Our data are restricted to calls routed through multiple cell phone towers in a contiguous region just outside of a major California down-town area during an eleven day period in 2005. Given the mechanics of call routing and signal switching, the calls could have been placed only by callers in moving vehicles.
But it doesn't tell you if they're driving. Actually, it doesn't even tell you if they're in a car.
And probably will when it gets duped in three days time.
I had to retract one + because of a missing word in the summary:
In fact, when researchers gamed the system on a real news aggregation site, the items that received fake positive votes from the researchers were 32% more likely to receive more positive votes compared with a control
The OP is wrong, and is trying to prove something hat is harmful isn't
Then (sort of playing devil's advocate) it shouldn't be hard to refute their findings scientifically. My gut feeling is to wonder if they've made some unwarranted assumptions, but I haven't read the paper from cover to cover.
I don't know if I'd want to see cell phone bans in place*, but definitely some system of additional charges for cell phone use before an accident.
*I've assumed from context that you mean for drivers in control of vehicles, in which case:
It's either legal or it's not; the consequences of the action shouldn't matter when it comes to pressing charges. By all means use evidence of cell phone use to prove the case for distracted driving or what have you, or in whatever-the-opposite-of-mitigation is when it comes to sentencing, but I don't think you can justify retroactively declaring something illegal (or legal) because of what happened (or didn't happen) next.
The graph on page 2 shows "indexed crashes per billion highway miles travelled." It show "fatal crashes" and "all crashes."
What I don't get is that since about 2003, there have apparently been more "fatal crashes" than "all crashes," and that before 1991 all crashes were fatal crashes. What am I missing?
It sounded like the future — a 600mph train taking people from San Francisco to Los Angeles in just 30mins. In fact it sounded like a future too good to be true.
A future where SF and LA are only 300 miles apart does sound a little unlikely.
The writing is BAD. Look at the dialog and tell me its good.
Doctor Who: Do I have the right? Simply touch one wire against the other and that's it. The Daleks cease to exist. Hundreds of millions of people, thousands of generations can live without fear, in peace, and never even know the word Dalek.
Sarah Jane Smith: Then why wait? If it was a disease or some sort of bacteria you were destroying, you wouldn't hesitate.
Doctor Who: But if I kill, wipe out a whole intelligent lifeform, then I become like them. I'd be no better than the Daleks.
What's objectively wrong with that?
Then look at the stories... the plots. Find me a good one.
Again, totally subjective. I could reel off a list of stories I enjoyed, like City of Death (time travel experimentations by an alien split across time into several personas threaten the moment of life's creation) or The Curse of Fenric (an ancient God is awoken and threatens 1940s Earth with a nerve toxin apocalypse with help from "vampires" from an alternate future), but if you don't like them, does that make me wrong?
Which should be obvious to anyone who's seen the scene in question (the Doctor in fact claims that he can regenerate "507" times). A throw-away line in the middle of an adventure. Now he's on his eleventh (or is it twelfth) life, he's probably anxious to avoid discussion of his mortality.
If I can conveniently cut you off just there, there was The Sarah Jane Adventures. More for kids, admittedly, but still. There's also Gwen Cooper in Torchwood (essentially joint lead with Captain Jack, just minus superpowers). And she's a mother!
Secondly, it's already canon that doctors can regenerate far more than twelve times [wikia.com].
Not this again.. the only thing that's canon is that the Doctor gave a throw-away response to a question asked in the heat of an adventure. It even says it right there on the page:
Later statements by Russell T Davies suggest this was likely a joke.
It seems awful to me. The writing seems bad to me. The characters seem bad to me. The plots seem bad to me. The props/special effects seem bad to me.
There you go. All your issues resolved. You have your opinion, lots of people will share it and lots won't. That's life. Posting about it here isn't going to gain you any great insight into why some people enjoy things that other people don't.
but remember that it took Star Trek to bring us one of the first scripted interracial kisses on television.
Fixed. Silly cow.
It could be a way to teach young men how to treat powerful women with respect, a lesson that is rarely discussed well, anywhere.
Um, how about respecting all women? Like the strong female human characters who've been the Doctor's companions since 2005 (actually since 1987, and prior to that as well if you ignore Mel)?
The coils turn on by reacting to the presence of the bolt. If the gun is constructed well enough, why can't a simple dumb timer be enough? Sensors seem overcomplicated
What if your bolts aren't very consistent in mass or composition? Or you want to make alterations to the power output?
Well, Amouth said it best. You don't even know there is a design problem. You've just assumed that this guy hasn't tuned the timing properly so that you can sneer down your nose at him from your lofty position as Expert On Everything. Feel good?
I wonder why my original comment got no points, but your query got two?
My karma is Excellent so I start at 2, and you're unlikely to go up.
Slashdot Mirror
Our data are restricted to calls routed through multiple cell phone towers in a contiguous region just outside of a major California down-town area during an eleven day period in 2005. Given the mechanics of call routing and signal switching, the calls could have been placed only by callers in moving vehicles.
But it doesn't tell you if they're driving. Actually, it doesn't even tell you if they're in a car.
A++++ wuld read again
And probably will when it gets duped in three days time.
I had to retract one + because of a missing word in the summary:
In fact, when researchers gamed the system on a real news aggregation site, the items that received fake positive votes from the researchers were 32% more likely to receive more positive votes compared with a control
The customer's name and photo then appears on the shop's payment system and the retailer charges them by clicking on their image.
