I find it so fascinating. I've known many Persians. To a man and woman, they were intelligent, passionate, vocal and idealistic. So how did a nation with such cultural depth,
a federal appeals court ruled that law enforcement is allowed to track the GPS signal coming from a suspect's prepaid phone without a warrant.
Somehow I suspect even non-technical appeals court judges know that GPS signals do not originate on a phone.
I suspect either the summary or ARS has things a bit confused. The ruling had to do with location data from cellular providers which they collect in order to provide you service, and which is regarded as pen register data, merely which towers you are pinging off of at any given time. This is how calls are routed.
If your phone also reports your precise GPS location to your carriers, then we need legislation to prevent that, unless or until the user places a 911 call.
Great speculation, but it is NOT showing up in the accident statistics. Talking while driving has been shown to be no more dangerous than simply driving. Read the links I posted.
You probably won't have to wait long, because Microsoft already has a fall back.
The Windows 7 interface worked acceptably well in early windows 8, even if you had to registry hack it into making an appearance. I predict this will be their fall back position when they see sales tanking on everything except tablets. They will flip a switch and presto-change-o the start bar will reappear.
People are not going to be reaching across their keyboards to smudge their screen on anything except tablets. Its not going to happen.
finds that people who talk on their phones while driving may already be unsafe drivers
I took it as safe drivers don't talk on their cell phone and unsafe drivers do. In other words, the kind of person that doesn't think driving deserves their full attention will be an unsafe driver and it doesn't matter whether that attention is diverted by cell phones, the radio, eating, bill boards etc.
I believe you have the gist of it.
The interesting thing is that the bans have not resulted in fewer accidents, which suggests these people are also scofflaws, or they are just as accident prone while NOT on the phone. Its also possible the study made no distinction between talking vs texting.
But other studies have tended to show that talking while driving has not proven more dangerous with the population as a whole, without making distinctions for people easily distracted or prone to take risks.
I tend to suspect that talking, especially hands free, is not that much more of a risk, once you get past the dialing portion of an outgoing call, and driving behavior does not deteriorate during a call. Drivers don't drive faster, start changing lanes, follow too close just because they are on the phone, and in fact they may actually do fewer of these things while talking.
I also believe that those willing to take their hands and eyes off the wheel to text, or even read an incoming text are the major source of the problem. Actual call records seem to support this.
Regardless of you back of the napkin calculations, the other studies I quoted show that this is not happening. Driving while talking is simply not proving more dangerous than simply driving.
I suspect you are mixing focus shift times typical for texting with those typical for talking.
As for lying, cell records are used in some of these studies to take that possibility away. A quick glance at your call log and text log pretty much settles the issue.
If you could text while driving by never touching the device, and not having to look at it, it may well prove that it isn't that dangerous. Those systems are just now coming into common manufacture and usage, as Voice Recognition technology is just now becoming up to the task. Even initiating a voice recognition text message on modern cell phones requires at least one hand, and both eyes. Some in-dash systems in cars can send a text strictly with voice input, often not even requiring looking at the in-dash display.
So the jury is out on that.
The present studies all are based on manual manipulation of a hand held device which requires both hand and eye be focused on the device in order to send a text message. Touch screens almost necessarily require two hands and two eyes to send a text message.
Mental focus shifts in milliseconds. In fact people can do more than on thing at a time. Often concentration and performance is improved by having a mostly autonomous background task happening at the same time. So I don't agree with your assertion that mental focus is harder to shift. The research doesn't support that fact.
I don't suppose it is... but that doesn't mean it's not doing the job
Exactly. The Alarm company warning labels and signs are almost as effective as the alarms themselves. I know many people who subscribed for a year during some promo, then discontinued the service when the free-period was over. Left the signs in place.
This is the second major study calling into question the idea that talking on the phone while driving is vastly more dangerous, as dangerous as drunk driving.
In the other study, A Wayne State study by Richard Young, Ph.D, found that procedural errors in the seminal research vastly over estimated the risk.
The actual risk of talking while driving was 1/4 of what the earlier studies found, putting it right in line with just simply driving.
