Can people change? Is learning possible? If so, then I think the more useful study is one where they examine the recommended use case. That way, we can test new methods of doing the same thing, and if we find a way that works better, people can adopt the better way! (I know, I know: wishful thinking.)
Your assertion, that researchers should only test "actual use conditions" (I didn't see the study where they surveyed people to find out these actual use conditions, but it must've been done, right?), carries the inherent co-assertion that people can't change, so we shouldn't bother studying new ways of doing things.
All this study shows is adherence to Murphy's Law: if people have the opportunity to do something the wrong way, they will.
I don't think the study was garbage, but I don't think it was all that helpful. They should've tested the recommended configuration and mode; if that turned out to be safer, then you could use the study to encourage people to change their behaviour. This study a) draws blanket conclusions it wasn't designed to test, and b) doesn't answer the most relevant question, i.e., "Is texting still bad if you don't have to look away from the road?"
When using a study such as this, it's important to state the constraints of the study when explaining your conclusion. The headlines don't read "most commonly used mode of Siri/Vlingo not better than texting while driving." They read "Using Siri/Vlingo no better than texting while driving." If they didn't test the version of Siri designed to be used while driving, then this is an inappropriate conclusion; they didn't test Siri, they only tested a particular configuration (just like secure computing certifications only apply to the configuration tested, and can't be generalized to an entire platform).
I would assert that a more useful study would be to test the recommended modes, because the $64,000 question is whether there exists a mode of operation that is better than plain texting. If so, we can use that data to encourage people to stop using things the most common way, and start doing things in a slightly safer way. Is using Siri to text while driving a good idea? Probably not. Is it a less dangerous idea than looking away from the road to stare at a screen? That's the answer that would be useful, and it's not the answer this study was trying to find.
T-Mobile's wifi calling only works with specific T-Mobile branded phones. Additionally, if your cell phone depends on your internet connection, how are you going to call the cable company to get them to fix your net connection?
Outside the walls of slashdot, people love Exchange, they love Active Directory, they love SQL, they love Office, and they love Server 2012.
You had me right up until the end, there. No one loves Server 2012 - it's Windows 8 Server. And if you wonder why, it's because our IPKVMs don't have touch screens, which ruins the experience.
Just make sure you have appropriate speakers/headphones. No one can hear the frequencies that their output devices can't reproduce.
I find the discussion half-silly anyway. I find the difference in quality between recorded versus live to be much larger than the difference between playback on nice equipment vs. stupidly-expensive equipment. No audio system** can accurately reproduce the sound of 400 voices singing Carmina Burana in a good concert hall, so I'd rather save the money on audio equipment and spend it on actually experiencing music.
**Someone tried to argue that some combinations of McIntosh drivers and amps in a perfect room could come close. When I asked, no, he'd never been to a choral concert with 400 voices and a full orchestra, so he had no real means of comparison.
The cost of diesel is more, but it's not 30% more, which is the difference between the EPA estimated highway mileage between the gas and TDi Jettas (31 mpg highway vs. 41 mpg. highway). At ~$4.09/gal. for Diesel, gasoline would have to be ~$3.06 to make up for the efficiency difference, but it's closer to $3.60. You won't save as much money, but it's still cheaper to drive. Plus there's all that time you get to spend doing something besides pumping gas...
The Audi A3 hatchback is about 10 inches shorter than the Jetta Sportwagen, and costs about $6,000 more. The A4 wagon isn't available as a TDi in the US, but it's slightly longer than the Jetta.
It's actually a function of vehicle weight divided by the surface area of tires-on-road. So, those 18-wheelers do more damage than a passenger car, but not exponentially more than, say, that 2-ton SUV that's only riding on four tires.
People sometimes ask me if I have had trouble finding fuel for my TDi. My usual reply is that since I can drive as many as 600 miles on a tank (13.something gallons) that it tends not to be an issue. I am fortunate that there are several filling stations that have diesel pumps, but for a couple years I lived in a place where they weren't so convenient to my daily commute. However, since I could frequently go two weeks between filling up, that was also not a problem.
I used to have to shift my LTD into neutral at stop lights and use the accelerator pedal to keep it from stalling, after my sister caused the head gasket to fail. I don't think we ever fixed that problem, but I was the only one who would drive that car, at that point.
My car doesn't have an ACC position, but it's a diesel. I don't know if that's common for diesel motors, or if it's just because it's a (relatively) new car. You can turn on just about anything (radio, etc.) even if the car is off, but they shut off after 20 minutes.
