catch, that he should
give his undivided attention to his child, and I too found the guiding
hands punchlines hilarious, I have to point out to you a FACT.

Yup. A fact.

Just like intuition doesn't work with quantum mechanics, intuition doesn't
work with accident rate statistics either.

The fact is that nobody on this entire planet (and, trust me, everyone has
looked) can find any relationship whatsoever (up, down, or otherwise) in
the overall accident rate in each of the 50 states of the USA (together or
separately) to the absolutely astoundingly utterly huge explosion in
cellphone ownership rates when cellphone existence (and presumed use) in
vehicles skyrocketed from 0 percent to almost 100% in just a few years -
and which has plateued (due to saturation).

Sure, everyone intuitively thinks a LOT of things.
I can name scores of things that people intuit that are simply wrong.

The fact is that nobody on this planet has ever found anything in the
accurate statistics, overall, for each state, which have been gathered
since before WWII so they're good data, for accident rates.

Some explanations of this fact (I call it the "elephant in the room").

1. I say *accident rates*, because that's the first-order factor.
Everyone loves to choose other statistics because they can't find anything
in the actual accident rate that proves what they intuit (because what they
intuit is actually wrong - but that's for you to understand).
Accident rates are an accepted way to judge "accidents" because rates
normalize for number of miles driven which is due to a complex set of
environmental and economic fluctuations such as cost of driving and travel
and number of miles driven, etc.
Also accidents are reported faithfully to the government both from police
and from insurance companies (where, for example, in California, it's the
law that both parties must report accidents, even minor ones, over a
certain nominal value of damage) and accidents have been faithfully
reported for decades, so the numbers are accurate and statistically sound.

*Hence, _accident rate_ is good data (in the USA anyway).*
Anyone who doesn't use accident rate, is usually trying to scam you (but
we'd have to look at every argument to be sure).

2. I say cell phone _ownership_ has skyrocketed, but I don't discuss "use"
except to tell you that nobody knows that number and everyone has a pet
method for obtaining it. In fact, the NHTSA runs a study in May of every
year, but if you knew how that "use rate" study is done, you'd laugh (it's
done at stop lights ... yes. ... at stop lights).

So *nobody* has good numbers on cellphone use, and anyone who tells you
they do, is almost always likely scamming you since nobody has that data.

What can you assume? You can assume two things about use which is that
almost every vehicle on the road in the USA today has a cellphone in it,
and that "some" percentage of those miles, in some cars, the phone is being
used.

Since even a small percentage of use would be a big number of miles driven,
it's important to note the elephant in the room, which is that nobody on
this planet has ever found ANY relationship to accident rates in all 50
states, individually or together, due to the explosion of cellphone
ownership rates (and, we can presumed, "some use") while driving.

3. Notice I don't talk injuries or fatalities or length of hospital stay,
etc., simply because they are second-order effects. Nobody has ever found
any first order effect of cellphone ownership rates with accident rates in
the USA, so second order effects are something you worry about later (if at
all).

4. Notice I don't talk about anecdotal evidence, which, by the way,
EVERYONE loves to talk about - but anecdotes aren't science. Accidents will
occur, and every one has a reason, where most, I'm sure, are due factors
that are common, such as distractions, which, I posit, we have hundreds of
thousands of in every 100 miles of driving, all of which we handle with
aplomb - but which some people don't handle well - so accidents due to
distractions have always occurred and will always occur - until you either
eliminate the driver or you eliminate driving altogether.

Bear in mind, I've heard all the anecdotes, just as you have - but
anecdotes are not science. They're just stories. Worse, they don't seem to
be backed up by facts in the overall statistical record (which is good
data).

5. Rest assured I've seen as many in vitro studies as you have, which
"prove" that cellphone driving is as distracting as teasing a Trex with a
chicken. The fact is that if these studies were actually indicative of in
vivo results, then any scientist with a grain of logic would have to ask:
*Q: Where are the in vivo accidents predicted by these in vitro studies?*

I'm not saying the studies are bad. I'm saying that you can't always
predict real world results from in vitro studies, and, I'm saying something
else - which is that if the studies were actually true - then the accident
rate would have to reise.