Indeed, according to Wayne State, "Five other recent real-world studies concur with his conclusion that the crash risk from cellular conversations is not greater than that of driving with no conversation.". "Tasks that take a driver's eyes off the road or hands off the steering wheel are what increase crash risk," said Young. "Texting, emailing, manual dialing and so forth -- not conversation -- are what increase the risk of crashes while driving."
While texting poses serious risks, simply talking on the phone appears to pose no more risk than simply driving. The present study found that:
"Cell phone bans have reduced cell phone use by drivers, but the perplexing thing is that they haven't reduced crashes,"
.
In spite of this, in a fit of political correctness, the author feels compelled in the last paragraph of the story to print a quote from someone who has done no specific research on phoning while driving, but he still fees competent to weigh in suggesting bans be followed by stiffer enforcement.
Perhaps they use a legal/union standard for their math -- 2 hour minimum for each interruption.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, but didn't want to stir up all the union members on slashdot. It looks like angling for a way to get paid to answer an email.
Besides, there is some real doubt that Tesla ever created anything other than large sparks creating molten metal balls, because in that day, there were few very large DC generators or batteries available, (but Tesla had them) and a localized large spark could have easily been described as ball lightning by uneducated people.
Actually, his offering was on par with you whiny complaint (above).
Do you really think it was ever any better? Seriously? Twelve hour days in dingy factories, or 16 hour days trudging behind a house guiding a plow? People have always been tools, willingly, because even an uneducated farm hand understood that they were trading their hours of existence for food and shelter.
Suggesting that we fail to see people as individuals simply because now, just as in the stone age, there is a necessity to work in order to live, is romantic nonsense. Mankind learned about 15 million years ago that banding together and specializing makes less work and greater safety for everyone. That we still band together today to make toilet paper in a paper mill does not make the mill worker less of an individual, known by his first name by friends, foremen, and shift mates alike.
That there exists desk workers who push your paperwork into a computer so that you get paid does not mean that the authorities desire this system, nor does it mean the factory worker would rather stand in line at the pay-master's window and have his wages handed to him at the end of the week.
And if said desk worker gets an email saying the payroll run crashed and she can take care of the restart over the phone without leaving the dinner party, or when the factory floor worker gets an email saying their paycheck was deposited automatically in the bank while deciding which bicycle to buy at the bike shop, that IS significant change and it IS an improvement over historical situations. People choose this route voluntarily every single day.
In short, I didn't see a single truth or useful notion in your post, simply a romantic lament for days gone by, where the grass was never as green as you seem to remember it.
I suppose that time I sit on the can reading the email is 'work' and that you could add that up to show my work week is longer,
Exactly. The story, I believe, is over hyped.
They seem not to just measure the time spent reading emails (because there is no way that adds up to 20 hours per week). They simply attribute all the time you might receive and read an email to an extra hour at work. Of course that is just silly, as two minutes reading an email and sending a one line reply from a cell phone between the 6th and 7th green hardly count's as an hours worth of work.
Getting yanked off the golf course to come into the office EVEN ONCE costs me way more time and money than answering an email.
The cell phone with real email capability, full document attachments, links, etc was a godsend.
It got me away from my desk, while remaining fully responsive to my customers and employees. Its cut international long distance charges to zero with skype and SIP clients right there on the phone.
By and large the intrusion into private time has been less than you might expect. Most people are fairly responsible about calling after normal business hours, and the few pests that require excessive hand-holding soon find that voice mails will be responded to in a time frame longer than it would take for them to solve it themselves.
Answering an email on a tablet or phone now and then is a small price to pay for not having to sit in the office all day waiting for something to happen. Having my full source code base on the device for quick reference is another godsend.
What you propose is actually only half doable. There are things Tesla did back then that we still don't know how to do today. It's a testament to his genius, which is legendary.
Slashdot Mirror
colleges only educating women is becoming a problem in the West too.
Sure it is. Anything you say Mohamud.
I find it so fascinating. I've known many Persians. To a man and woman, they were intelligent, passionate, vocal and idealistic. So how did a nation with such cultural depth,
Islam.