With regard to some of your questions, based on reading I have done in the past year or so (please excuse the lack of citations; these answers are meant to counter the parent poster's incredulity):
Conclusion 1) See: Batman (affluent parents dead by violent crime due to poor underclass). If you have two affluent families, and one lives in a city that has some very poor people, who are not cared for, and who turn to violent crime as a result, then that family will tend to have a lower life expectancy than a similarly affluent family who lives in a place where there is less violent crime, even if we ignore all the poor people suffering the negative impacts of violent crime.
1a) Poor people are more likely to eat contaminated food, or be bitten by vermin (fleas, rats) and become ill and cannot obtain treatment, thereby becoming incubators for diseases that then spread to everyone, even if they do have access to care.
2) Children born to teens tend not to live as long or be as successful in life (it's a resource problem). So, if more children are born to teenagers, those children don't live as long, bringing the overall average down.
3) If I want to grab something healthy for lunch (at a restaurant), my options are much more limited compared to the abundance of less-healthy options. Furthermore, I'll still have to get in my car and drive there, as I can't make it on foot in the time allotted. Thus, the community design (I can't easily walk from my home or workplace, and have to sit in a car, which is dangerous**) and general consumption of less-healthy food (my fellow citizens prefer fast-food, so those restaurants which cater to their diets are more successful, and thus more abundant) make me less healthy as a side-effect.
**) Sitting has risks of DVT (clots), which is minimal, but in aggregate could have measurable effects: e.g., if this results in one million people per week driving to lunch that would otherwise have walked, then a 1:10mil chance of DVT complications would come up every few months on average. Also, extra driving can lead to extra traffic accidents, some of which are fatal, etc.
I suspect you're thinking of PageMaker, which was replaced by InDesign. FrameMaker is a whole different popsicle stand; as I understand it, it's the difference between laying out a page, and laying out a whole book.
HIV is only a level 2 bio-containment risk, because it is relatively easy to contain (not airborne, doesn't survive for long outside of an infected host). The big quarantine efforts are for things like Ebola, which were airborne, and thus spread very easily.
Slashdot Mirror
Can people change? Is learning possible? If so, then I think the more useful study is one where they examine the recommended use case. That way, we can test new methods of doing the same thing, and if we find a way that works better, people can adopt the better way! (I know, I know: wishful thinking.)
Your assertion, that researchers should only test "actual use conditions" (I didn't see the study where they surveyed people to find out these actual use conditions, but it must've been done, right?), carries the inherent co-assertion that people can't change, so we shouldn't bother studying new ways of doing things.
All this study shows is adherence to Murphy's Law: if people have the opportunity to do something the wrong way, they will.
I don't think the study was garbage, but I don't think it was all that helpful. They should've tested the recommended configuration and mode; if that turned out to be safer, then you could use the study to encourage people to change their behaviour. This study a) draws blanket conclusions it wasn't designed to test, and b) doesn't answer the most relevant question, i.e., "Is texting still bad if you don't have to look away from the road?"
When using a study such as this, it's important to state the constraints of the study when explaining your conclusion. The headlines don't read "most commonly used mode of Siri/Vlingo not better than texting while driving." They read "Using Siri/Vlingo no better than texting while driving." If they didn't test the version of Siri designed to be used while driving, then this is an inappropriate conclusion; they didn't test Siri, they only tested a particular configuration (just like secure computing certifications only apply to the configuration tested, and can't be generalized to an entire platform).
I would assert that a more useful study would be to test the recommended modes, because the $64,000 question is whether there exists a mode of operation that is better than plain texting. If so, we can use that data to encourage people to stop using things the most common way, and start doing things in a slightly safer way. Is using Siri to text while driving a good idea? Probably not. Is it a less dangerous idea than looking away from the road to stare at a screen? That's the answer that would be useful, and it's not the answer this study was trying to find.
Did you warn them? You didn't?!
http://xkcd.com/875/
For a moment, I seriously wondered whether they could do that. But if anyone could cancel the weather, and the news, it'd probably be Nintendo.
Come on people, a computer is a tool, not a religion.
I see your six-digit UID, so you can't be that new to slashdot. I appreciate your optimism, though.
T-Mobile's wifi calling only works with specific T-Mobile branded phones. Additionally, if your cell phone depends on your internet connection, how are you going to call the cable company to get them to fix your net connection?
Outside the walls of slashdot, people love Exchange, they love Active Directory, they love SQL, they love Office, and they love Server 2012.
You had me right up until the end, there. No one loves Server 2012 - it's Windows 8 Server. And if you wonder why, it's because our IPKVMs don't have touch screens, which ruins the experience.
Just make sure you have appropriate speakers/headphones. No one can hear the frequencies that their output devices can't reproduce.
I find the discussion half-silly anyway. I find the difference in quality between recorded versus live to be much larger than the difference between playback on nice equipment vs. stupidly-expensive equipment. No audio system** can accurately reproduce the sound of 400 voices singing Carmina Burana in a good concert hall, so I'd rather save the money on audio equipment and spend it on actually experiencing music.