6. I hate to even have to mention #6 but every moron on the planet, when
shown these facts, complains that the absence of proof isn't proof of
absence, and that correlation doesn't mean causation, to which I simply
shake my head in dismay and posit that the only way their intuition can
possibly be correct is if some clever alien manipulated the good data to
not only exactly match cell phone ownership rates to exactly cancel out the
accidents, but that this manipulation has to be timed perfectly such that
not a single blip of effect shows up in the accident rates which, I must
repeat, is the only good data we have.


In summary, the elephant in the room is this question:
Q: Where are the accidents that people intuit are caused by cellphone use?

Nobody on the planet can find these accidents in the statistical record.
That's good data from the US Census Bureau.

Nobody can find these accidents in the good data.
The only accidents people find are in bad data.

Experts have already claimed they can't find the accidents.

That's a fact.

End of off-topic conversation of fact to our friend Mayayana, because I
care about facts.

-
"Bob J Jones" wrote

| Hi Mayayana,
|
| Q: Where are the accidents?
| A: They don't exist.
|
Are you kidding?
AT&T even made a movie with Werner Herzog, about
the large number of people killed as a result of texting.
(I suspect they were probably trying to get the attention
away from cellphone talking while driving.)

I've been in 2 accidents over the last 15 years or so.
One was caused by a man getting directions from a
friend while driving. The other was probably due to
cellphone use. (I was parked. Someone just plowed
into my truck on a quiet street.)

Just yesterday there was this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...98b_story.html

An FBI agent, reaching for his phone, went off
the road. A series of events ended up with him and
a good samaritan dead.

In my experience, most accidents are caused by
people trying to talk or text while driving. I deal with
them daily.

| Warning: OFF TOPIC!

Sorry, but this is not your newsgroup. You don't
get to guide the conversation. The fact that you
started the thread doesn't make it yours. It's a
public discussion. And while this particular
thread has been informative and interesting to me,
you started it with ulterior motives, to criticize
Win10 while pretending to be neutral.

In news wrote:

Are you kidding?

Changing the subject line since this is completely off topic.

I only speak facts.
The accidents simply do not exist.
You can dance all you want around the elephant in the room.

But the accidents simply do not exist.

AT&T even made a movie with Werner Herzog, about
the large number of people killed as a result of texting.

What I said was clear.
You don't seem to have comprehended what I said.

I said, very clearly, that the accident rate in each of the 50 states and
in the combined numbers, which is good data - has not shown ANY effect by
the utterly stupendous huge and sudden skyrocketing rates of cellphone
ownership (and we can assume use while driving).

This is a fact you can dance around all you want.
But that doesn't change that it's a fact.

(I suspect they were probably trying to get the attention
away from cellphone talking while driving.)

They're trying to sell advertising.

I've been in 2 accidents over the last 15 years or so.

I've never had an accident in my life, and I've driven about a million
miles. That's simply a "story". Anecdotal evidence is not science.

Anyone who tries to prove a fact by telling a story is not a logical adult.

5 reasons why anecdotes are totally worthless
https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/0...lly-worthless/

How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...tific-results/

Why Anecdotal Evidence is Unreliable
http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventu...-is-unreliable

Do Anecdotes Have A Place In Science?
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/09/08...ce-in-science/

Anecdotal vs. Scientific Evidence
http://www.personal.psu.edu/pel2/blo...ic-eviden.html

To wit:
Anecdotes make great stories for telling around a campfire; but anecdotal
evidence is not science.

One was caused by a man getting directions from a
friend while driving. The other was probably due to
cellphone use. (I was parked. Someone just plowed
into my truck on a quiet street.)

Anecdotal evidence makes for great stories around a campfire.

Anyone who needs to resort to anecdotal evidence to 'prove' a point, has no
business in a factual discussion where truth is what matters.

Just yesterday there was this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...98b_story.html

An FBI agent, reaching for his phone, went off
the road. A series of events ended up with him and
a good samaritan dead.

Anecdotal evidence makes for great stories around a campfire.
But while it's a great story, it's just not science.