How could you have missed that fact?
a federal appeals court ruled that law enforcement is allowed to track the GPS signal coming from a suspect's prepaid phone without a warrant.
Somehow I suspect even non-technical appeals court judges know that GPS signals do not originate on a phone.
I suspect either the summary or ARS has things a bit confused. The ruling had to do with location data from cellular providers which they collect in order to provide you service, and which is regarded as pen register data, merely which towers you are pinging off of at any given time. This is how calls are routed.
If your phone also reports your precise GPS location to your carriers, then we need legislation to prevent that, unless or until the user places a 911 call.
Wrong!
Read the link i posted. You've been brain washed.
Which means neither are dangerous at all since that is what the on road statistics sre showing.
Great speculation, but it is NOT showing up in the accident statistics.
Talking while driving has been shown to be no more dangerous than simply driving.
Read the links I posted.
Its not showing up in accident statistics, so its well within normal human capabilities.
So WHO is misinformed?
You probably won't have to wait long, because Microsoft already has a fall back.
The Windows 7 interface worked acceptably well in early windows 8, even if you had to registry hack it into making an appearance.
I predict this will be their fall back position when they see sales tanking on everything except tablets.
They will flip a switch and presto-change-o the start bar will reappear.
People are not going to be reaching across their keyboards to smudge their screen on anything except tablets.
Its not going to happen.
What we know is that people who are talking on the phone are as likely to have an accident as people who are dead drunk.
No. We don't know that. Texting maybe, but not merely talking.
No real world (actual driving) study bears this out, and neither do the accident rates.
From the literature.
Yet not evidenced on the ground.
In short, the literature hasn't proven a reliable predictor of actual facts on the road.
But doesn't ChaosMonkey concentrate on trying to break content delivery rather than security breaches?
After all Netflix record isn't exactly stellar on privacy issues.
When I read this in the summary ...
finds that people who talk on their phones while driving may already be unsafe drivers
I took it as safe drivers don't talk on their cell phone and unsafe drivers do. In other words, the kind of person that doesn't think driving deserves their full attention will be an unsafe driver and it doesn't matter whether that attention is diverted by cell phones, the radio, eating, bill boards etc.
I believe you have the gist of it.
The interesting thing is that the bans have not resulted in fewer accidents, which suggests these people are also scofflaws, or they are just as accident prone while NOT on the phone. Its also possible the study made no distinction between talking vs texting.
But other studies have tended to show that talking while driving has not proven more dangerous with the population as a whole, without making distinctions for people easily distracted or prone to take risks.
I tend to suspect that talking, especially hands free, is not that much more of a risk, once you get past the dialing portion of an outgoing call, and driving behavior does not deteriorate during a call. Drivers don't drive faster, start changing lanes, follow too close just because they are on the phone, and in fact they may actually do fewer of these things while talking.
I also believe that those willing to take their hands and eyes off the wheel to text, or even read an incoming text are the major source of the problem. Actual call records seem to support this.
Regardless of you back of the napkin calculations, the other studies I quoted show that this is not happening.
Driving while talking is simply not proving more dangerous than simply driving.
I suspect you are mixing focus shift times typical for texting with those typical for talking.
As for lying, cell records are used in some of these studies to take that possibility away.
A quick glance at your call log and text log pretty much settles the issue.
If you could text while driving by never touching the device, and not having to look at it, it may well prove that it isn't that dangerous.
Those systems are just now coming into common manufacture and usage, as Voice Recognition technology is just now becoming up to the task.
Even initiating a voice recognition text message on modern cell phones requires at least one hand, and both eyes. Some in-dash systems in cars
can send a text strictly with voice input, often not even requiring looking at the in-dash display.
So the jury is out on that.
The present studies all are based on manual manipulation of a hand held device which requires both hand and eye be focused on the device in order to send a text message. Touch screens almost necessarily require two hands and two eyes to send a text message.
Mental focus shifts in milliseconds. In fact people can do more than on thing at a time. Often concentration and performance is improved by having a mostly autonomous background task happening at the same time. So I don't agree with your assertion that mental focus is harder to shift. The research doesn't support that fact.
