"I think they should test the subjects general multi-tasking ability and come up with a statistic that correlates multi-taskability (or inability) to accident+phone rates."
Why isn't "They tested people with a driver's license" enough? You don't like the conclusions, so you want them to change the experiment until comes up with a result that says you're a better driver that everybody else?
"Im not going to say that cell phones dont cause distractions while driving. But where is the line of concern drawn?"
In this case, the line was drawn at existing state laws making it illegal to operate a motor vehicle with a BAC over 0.08%. The experiment showed that cell phones produced distraction similar to behavior already declared illegal.
So what? Aside from your lack of a reference, those statistics would doubtless cover cars that don't have a cell phone in them (in fact, how far back do those statistics go? 1950?)
Here we have a proper scientific experiment, control group and everything, and it has shown that using a cell phone impairs driving to a similar degree as being at the legal blood-alcohol content limit. Driver + cell phone = impairment. Slashdotters will rail against and bemoan the Bush administration for scoffing at the idea of global warming, but when we not only have a testable hypothesis but also proove that hypothesis, everybody starts digging out the anecdotes? I have yet to see a single post against the results of the experiment that have offered any genuine concerns about how the experiment was conducted, only posts like yours along the lines of "I don't agree with the results so the experiment must be meaningless."
After all, how dare something as silly as the scientific method get in the way of your precious pride in your own driving abilities.
"I would believe the results as soon as they run the test with nascar and indy drivers."
99.99% of the drivers on the road are neither NASCAR nor Indy drivers.
"For some reason race car drivers can talk to their pit crew often and not get into crashes and they are doing it at much higher speeds and the same 3 inch spacing from the car in front of them."
The reason is the fact that they're race car drivers. If they were unable to handle doing it, they wouldn't get far enough to be among the professionals you're watching, which means you're conveniently ignoring the unseen thousands who tried to be race car drivers but weren't able to because of the concentration required.
Does the phrase "Trained professional; don't try this at home" mean anything to you?
"I make decisions every day that can impact other people. If I make a bad decision then I end up paying for it somehow."
The problem here is that "impact" is meant in the literal sense and that, with cars, other people will end up "paying" for your mistakes as well, often more than you. Will saying "whoops, my bad" make hitting a pedestrian all better?
How much of your "I know my limits" reasoning based on the fact that you have yet to find them, have yet to make a mistake to teach you that you really can't handle something?
"But don't go trying to limit me based on what you can't handle."
You may trust your judgment, but I do not trust your judgment, and when it comes to driving, your judgment can affect, say, my ability to move my legs again. And as such, I'm going to impose rules on you for using the road that I helped pay for.
Besides, you're discounting and scoffing at a proper scientific study on the effects of cell phone use on people, with little more than anecdotes and hypotheticals. How good can your judgment on other subjects really be?
"Slavery has been a constant throughout human history, but it's much less common now."
Ever wonder how your clothes were made?
"A few hundred years ago, in Europe they probably couldn't build guillotines fast enough. Many of those countries have already abandoned capital punishment."
That's Europe. There's still Africa and Asia.
"Surveillance consisted of sneaking in and watching"
Why be sneaky about it when you can just barge in? Ask the Saudis or the North Koreans about it.
"Many companies that hire computer technicians merely require an A+ Certification in order for an applicant to be considered competent and eligible for the job."
"Even with other certifications that broaden their knowledge like Network+ and maybe CCNA, the most important thing is hands-on experience, something that takes a lot more background than cramming a couple of books."
Hiring people with hands-on experience costs money. Companies want to hire people that have little more than an A+ certification because they're most willing to work for minimum wage.
"But I think what really gets people about HDTVs is that they're usually in a format (plasma, lcd, etc.) that has significant advantages over CRTs, including widescreen (though CRT can do that), lightweight, thin, larger screens with much less associated bulk, etc."
I don't get your reasoning. Personally, I'm thinking about buying an HD CRT in the next few months for my video game addiction, and I just don't feel the draw to flat panels that you're describing.
First and foremost, I will not abide any dead pixels at all, no matter where they are or how far apart they are. Therefore, I will not buy an LCD television.
That leaves plasma. And while an extra $1000 or so will pay for a lighter, thinner (though not "larger" as you describe) screen, the lighter weight means little to me because I don't intend to carry it around with me, and I have no need to save on television depth since I already have space devoted to a deep CRT because of my current television. If I got a plasma, it might clear up some shelf space (space I probably wouldn't be able to use for fear of obstructing the picture), but the shelf would still be there, taking up floor space.
So I'd be left with paying triple or so for the same amount of screen area for features I have no use for. No plasma for me, thanks.
"You don't see a lot of people buying CRT monitors these days, do you?"
Yes, I do. CRTs are still 1/3 the price of LCDs and I don't know of anybody that has ever seen a dead pixel willing to invest so much money in an LCD monitor.