Science is the fact that nobody on this planet has ever been able to find
ANY first-order relationship whatsoever between skyrocketing cellphone
ownership rates (and presumed use while driving) and actual accident rates.

You can dance around fact all you want; but you can't change that it's a
fact.

In my experience, most accidents are caused by
people trying to talk or text while driving. I deal with
them daily.

You're an intuitive thinker, which means, basically, you're not logical,
since it's clear to anyone logical what the facts are.

Nothing wrong with being intuitive - many people are - but it means they're
wrong a LOT of the time simply because they don't check facts.

The facts are clear. Nobody on this planet can find the accidents in the
overall accident rate that people intuit are due to cellphone use while
driving.

You don't think they've looked?

The simple fact is that they don't exist.

I never once said accidents don't exist. They exist like they've always
existed since the statistics were compiled, and the accident rate has been
steadily dropping, year over year over year over year over year over year.

There is ZERO influence of cellphone ownership rates on accident rates.
Zero.

That's a fact you can dance around all you want to.
But it doesn't change the fact.


| Warning: OFF TOPIC!

Sorry, but this is not your newsgroup.

That's a childish thing for you to say.

First off, what I said was it was "off topic".

That's a fact.
You don't seem to like facts.

But the fact you don't like facts doesn't make them not facts.

You don't
get to guide the conversation.

Again. I said it was off topic.
That's a fact.
You seem to be acting like a child because you don't like that fact.
But it doesn't change the fact of what I say is always fact.

The fact that you
started the thread doesn't make it yours.

Again, you're acting like a child acts.
I said it was off topic.
And it is.

This is a Windows newsgroup - and this topic of cellphone related accidents
is completely off topic.

You seem to super easily forget facts.

But the fact you don't comprehend this fact doesn't make it not a fact.

It's a public discussion.

That's the first fact in this thread you got right.
Nobody logical ever disagrees with facts.

That's what is so great about facts.
Everyone agrees on facts who is an adult who can comprehend facts.

And while this particular
thread has been informative and interesting to me,
you started it with ulterior motives, to criticize
Win10 while pretending to be neutral.

You fabricated that claim and it's patently false.
How can I prove it's patently false?
Probably I can't prove it - but that's only because it's a baseless claim.

That you got only a single fact correct in this entire post (which was the
obvious fact that this is a public discussion), and the fact that you got
EVERY other fact wrong in this post, tells me that you are not a logical
thinker which is proven in *all* your statements (save one).

I only speak facts.

In news wrote:

In news wrote:

Are you kidding?

Changing the subject line since this is completely off topic.

I only speak facts.
The accidents simply do not exist.
You can dance all you want around the elephant in the room.

But the accidents simply do not exist.

AT&T even made a movie with Werner Herzog, about
the large number of people killed as a result of texting.

What I said was clear.
You don't seem to have comprehended what I said.

I said, very clearly, that the accident rate in each of the 50 states and
in the combined numbers, which is good data - has not shown ANY effect by
the utterly stupendous huge and sudden skyrocketing rates of cellphone
ownership (and we can assume use while driving).

This is a fact you can dance around all you want.
But that doesn't change that it's a fact.

(I suspect they were probably trying to get the attention
away from cellphone talking while driving.)

They're trying to sell advertising.

I've been in 2 accidents over the last 15 years or so.

I've never had an accident in my life, and I've driven about a million
miles. That's simply a "story". Anecdotal evidence is not science.

Anyone who tries to prove a fact by telling a story is not a logical adult.

5 reasons why anecdotes are totally worthless
https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/0...lly-worthless/

How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...tific-results/

Why Anecdotal Evidence is Unreliable
http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventu...-is-unreliable

Do Anecdotes Have A Place In Science?
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/09/08...ce-in-science/

Anecdotal vs. Scientific Evidence
http://www.personal.psu.edu/pel2/blo...ic-eviden.html

To wit:
Anecdotes make great stories for telling around a campfire; but anecdotal
evidence is not science.

One was caused by a man getting directions from a
friend while driving. The other was probably due to
cellphone use. (I was parked. Someone just plowed
into my truck on a quiet street.)

Anecdotal evidence makes for great stories around a campfire.

