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.)

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.

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.

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.

Bloody static on the line! Time to complain to my NSP!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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