Congress has the power to raise revenue, regardless of the name you give it ("taxes," "imposts," "excises," etc.). It just so happens that Congress has delegated some of its authority to the FCC. Sorry to burst the bubble of conspiracy theorists in this topic, but the only hand-waving going on is that there's little in the federal constitution saying that Congress can't delegate.
"If you are a US Citizen, if you want to influence your Congresscritter, it's probably best to write if you can rather then call."
I don't know about yours, but if I wanted to influence my Representative, I'd have to change my name to George W. Bush.
Seriously, I already wrote him a letter expressing my unhappiness with the NSA's warrantless wiretapping, and all I got for my trouble was a three-page letter from John Mica full of explanations for how the wiretapping is right and legal (going so far as to drag up the "authorization for the use of force" legislation that the administration itself had stop trying to use to justify its actions).
If I'm going to get blown off on something so important, why should he pay any heed to me on something so relatively trivial?
A "glider" is an unpowered aircraft. However, the term is also used to refer to motorgliders, which are aircraft that switch off their engines in flight.
(...)
The term "pure glider" (or equivalently, but less commonly "pure sailplane") may be used to distinguish an unpowered glider from a motorglider, without implying any differential in gliding or soaring performance.
Of course, if you can find a better way to describe what a mehve is while being similarly succinct, be my guest, or are you too busy trolling?
Be careful what you wish for. Remember that they dropped GameCube support because Blizzard didn't perceive as much support there for multiplayer online FPS fragfests. The "follow-up" looks like a game of Quake with a zergling mod.
"I found books published by the state of Texas that said the *worst* following distance was 2 seconds. That's the following distance that guarantees the worst possible crash."
And there's your problem: things are bad if the collision actually happens. The whole point of having those two seconds is to give you reaction time to avoid the crash to begin with.
Statistics only give you meaningful answers if you know to ask the right questions.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think they should test the subjects general multi-tasking ability and come up with a statistic that correlates multi-taskability (or inability) to accident+phone rates."
Why isn't "They tested people with a driver's license" enough? You don't like the conclusions, so you want them to change the experiment until comes up with a result that says you're a better driver that everybody else?
"Im not going to say that cell phones dont cause distractions while driving. But where is the line of concern drawn?"
In this case, the line was drawn at existing state laws making it illegal to operate a motor vehicle with a BAC over 0.08%. The experiment showed that cell phones produced distraction similar to behavior already declared illegal.
Put the straw man (and your cell phone) down.
"cell phones barely make the list."
So what? Aside from your lack of a reference, those statistics would doubtless cover cars that don't have a cell phone in them (in fact, how far back do those statistics go? 1950?)
Here we have a proper scientific experiment, control group and everything, and it has shown that using a cell phone impairs driving to a similar degree as being at the legal blood-alcohol content limit. Driver + cell phone = impairment. Slashdotters will rail against and bemoan the Bush administration for scoffing at the idea of global warming, but when we not only have a testable hypothesis but also proove that hypothesis, everybody starts digging out the anecdotes? I have yet to see a single post against the results of the experiment that have offered any genuine concerns about how the experiment was conducted, only posts like yours along the lines of "I don't agree with the results so the experiment must be meaningless."
After all, how dare something as silly as the scientific method get in the way of your precious pride in your own driving abilities.
"I would believe the results as soon as they run the test with nascar and indy drivers."
99.99% of the drivers on the road are neither NASCAR nor Indy drivers.
"For some reason race car drivers can talk to their pit crew often and not get into crashes and they are doing it at much higher speeds and the same 3 inch spacing from the car in front of them."
The reason is the fact that they're race car drivers. If they were unable to handle doing it, they wouldn't get far enough to be among the professionals you're watching, which means you're conveniently ignoring the unseen thousands who tried to be race car drivers but weren't able to because of the concentration required.
Does the phrase "Trained professional; don't try this at home" mean anything to you?
"I'm a good judge"
"Everybody on the road is an idiot except me."
"I make decisions every day that can impact other people. If I make a bad decision then I end up paying for it somehow."
The problem here is that "impact" is meant in the literal sense and that, with cars, other people will end up "paying" for your mistakes as well, often more than you. Will saying "whoops, my bad" make hitting a pedestrian all better?
How much of your "I know my limits" reasoning based on the fact that you have yet to find them, have yet to make a mistake to teach you that you really can't handle something?
"But don't go trying to limit me based on what you can't handle."
You may trust your judgment, but I do not trust your judgment, and when it comes to driving, your judgment can affect, say, my ability to move my legs again. And as such, I'm going to impose rules on you for using the road that I helped pay for.
Besides, you're discounting and scoffing at a proper scientific study on the effects of cell phone use on people, with little more than anecdotes and hypotheticals. How good can your judgment on other subjects really be?
"that's the only part of the decision i disagree with. an IM icon isn't a threat, it's an icon."