Anyone who needs to resort to anecdotal evidence to 'prove' a point, has no
business in a factual discussion where truth is what matters.

Just yesterday there was this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...98b_story.html

An FBI agent, reaching for his phone, went off
the road. A series of events ended up with him and
a good samaritan dead.

Anecdotal evidence makes for great stories around a campfire.
But while it's a great story, it's just not science.

Science is the fact that nobody on this planet has ever been able to find
ANY first-order relationship whatsoever between skyrocketing cellphone
ownership rates (and presumed use while driving) and actual accident rates.

You can dance around fact all you want; but you can't change that it's a
fact.

In my experience, most accidents are caused by
people trying to talk or text while driving. I deal with
them daily.

You're an intuitive thinker, which means, basically, you're not logical,
since it's clear to anyone logical what the facts are.

Nothing wrong with being intuitive - many people are - but it means they're
wrong a LOT of the time simply because they don't check facts.

The facts are clear. Nobody on this planet can find the accidents in the
overall accident rate that people intuit are due to cellphone use while
driving.

You don't think they've looked?

The simple fact is that they don't exist.

I never once said accidents don't exist. They exist like they've always
existed since the statistics were compiled, and the accident rate has been
steadily dropping, year over year over year over year over year over year.

There is ZERO influence of cellphone ownership rates on accident rates.
Zero.

That's a fact you can dance around all you want to.
But it doesn't change the fact.


| Warning: OFF TOPIC!

Sorry, but this is not your newsgroup.

That's a childish thing for you to say.

First off, what I said was it was "off topic".

That's a fact.
You don't seem to like facts.

But the fact you don't like facts doesn't make them not facts.

You don't
get to guide the conversation.

Again. I said it was off topic.
That's a fact.
You seem to be acting like a child because you don't like that fact.
But it doesn't change the fact of what I say is always fact.

The fact that you
started the thread doesn't make it yours.

Again, you're acting like a child acts.
I said it was off topic.
And it is.

This is a Windows newsgroup - and this topic of cellphone related accidents
is completely off topic.

You seem to super easily forget facts.

But the fact you don't comprehend this fact doesn't make it not a fact.

It's a public discussion.

That's the first fact in this thread you got right.
Nobody logical ever disagrees with facts.

That's what is so great about facts.
Everyone agrees on facts who is an adult who can comprehend facts.

And while this particular
thread has been informative and interesting to me,
you started it with ulterior motives, to criticize
Win10 while pretending to be neutral.

You fabricated that claim and it's patently false.
How can I prove it's patently false?
Probably I can't prove it - but that's only because it's a baseless claim.

That you got only a single fact correct in this entire post (which was the
obvious fact that this is a public discussion), and the fact that you got
EVERY other fact wrong in this post, tells me that you are not a logical
thinker which is proven in *all* your statements (save one).

I only speak facts.

Nobody seems to want to change the thread title, so, bear in mind this
hypothesis, which tries to explain the elephant in the room.

Elephant in the room:
- If cellphones are distracting, and if distractions "cause" accidents,
then why has the skyrocketing explosion of cellphones at an exact time
period, slope, and duration, had zero measurable impact on the very good
and reliable well-reported easily obtaind data of accident rates in the
United States?

Everyone intuits that the accidents "must" exist.
Yet, nobody on this planet can find them in the good data.

Most people are only intuitive.
Facts are meaningless to them.
So most can't progress to the stage of sentient adult logic on this topic.

But maybe you can?

My hypothesis is here, for sentient adults to ponder...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/fJBY472ds3E/HTFDCGF-BQAJ

Bob J Jones wrote:
In news wrote:

I like that one. Yet most states still allow cellphones
while driving. Last week I was sitting in a park watching
a young father halfheartedly throw a football with his
son, probably about 7. The father was on the phone
the whole time, treating the game of catch as a
"manageable distraction". I suppose he probably
would have said he was "multitasking" if I'd asked him,
but it seems unlikely he was even aware of what he
was doing.

Hi Mayayana,

Q: Where are the accidents?
A: They don't exist.

Warning: OFF TOPIC!
I only speak fact.