Is that it? Are you not even going to explain why you think my question is ridiculous?
Let me try again. How does the carrier know whether someone's driving or just a passenger?
I actually guessed something like that, but what I really meant was how they can determine it was the driver, not the passenger.
Redundant? Seriously?
The OP is wrong, and is trying to prove something hat is harmful isn't
Then (sort of playing devil's advocate) it shouldn't be hard to refute their findings scientifically. My gut feeling is to wonder if they've made some unwarranted assumptions, but I haven't read the paper from cover to cover.
I don't know if I'd want to see cell phone bans in place*, but definitely some system of additional charges for cell phone use before an accident.
*I've assumed from context that you mean for drivers in control of vehicles, in which case:
It's either legal or it's not; the consequences of the action shouldn't matter when it comes to pressing charges. By all means use evidence of cell phone use to prove the case for distracted driving or what have you, or in whatever-the-opposite-of-mitigation is when it comes to sentencing, but I don't think you can justify retroactively declaring something illegal (or legal) because of what happened (or didn't happen) next.
The graph on page 2 shows "indexed crashes per billion highway miles travelled." It show "fatal crashes" and "all crashes."
What I don't get is that since about 2003, there have apparently been more "fatal crashes" than "all crashes," and that before 1991 all crashes were fatal crashes. What am I missing?
As the paper notes they use Carrier data to show a "7.2 percent jump in driver call likelihood at the 9pm threshold".
How does the carrier know whether someone's driving or not?
They are still fighting this and are asking for donations - see the PayPal link at the end of http://lavabit.com/
Hah! Beat me to it.
I did say I was being pedantic, and was going for the +5 Funny I got, not +5 Insightful.
It sounded like the future — a 600mph train taking people from San Francisco to Los Angeles in just 30mins. In fact it sounded like a future too good to be true.
A future where SF and LA are only 300 miles apart does sound a little unlikely.
So it's 1984, and I'm in a high school math class where I have to write a very simple calendar program on a Sperry computer
And you've inadvertently created the trans-temporal internet protocol? Kudos!
In what sense is it disrespectful to those characters for the Doctor to regenerate as a female?
I never said it would be. I'm just saying Doctor Who doesn't really have a lot to answer for in terms of gender equality.
The writing is BAD. Look at the dialog and tell me its good.
Doctor Who: Do I have the right? Simply touch one wire against the other and that's it. The Daleks cease to exist. Hundreds of millions of people, thousands of generations can live without fear, in peace, and never even know the word Dalek.
Sarah Jane Smith: Then why wait? If it was a disease or some sort of bacteria you were destroying, you wouldn't hesitate.
Doctor Who: But if I kill, wipe out a whole intelligent lifeform, then I become like them. I'd be no better than the Daleks.
What's objectively wrong with that?
Then look at the stories... the plots. Find me a good one.
Again, totally subjective. I could reel off a list of stories I enjoyed, like City of Death (time travel experimentations by an alien split across time into several personas threaten the moment of life's creation) or The Curse of Fenric (an ancient God is awoken and threatens 1940s Earth with a nerve toxin apocalypse with help from "vampires" from an alternate future), but if you don't like them, does that make me wrong?
Later statements by Russell T Davies suggest this was likely a joke - http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Death_of_the_Doctor_(TV_story)#Time_Lords
Which should be obvious to anyone who's seen the scene in question (the Doctor in fact claims that he can regenerate "507" times). A throw-away line in the middle of an adventure. Now he's on his eleventh (or is it twelfth) life, he's probably anxious to avoid discussion of his mortality.
Buffy. Tru Calling. Dollhouse. Birds of Prey. Dark Angel. Sarah Connor Chronicles. The Bionic Woman.
Any more?
Or, a spin-off series featuring a female...
If I can conveniently cut you off just there, there was The Sarah Jane Adventures. More for kids, admittedly, but still. There's also Gwen Cooper in Torchwood (essentially joint lead with Captain Jack, just minus superpowers). And she's a mother!
Secondly, it's already canon that doctors can regenerate far more than twelve times [wikia.com].
Not this again.. the only thing that's canon is that the Doctor gave a throw-away response to a question asked in the heat of an adventure. It even says it right there on the page:
Later statements by Russell T Davies suggest this was likely a joke.
It seems awful to me. The writing seems bad to me. The characters seem bad to me. The plots seem bad to me. The props/special effects seem bad to me.
There you go. All your issues resolved. You have your opinion, lots of people will share it and lots won't. That's life. Posting about it here isn't going to gain you any great insight into why some people enjoy things that other people don't.
but remember that it took Star Trek to bring us one of the first scripted interracial kisses on television.
Fixed. Silly cow.
It could be a way to teach young men how to treat powerful women with respect, a lesson that is rarely discussed well, anywhere.
Um, how about respecting all women? Like the strong female human characters who've been the Doctor's companions since 2005 (actually since 1987, and prior to that as well if you ignore Mel)?
The coils turn on by reacting to the presence of the bolt. If the gun is constructed well enough, why can't a simple dumb timer be enough? Sensors seem overcomplicated
What if your bolts aren't very consistent in mass or composition? Or you want to make alterations to the power output?
I wonder why my original comment got no points, but your query got two?
My karma is Excellent so I start at 2, and you're unlikely to go up.