My guess is that people are too cheap to buy the equipment that lets them use their phones hands-free.
The study is very clear that there is no statistical difference by using a cell phone hands-free. Hold it to your head, use a headset, or integrate it with your car, the risk is the same.
It means that the submitter didn't appear to actually read the study.
From the study, page 26: "Flanagan and Sayer (2010) critiqued the National Safety Council’s study. They noted that NHTSA (2010a) estimates that 18-22% of all crashes are associated with (but not necessarily caused by) all forms of distraction while NSC estimates that 25% are caused by cell phone use alone. Using different values than NSC for the risk of cell phone use, the frequency of use while driving, the presence of multiple causes for many crashes, and the extent to which drivers reduce their cell phone use in more risky driving situations, Flanagan and Sayer concluded that cell phones may be associated with 3% to 4% of crashes."
According to the report, drivers reported engaging in these other types of distracting behaviors:
81% talked to other passengers; 66% changed radio stations or looked for CDs or tapes; 49% ate or drank something; 24% dealt with children riding in the rear seat.
It's obvious that while Google would like to integrate with Facebook, Facebook does not want to integrate with Google. And that's exactly what has happened.
I understand how to remove posts from apps in FB, but I was only citing two specific examples of the many, many applications. Why should I have to block every single one of them?
I don't care what the "unclean masses" use, I only care what my friends and family use. For those that like the current FB experience, hey, it's still there. Maybe Newscorp will buy it, eventually.
... all I can said is that FB has nothing to worry about. The interface is utterly boring, the circles are way too hard to set up, you can't tell who you shared your posts with, and I still can't figure out how to post on someone's wall. Oh, and posting a photo, uggg. Maybe it's fixable, but this is not an encouraging start.
If you would call an interface that's not cluttered with Mafia Wars and Farmville updates "boring", then I suppose it's boring. But I prefer it over FB's.
Circles are drag-and-drop. I'm not sure how they could have made it easier. By comparison, FB has you check boxes next to names when you edit Groups.
If you create a new post and share it with only one person, that's functionally the same as a Wall post. Granular control over who sees what you post is G+'s biggest selling point.
Agreed on Photos. The integration to Picasa feels clunky to me.
Honestly, most of your criticisms seem to come from the perspective someone who hasn't spent more than 10 or 15 minutes with G+. Of course it doesn't work exactly the same way as FB. What would be the point?
What "civil liberties" are you worried about losing? I'm not aware of any that explicitly grant you the ability to phone-bomb some organization. Are you still pissed that you cannot send spam faxes to people?
How about legislation that requires telephony providers to provide call detail and subscriber records to law enforcement on demand?
"Lawmakers today announced new legislation that will take away more of our civil liberties, in response to recent attacks by the groups LulzSec and Anonymous."
No mod points today or you'd get +1 Insightful. This is exactly what will happen. Targeting the FBI is a good way to graduate from "annoyance" to "menace".
Considering the huge opportunity for graft I wonder how many containers are simply off loaded at sea to other vessels and reported lost? Insurance covers the loss for the owners of the containers and the crew makes a killing.
Losing a container is a very rare event, even though the number seems large. Practical problems aside, it would be very obvious if this sort of thing were happening. That's assuming none of 50 people involved never talked about it.
If the city's position is to be upheld, wouldn't that have the chilling effect of making all video surveillance tapes in admissible because they were recorded without your permission?
Probably not, since they don't record audio, but what about the recording systems police use in their interview/interrogation rooms? It seems to me that they would be illegal in states requiring more than one-party consent.
I don't think the police are thinking this one through very well.
I agree with everything you wrote. It is definitely, absolutely just a way to charge customers more. But I would also argue that the only reason this is an issue at all is because tethering has value to the customer, and isn't charging customers money to deliver value exactly what service providers do for a living?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have free tethering (and I don't work for or own stock in a service provider). But this argument that we should get it for free just because the SPs _could_ offer it for free with little or no incremental cost to themselves just smacks of Marxism to me.
From a more practical point of view I think that Verizon is concerned that they'll gut their residential and/or business Internet services. LTE is substantially faster than DSL and competitive with FiOS.
I think I understand the analogy, but what I believe you're saying is that they _shouldn't_ charge for tethering, not that they _can't_. There's a world of difference between the two.