I'm posting this because I like you and because I respect you.

So I am posting this FACT as one adult to another.

I realize this is completely off topic, where, as you know, I try to stay
on topic because I ask questions that have technical answers and then I
leave, so I don't use the chitchat model of Usenet that most others use (I
use the Q&A model).

While I agree with you on the father:son football catch, that he should
give his undivided attention to his child, and I too found the guiding
hands punchlines hilarious, I have to point out to you a FACT.

Yup. A fact.

Just like intuition doesn't work with quantum mechanics, intuition doesn't
work with accident rate statistics either.

The fact is that nobody on this entire planet (and, trust me, everyone has
looked) can find any relationship whatsoever (up, down, or otherwise) in
the overall accident rate in each of the 50 states of the USA (together or
separately) to the absolutely astoundingly utterly huge explosion in
cellphone ownership rates

Oh god, not this chestnut! I showed you clear data when you were called
"Paul", but you just weasel excuses.

The data does exist and it does show that distracted drivers are more
dangerous and that there has been an increase in hospitalizations/deaths
since the introduction of mobile phones. It is hard to see because there
has been a drastic drop in the overall rate caused by other safety
improvements with cars.

However, there's no point discussing this with you because your "facts"
(aka opinions) don't gel with reality.

End of story.

In news
Oh god, not this chestnut! I showed you clear data when you were called
"Paul", but you just weasel excuses.

The data does exist and it does show that distracted drivers are more
dangerous and that there has been an increase in hospitalizations/deaths
since the introduction of mobile phones. It is hard to see because there
has been a drastic drop in the overall rate caused by other safety
improvements with cars.

However, there's no point discussing this with you because your "facts"
(aka opinions) don't gel with reality.

End of story.

OFF TOPIC.

WARNING: Adult logical factual thought is below.

Almost everyone thinks like you do.
Hence I'm not surprised at anything you intuit.

Even I would intuit what you do, if I wasn't a logical adult thinker.
Just like almost everyone doesn't realize that quantum entanglement exists.

It's not intuitive this quantum mechanics stuff.
It's just not.

But the reason scientists believe in quantum mechanics isn't intuition.
It's science.

Experimental science.
Empirical results.

Facts.

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

That's a fact.

You can dance all around that fact, just like physicists had to dance
around quantum entanglement or the uncertainty principle or the duality of
light, none of which is intuitive - but all your dancing has to account for
the facts.

And the facts are plain, and uncontrovertible.

There has been zero (and everyone knows this) absolutely zero effect on the
accident rate in the USA in all fifty states due to the utterly
fantastically high explosion of cellphone ownership percentages in a
certain time period.

There's no effect before.
There's no effect during.
There's no effect after (now that the ownership rate has plateaued).

Everyone. Yes. Everyone is intuitive.

Just like everyone has trouble with empirical results of quantum physics,
everyone has trouble with that fact.

But that fact is a fact.
And, it's the *best* dataset there is on the planet for that fact.

So what you're trying to do is offset a fact with bad data.
You can dance all you want with your bad data.

But any conclusion you come up with that flies in the face of fact is just
your intuition speaking - since the fact that you can't avoid is the
elephant in the room - which is that the accident rate in the USA hasn't
been affected one blip by cellphone ownership rates skyrocketing (and
presumed use).

BTW, there *is* a reason for this - but until you recognize the fact is a
fact, the reason will never be able to be comprehended by you.

Only an adult who is a logical thinker - a scientist - a person who will
accept a fact for a fact - can get to the second stage - of why - of why
cellphone ownership rates have no bearing whatsoever on accident rates.

In fact, *all* safety laws - every single one - individually or combined -
have no first order effect on *anything* (except revenue generation) which
is another proven fact (they only have one second-order effect - which is
on length of hospital stay for "injuries" - but that includes seatbelt laws
in addition to cellphone laws).

Bear in mind that I only speak facts and that I comprehend detail, which
most people don't do.

So read my words carefully since they are fact.

What you're trying to do is offset

On Fri, 4 May 2018 13:05:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob J Jones
wrote:

--- snip ---

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. 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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens