The best current science on that issue says that there are indeed different areas of intelligence. But there's also an overall intelligence correlated to all of those areas to different degrees.
I think the dominant use case for the headset is for people who want to use their phones without their hands. It's about convenience not proximity of a "cell transmitter" of which a Bluetooth transceiver is not even an example.
I conceded the exact same point each time. Namely that there is a difference in how much one is distracted between conversation with someone present and someone on the phone. Several people pointed it ou,t and I felt a need to respond to more than one of those. That point answers the question I asked, which was "Are you really trying to make the argument that having a conversation with someone while driving should be banned?" The answer is "no" because there is a difference in degree. I don't think anyone should be embarrassed by being convinced by a good argument, so I realize that I should not be. Thank you for your considered and mean-spirited reply.
Did they also show that driving drunk has benefits exceeding the benefits of communicating with people while in a vehicle? If not, then no, that is not what is being shown in study after study.
Do you really care about impairment? No, you really don't. It's being used as a proxy. Impairment causes bad driving, which causes the consequences, like collisions, you actually care about. So you watch for the dangerous behavior like following too closely, speeding, swerving, etc. If you do those things, you're in violation, and it doesn't matter if it was because you were sleepy, talking to someone in your car, talking on the phone, getting serviced, or eating a cheeseburger. Conversely, if you're doing any of those things and driving perfectly safely, then good for you.
Yep, another person brought that up in another fork. I buy it as a reasonable argument. I'm not sure the "watch out" argument is pertinent since the person can do that irrespective of whether he's in a conversation with you.
1 is a reasonable point. So I concede that talking to someone not in your car is slightly more distracting that talking to someone in your car. 2 is explicitly disclaimed because it's not about the hands. You bring up an interesting point, but could you please try to argue without accusing people who disagree with you of intellectual dishonesty an bringing in the ad hominems? And you completely missed the point with respect to radios.
Infinitely? If there's a numerical scale of distraction, I think calling the difference infinite is exaggeration. But, yes I recognize that conversation is certainly more distracting that listening to the radio. I'm asking where the line is.
I agree that it is an absurd extreme, but I didn't take it there. I am analyzing what cause there is for banning cell phone use. The poster said, "It's not about having your hands on the wheel. It's about having your mind on the road." If you remove the distraction engendered by use of hands, what distracting features remain of using a cell phone? All I can come up is conversation. If conversation is the only salient reason, since "it's not about... hands," to conclude that banning cell phones is warranted, then drawing such a conclusion implies that, at least in terms of distraction, banning conversation in other forms is also warranted. I'm not bringing up irrelevant topics here, and I'm not attacking a straw man.
If the outcomes are really binary did or did not kill anyone, then yeah, I'm going to have to go with "didn't kill anyone" being success.
In the real world you can observe (or not) such things as swerving, driving over the lane markers, following another vehicle too closely, etc. None of those, happening I would call success (and maybe would allow following too closely as well since seemingly everyone does that all the time phone or not). Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, so I can't conclude logically that none of those happened, but I suspect if they had it would have been reported.
The road should be made as safe as practical. Restrictions on driving habits are warranted so long as they lead to an increase of safety that exceeds by some amount the costs they instigate. I think you are probably right, though, that the costs of restricting cell phone use exceed the safety benefits.
And that is a valid point, which is why I framed it in the form of a question. But specifically take away the holding a phone portion of the distraction of talking on a phone, and you're left with just conversation. I personally think that's well on the safe enough side of the line. I think that holding the phone is on the safe side too, but not so far from the line as just talking. Drunk (I don't know about what BAC levels mean in terms of impairment) is on the too dangerous side.
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not up on Massachusetts law. But I'll bet killing someone with a car due to negligence is a crime whether or not a phone is involved.
So the poster child for the argument that cell phone use while driving should be banned is a man who successfully used two simultaneously while driving with his knees?
I was about to say that it doesn't really seem to be warrantless search so much as part of a sentence.
And then I saw your comment, checked TFA, and realized it said "arrested" not "convicted." Yeah, completely obvious ruling. I guess my brain wanted to assume that the people passed something sensible rather than something moronic. I should know better by now.
I see what you're getting it. But the difference is that there isn't an experimentally backed theoretical framework that predicts godlike powers as a result of your slashdot posts. There is an experimentally backed theoretical framework, quantum mechanics, that predicts occasions where a particle, including a photon, may exceed c, and the experiment cited here did not cover those cases.
Slashdot Mirror
The best current science on that issue says that there are indeed different areas of intelligence. But there's also an overall intelligence correlated to all of those areas to different degrees.
And it takes almost a year to get up to that speed.
I'm in recruiting at Monster Cable Products Inc. We should talk. - no, not really
Giggity
I think the dominant use case for the headset is for people who want to use their phones without their hands. It's about convenience not proximity of a "cell transmitter" of which a Bluetooth transceiver is not even an example.