They actually aren't making it so that you can't use a tethering app. What happens is that when you attempt to use a web browser on the tethered device, you are redirected to a page that tells you you're being naughty. The tethering app itself runs just fine.
I don't think this will make me any more popular around these parts, but this is a weak argument. Verizon isn't restricting LTE devices. They are restricting the connectivity for non-LTE devices.
I think the main problem is that so many people have been able to use it without having to pay, but now Verizon is actually enforcing the provisions of the contract. A backlash is predictable, but this FCC complaint just doesn't have legs.
The other argument I see quite a bit is that "unlimited data" means unlimited for any device you happen to own. It isn't. It's for the device you have contracted with Verizon (or AT&T, or whoever) to connect to their network. It does not extend to anything you happen to have in your pocket. I'm not trying to argue what should be or shouldn't be, just what is actually being paid for and delivered under the terms of the contract. You know, that thing that binds _both_ parties?
There are only two exams for CCIE: a written and a "practical" lab exam. On average it takes three attempts to pass the lab test, which is quite expensive. You maintain certification by taking the written exam every two years.
+1 on CCIE. For networking it's still the premier certification and is respected by Cisco's competitors in the networking space. Takes a lot of time and money to obtain, though.
I'm amazed by the displeasure displayed on their FaceBook page and in other places. I was actually surprised by the number of people commenting. I've always wondered what the benefit to the hardware vendors is that would make them go to the work of locking bootloaders, or even taking away the 'check this box for root access' that Android phones should really have.
There's little benefit to manufacturers who don't also own an app store, like Apple.
However, the carriers apply pressure in order to prevent customers from doing things like wifi tethering without paying the carriers for the service. You can easily do this on Android phones, but it requires root.
Slashdot Mirror
.... was the loading of a still image.
After performing a manual uudecode from the Usenet download.
You had only one hand on the steering wheel.
The study clearly states that handsfree vs. headset is statistically meaningless.
My guess is that people are too cheap to buy the equipment that lets them use their phones hands-free.
The study is very clear that there is no statistical difference by using a cell phone hands-free. Hold it to your head, use a headset, or integrate it with your car, the risk is the same.
It means that the submitter didn't appear to actually read the study.
From the study, page 26: "Flanagan and Sayer (2010) critiqued the National Safety Council’s study. They noted that NHTSA (2010a) estimates that 18-22% of all crashes are associated with (but not necessarily caused by) all forms of distraction while NSC estimates that 25% are caused by cell phone use alone. Using different values than NSC for the risk of cell phone use, the frequency of use while driving, the presence of multiple causes for many crashes, and the extent to which drivers reduce their cell phone use in more risky driving situations, Flanagan and Sayer concluded that cell phones may be associated with 3% to 4% of crashes."
According to the report, drivers reported engaging in these other types of distracting behaviors:
81% talked to other passengers;
66% changed radio stations or looked for CDs or tapes;
49% ate or drank something;
24% dealt with children riding in the rear seat.
So we should probably ban all that, too.
It's obvious that while Google would like to integrate with Facebook, Facebook does not want to integrate with Google. And that's exactly what has happened.
I understand how to remove posts from apps in FB, but I was only citing two specific examples of the many, many applications. Why should I have to block every single one of them?
I don't care what the "unclean masses" use, I only care what my friends and family use. For those that like the current FB experience, hey, it's still there. Maybe Newscorp will buy it, eventually.
... all I can said is that FB has nothing to worry about. The interface is utterly boring, the circles are way too hard to set up, you can't tell who you shared your posts with, and I still can't figure out how to post on someone's wall. Oh, and posting a photo, uggg. Maybe it's fixable, but this is not an encouraging start.
If you would call an interface that's not cluttered with Mafia Wars and Farmville updates "boring", then I suppose it's boring. But I prefer it over FB's.
Circles are drag-and-drop. I'm not sure how they could have made it easier. By comparison, FB has you check boxes next to names when you edit Groups.
If you create a new post and share it with only one person, that's functionally the same as a Wall post. Granular control over who sees what you post is G+'s biggest selling point.
Agreed on Photos. The integration to Picasa feels clunky to me.
Honestly, most of your criticisms seem to come from the perspective someone who hasn't spent more than 10 or 15 minutes with G+. Of course it doesn't work exactly the same way as FB. What would be the point?
Cisco IS a chinese company. Their top ppl are Americans, but all of the manufacturing is done in CHina. So, this is just China spying on Chinese.