**Someone tried to argue that some combinations of McIntosh drivers and amps in a perfect room could come close. When I asked, no, he'd never been to a choral concert with 400 voices and a full orchestra, so he had no real means of comparison.
The cost of diesel is more, but it's not 30% more, which is the difference between the EPA estimated highway mileage between the gas and TDi Jettas (31 mpg highway vs. 41 mpg. highway). At ~$4.09/gal. for Diesel, gasoline would have to be ~$3.06 to make up for the efficiency difference, but it's closer to $3.60. You won't save as much money, but it's still cheaper to drive. Plus there's all that time you get to spend doing something besides pumping gas...
The Audi A3 hatchback is about 10 inches shorter than the Jetta Sportwagen, and costs about $6,000 more. The A4 wagon isn't available as a TDi in the US, but it's slightly longer than the Jetta.
It's actually a function of vehicle weight divided by the surface area of tires-on-road. So, those 18-wheelers do more damage than a passenger car, but not exponentially more than, say, that 2-ton SUV that's only riding on four tires.
People sometimes ask me if I have had trouble finding fuel for my TDi. My usual reply is that since I can drive as many as 600 miles on a tank (13.something gallons) that it tends not to be an issue. I am fortunate that there are several filling stations that have diesel pumps, but for a couple years I lived in a place where they weren't so convenient to my daily commute. However, since I could frequently go two weeks between filling up, that was also not a problem.
Mmm, chips. You should get some cheese, and make nachos!
Perhaps equally oblig.: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2134
I'm either: that cynical or I've been at this too long....
Why choose?
I used to have to shift my LTD into neutral at stop lights and use the accelerator pedal to keep it from stalling, after my sister caused the head gasket to fail. I don't think we ever fixed that problem, but I was the only one who would drive that car, at that point.
My car doesn't have an ACC position, but it's a diesel. I don't know if that's common for diesel motors, or if it's just because it's a (relatively) new car. You can turn on just about anything (radio, etc.) even if the car is off, but they shut off after 20 minutes.
So, you expect that there's room for something else up there? How many grammarians do you know?
(I kid. Poor grammar frustrates me, too.)
Okay, but imagine if they did encode MP3 files as food. And then people started sharing that (self replicating?) data as food.
Just think: Coming soon to a courthouse in East Texas: Monsanto vs. the RIAA...
Is that why American life expectancies still exceed that of the various countries that have Islam as a State Religion?
With regard to some of your questions, based on reading I have done in the past year or so (please excuse the lack of citations; these answers are meant to counter the parent poster's incredulity):
Conclusion 1) See: Batman (affluent parents dead by violent crime due to poor underclass). If you have two affluent families, and one lives in a city that has some very poor people, who are not cared for, and who turn to violent crime as a result, then that family will tend to have a lower life expectancy than a similarly affluent family who lives in a place where there is less violent crime, even if we ignore all the poor people suffering the negative impacts of violent crime.
1a) Poor people are more likely to eat contaminated food, or be bitten by vermin (fleas, rats) and become ill and cannot obtain treatment, thereby becoming incubators for diseases that then spread to everyone, even if they do have access to care.
2) Children born to teens tend not to live as long or be as successful in life (it's a resource problem). So, if more children are born to teenagers, those children don't live as long, bringing the overall average down.
3) If I want to grab something healthy for lunch (at a restaurant), my options are much more limited compared to the abundance of less-healthy options. Furthermore, I'll still have to get in my car and drive there, as I can't make it on foot in the time allotted. Thus, the community design (I can't easily walk from my home or workplace, and have to sit in a car, which is dangerous**) and general consumption of less-healthy food (my fellow citizens prefer fast-food, so those restaurants which cater to their diets are more successful, and thus more abundant) make me less healthy as a side-effect.
**) Sitting has risks of DVT (clots), which is minimal, but in aggregate could have measurable effects: e.g., if this results in one million people per week driving to lunch that would otherwise have walked, then a 1:10mil chance of DVT complications would come up every few months on average.
Also, extra driving can lead to extra traffic accidents, some of which are fatal, etc.
I hope I was able to provide some perspective.
I don't know: I think I like it the first way better. I might have to sneak that into an e-mail.
I suspect you're thinking of PageMaker, which was replaced by InDesign. FrameMaker is a whole different popsicle stand; as I understand it, it's the difference between laying out a page, and laying out a whole book.
HIV is only a level 2 bio-containment risk, because it is relatively easy to contain (not airborne, doesn't survive for long outside of an infected host). The big quarantine efforts are for things like Ebola, which were airborne, and thus spread very easily.