He's part of a shadowy organization including Teve Torbes, Dob Bole, Boba Fett, and Lamar Alexander #2.
I conceded the exact same point each time. Namely that there is a difference in how much one is distracted between conversation with someone present and someone on the phone. Several people pointed it ou,t and I felt a need to respond to more than one of those. That point answers the question I asked, which was "Are you really trying to make the argument that having a conversation with someone while driving should be banned?" The answer is "no" because there is a difference in degree. I don't think anyone should be embarrassed by being convinced by a good argument, so I realize that I should not be. Thank you for your considered and mean-spirited reply.
Did they also show that driving drunk has benefits exceeding the benefits of communicating with people while in a vehicle? If not, then no, that is not what is being shown in study after study.
Do you really care about impairment? No, you really don't. It's being used as a proxy. Impairment causes bad driving, which causes the consequences, like collisions, you actually care about. So you watch for the dangerous behavior like following too closely, speeding, swerving, etc. If you do those things, you're in violation, and it doesn't matter if it was because you were sleepy, talking to someone in your car, talking on the phone, getting serviced, or eating a cheeseburger. Conversely, if you're doing any of those things and driving perfectly safely, then good for you.
Yep, another person brought that up in another fork. I buy it as a reasonable argument. I'm not sure the "watch out" argument is pertinent since the person can do that irrespective of whether he's in a conversation with you.
1 is a reasonable point. So I concede that talking to someone not in your car is slightly more distracting that talking to someone in your car. 2 is explicitly disclaimed because it's not about the hands. You bring up an interesting point, but could you please try to argue without accusing people who disagree with you of intellectual dishonesty an bringing in the ad hominems? And you completely missed the point with respect to radios.
Infinitely? If there's a numerical scale of distraction, I think calling the difference infinite is exaggeration. But, yes I recognize that conversation is certainly more distracting that listening to the radio. I'm asking where the line is.
I agree that it is an absurd extreme, but I didn't take it there. I am analyzing what cause there is for banning cell phone use. The poster said, "It's not about having your hands on the wheel. It's about having your mind on the road." If you remove the distraction engendered by use of hands, what distracting features remain of using a cell phone? All I can come up is conversation. If conversation is the only salient reason, since "it's not about ... hands," to conclude that banning cell phones is warranted, then drawing such a conclusion implies that, at least in terms of distraction, banning conversation in other forms is also warranted. I'm not bringing up irrelevant topics here, and I'm not attacking a straw man.
If the outcomes are really binary did or did not kill anyone, then yeah, I'm going to have to go with "didn't kill anyone" being success. In the real world you can observe (or not) such things as swerving, driving over the lane markers, following another vehicle too closely, etc. None of those, happening I would call success (and maybe would allow following too closely as well since seemingly everyone does that all the time phone or not). Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, so I can't conclude logically that none of those happened, but I suspect if they had it would have been reported.
The road should be made as safe as practical. Restrictions on driving habits are warranted so long as they lead to an increase of safety that exceeds by some amount the costs they instigate. I think you are probably right, though, that the costs of restricting cell phone use exceed the safety benefits.
And that is a valid point, which is why I framed it in the form of a question. But specifically take away the holding a phone portion of the distraction of talking on a phone, and you're left with just conversation. I personally think that's well on the safe enough side of the line. I think that holding the phone is on the safe side too, but not so far from the line as just talking. Drunk (I don't know about what BAC levels mean in terms of impairment) is on the too dangerous side.
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not up on Massachusetts law. But I'll bet killing someone with a car due to negligence is a crime whether or not a phone is involved.
Are you really trying to make the argument that having a conversation with someone while driving should be banned? How about listening to the radio?
So the poster child for the argument that cell phone use while driving should be banned is a man who successfully used two simultaneously while driving with his knees?
Haven't you been paying attention? Apple invented the rectangle with rounded corners.
I was about to say that it doesn't really seem to be warrantless search so much as part of a sentence. And then I saw your comment, checked TFA, and realized it said "arrested" not "convicted." Yeah, completely obvious ruling. I guess my brain wanted to assume that the people passed something sensible rather than something moronic. I should know better by now.
TFA doesn't go into details, but I'm imagining a replacement for mo-cap and wiimote/kinect if it updates quickly enough, is small enough, and cheap.
It's not encrypted. We're just sending random, meaningless strings to one-another.
I see what you're getting it. But the difference is that there isn't an experimentally backed theoretical framework that predicts godlike powers as a result of your slashdot posts. There is an experimentally backed theoretical framework, quantum mechanics, that predicts occasions where a particle, including a photon, may exceed c, and the experiment cited here did not cover those cases.
So if my grandma who doesn't know how to use a computer, clicks on and downloads Bonzai Buddy because a purple ape told her to, is she guilty?