Like Apple and most other technology companies, Cisco's manufacturing is out-sourced. They don't own any manufacturing facilities of their own.
Your last sentence is correct despite that.
Of the ROM-installing community, what percentage is NOT using CM 7.0.3?
Everyone using a custom ROM on a device that CM does not support. I'm not sure how many that is, but it includes the HTC Thunderbolt users.
What "civil liberties" are you worried about losing? I'm not aware of any that explicitly grant you the ability to phone-bomb some organization. Are you still pissed that you cannot send spam faxes to people?
How about legislation that requires telephony providers to provide call detail and subscriber records to law enforcement on demand?
"Lawmakers today announced new legislation that will take away more of our civil liberties, in response to recent attacks by the groups LulzSec and Anonymous."
No mod points today or you'd get +1 Insightful. This is exactly what will happen. Targeting the FBI is a good way to graduate from "annoyance" to "menace".
Considering the huge opportunity for graft I wonder how many containers are simply off loaded at sea to other vessels and reported lost? Insurance covers the loss for the owners of the containers and the crew makes a killing.
Losing a container is a very rare event, even though the number seems large. Practical problems aside, it would be very obvious if this sort of thing were happening. That's assuming none of 50 people involved never talked about it.
Nice try. 10,000 is a tiny, infinitesimal fraction of the 18,000,000 containers that make 200,000,000 trips every year. I'm surprised it's not more.
With an engine from Fiat and wiring by Lucas...
All hail Lucas, Prince of Darkness.
If the city's position is to be upheld, wouldn't that have the chilling effect of making all video surveillance tapes in admissible because they were recorded without your permission?
Probably not, since they don't record audio, but what about the recording systems police use in their interview/interrogation rooms? It seems to me that they would be illegal in states requiring more than one-party consent.
I don't think the police are thinking this one through very well.
I agree with everything you wrote. It is definitely, absolutely just a way to charge customers more. But I would also argue that the only reason this is an issue at all is because tethering has value to the customer, and isn't charging customers money to deliver value exactly what service providers do for a living?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have free tethering (and I don't work for or own stock in a service provider). But this argument that we should get it for free just because the SPs _could_ offer it for free with little or no incremental cost to themselves just smacks of Marxism to me.
From a more practical point of view I think that Verizon is concerned that they'll gut their residential and/or business Internet services. LTE is substantially faster than DSL and competitive with FiOS.
Now I just feel old.
I think I understand the analogy, but what I believe you're saying is that they _shouldn't_ charge for tethering, not that they _can't_. There's a world of difference between the two.
They actually aren't making it so that you can't use a tethering app. What happens is that when you attempt to use a web browser on the tethered device, you are redirected to a page that tells you you're being naughty. The tethering app itself runs just fine.
I don't think this will make me any more popular around these parts, but this is a weak argument. Verizon isn't restricting LTE devices. They are restricting the connectivity for non-LTE devices.
I think the main problem is that so many people have been able to use it without having to pay, but now Verizon is actually enforcing the provisions of the contract. A backlash is predictable, but this FCC complaint just doesn't have legs.
The other argument I see quite a bit is that "unlimited data" means unlimited for any device you happen to own. It isn't. It's for the device you have contracted with Verizon (or AT&T, or whoever) to connect to their network. It does not extend to anything you happen to have in your pocket. I'm not trying to argue what should be or shouldn't be, just what is actually being paid for and delivered under the terms of the contract. You know, that thing that binds _both_ parties?
+1 ironic for misspelling moron.
There are only two exams for CCIE: a written and a "practical" lab exam. On average it takes three attempts to pass the lab test, which is quite expensive. You maintain certification by taking the written exam every two years.
+1 on CCIE. For networking it's still the premier certification and is respected by Cisco's competitors in the networking space. Takes a lot of time and money to obtain, though.
I'm amazed by the displeasure displayed on their FaceBook page and in other places. I was actually surprised by the number of people commenting. I've always wondered what the benefit to the hardware vendors is that would make them go to the work of locking bootloaders, or even taking away the 'check this box for root access' that Android phones should really have.
There's little benefit to manufacturers who don't also own an app store, like Apple.
However, the carriers apply pressure in order to prevent customers from doing things like wifi tethering without paying the carriers for the service. You can easily do this on Android phones, but it requires root.