And the "Nuremberg List" is just a directory of doctors?
"Slavery has been a constant throughout human history, but it's much less common now."
Ever wonder how your clothes were made?
"A few hundred years ago, in Europe they probably couldn't build guillotines fast enough. Many of those countries have already abandoned capital punishment."
That's Europe. There's still Africa and Asia.
"Surveillance consisted of sneaking in and watching"
Why be sneaky about it when you can just barge in? Ask the Saudis or the North Koreans about it.
"Many companies that hire computer technicians merely require an A+ Certification in order for an applicant to be considered competent and eligible for the job."
"Even with other certifications that broaden their knowledge like Network+ and maybe CCNA, the most important thing is hands-on experience, something that takes a lot more background than cramming a couple of books."
Hiring people with hands-on experience costs money. Companies want to hire people that have little more than an A+ certification because they're most willing to work for minimum wage.
Are you sure it wasn't C.) the employees didn't have the requisite knowledge to tie one?
Will they be requiring key escrow as well?
I think "nonlabial" describes most of the people on here...
"But I think what really gets people about HDTVs is that they're usually in a format (plasma, lcd, etc.) that has significant advantages over CRTs, including widescreen (though CRT can do that), lightweight, thin, larger screens with much less associated bulk, etc."
I don't get your reasoning. Personally, I'm thinking about buying an HD CRT in the next few months for my video game addiction, and I just don't feel the draw to flat panels that you're describing.
First and foremost, I will not abide any dead pixels at all, no matter where they are or how far apart they are. Therefore, I will not buy an LCD television.
That leaves plasma. And while an extra $1000 or so will pay for a lighter, thinner (though not "larger" as you describe) screen, the lighter weight means little to me because I don't intend to carry it around with me, and I have no need to save on television depth since I already have space devoted to a deep CRT because of my current television. If I got a plasma, it might clear up some shelf space (space I probably wouldn't be able to use for fear of obstructing the picture), but the shelf would still be there, taking up floor space.
So I'd be left with paying triple or so for the same amount of screen area for features I have no use for. No plasma for me, thanks.
"You don't see a lot of people buying CRT monitors these days, do you?"
Yes, I do. CRTs are still 1/3 the price of LCDs and I don't know of anybody that has ever seen a dead pixel willing to invest so much money in an LCD monitor.
"Like causing you to drive like a moron."
Because nobody drove like a moron before the invention of the cell phone?
Congress has the power to raise revenue, regardless of the name you give it ("taxes," "imposts," "excises," etc.). It just so happens that Congress has delegated some of its authority to the FCC. Sorry to burst the bubble of conspiracy theorists in this topic, but the only hand-waving going on is that there's little in the federal constitution saying that Congress can't delegate.
Spoken like a man who has never been stuck in the middle of a chick conversation.
"If you are a US Citizen, if you want to influence your Congresscritter, it's probably best to write if you can rather then call."
I don't know about yours, but if I wanted to influence my Representative, I'd have to change my name to George W. Bush.
Seriously, I already wrote him a letter expressing my unhappiness with the NSA's warrantless wiretapping, and all I got for my trouble was a three-page letter from John Mica full of explanations for how the wiretapping is right and legal (going so far as to drag up the "authorization for the use of force" legislation that the administration itself had stop trying to use to justify its actions).
If I'm going to get blown off on something so important, why should he pay any heed to me on something so relatively trivial?
So it's up there with fusion?
"Can they really legally say,"
Why not? The laws are written by those same people who can't bring themselves to even question the NSA's and AT&T's activities.
Of course, if you can find a better way to describe what a mehve is while being similarly succinct, be my guest, or are you too busy trolling?
"Yahoo is just more competent at it."
Evil and incompetent? Google truly is the next Microsoft!
"ps3 will play your bluray movies"
All two of them
"run linux"
OSS, meet DRM!
"play ps3,ps2, and psone video games!"
But not PS2 or PS1 memory cards.
"all way under the price of a standalone bluray movie player.">
The "julianne fries" sales pitch only works if I want julianne fries.
Or am I the only one who thought that when they read what this virus did?
Be careful what you wish for. Remember that they dropped GameCube support because Blizzard didn't perceive as much support there for multiplayer online FPS fragfests. The "follow-up" looks like a game of Quake with a zergling mod.
"I found books published by the state of Texas that said the *worst* following distance was 2 seconds. That's the following distance that guarantees the worst possible crash."
And there's your problem: things are bad if the collision actually happens. The whole point of having those two seconds is to give you reaction time to avoid the crash to begin with.
Statistics only give you meaningful answers if you know to ask the right questions.
"I could probably think of a government program that is less relevant to my life than the Shuttle program but it would take me a while."
Other than deliver your mail and maintain some highways, what did the federal government do for you yesterday?
Heck, do you really feel the effect of, say, Homeland Security more than the space program?