I don't suppose it is... but that doesn't mean it's not doing the job
Exactly.
The Alarm company warning labels and signs are almost as effective as the alarms themselves. I know many people who subscribed for a year during some promo, then discontinued the service when the free-period was over. Left the signs in place.
This is the second major study calling into question the idea that talking on the phone while driving is vastly more dangerous, as dangerous as drunk driving.
In the other study, A Wayne State study by Richard Young, Ph.D, found that procedural errors in the seminal research vastly over estimated the risk.
The actual risk of talking while driving was 1/4 of what the earlier studies found, putting it right in line with just simply driving.
Indeed, according to Wayne State, "Five other recent real-world studies concur with his conclusion that the crash risk from cellular conversations is not greater than that of driving with no conversation.". "Tasks that take a driver's eyes off the road or hands off the steering wheel are what increase crash risk," said Young. "Texting, emailing, manual dialing and so forth -- not conversation -- are what increase the risk of crashes while driving."
While texting poses serious risks, simply talking on the phone appears to pose no more risk than simply driving. The present study found that:
"Cell phone bans have reduced cell phone use by drivers, but the perplexing thing is that they haven't reduced crashes,"
.
In spite of this, in a fit of political correctness, the author feels compelled in the last paragraph of the story to print a quote from someone who has done no specific research on phoning while driving, but he still fees competent to weigh in suggesting bans be followed by stiffer enforcement.
Napalm.
Next!???
Perhaps they use a legal/union standard for their math -- 2 hour minimum for each interruption.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, but didn't want to stir up all the union members on slashdot.
It looks like angling for a way to get paid to answer an email.
Been done.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070122-ball-lightning_2.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y72nrlNnXAk
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/great-balls-of/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5px6rCqArQ&feature=gv#!
Besides, there is some real doubt that Tesla ever created anything other than large sparks creating molten metal balls, because in that day, there were few very large DC generators or batteries available, (but Tesla had them) and a localized large spark could have easily been described as ball lightning by uneducated people.
Not abandoned so much as mothballed, there is a guard shack, and presumably some care-taker at least part time.
Actually, his offering was on par with you whiny complaint (above).
Do you really think it was ever any better? Seriously?
Twelve hour days in dingy factories, or 16 hour days trudging behind a house guiding a plow?
People have always been tools, willingly, because even an uneducated farm hand understood that they were trading their hours of existence for food and shelter.
Suggesting that we fail to see people as individuals simply because now, just as in the stone age, there is a necessity to work in order to live, is romantic nonsense.
Mankind learned about 15 million years ago that banding together and specializing makes less work and greater safety for everyone. That we still band together today to make toilet paper in a paper mill does not make the mill worker less of an individual, known by his first name by friends, foremen, and shift mates alike.
That there exists desk workers who push your paperwork into a computer so that you get paid does not mean that the authorities desire this system, nor does it mean the factory worker would rather stand in line at the pay-master's window and have his wages handed to him at the end of the week.
And if said desk worker gets an email saying the payroll run crashed and she can take care of the restart over the phone without leaving the dinner party, or when the factory floor worker gets an email saying their paycheck was deposited automatically in the bank while deciding which bicycle to buy at the bike shop, that IS significant change and it IS an improvement over historical situations. People choose this route voluntarily every single day.
In short, I didn't see a single truth or useful notion in your post, simply a romantic lament for days gone by, where the grass was never as green as you seem to remember it.
I suppose that time I sit on the can reading the email is 'work' and that you could add that up to show my work week is longer,
Exactly.
The story, I believe, is over hyped.
They seem not to just measure the time spent reading emails (because there is no way that adds up to 20 hours per week). They simply attribute all the time you might receive and read an email to an extra hour at work. Of course that is just silly, as two minutes reading an email and sending a one line reply from a cell phone between the 6th and 7th green hardly count's as an hours worth of work.
Getting yanked off the golf course to come into the office EVEN ONCE costs me way more time and money than answering an email.
This.
The cell phone with real email capability, full document attachments, links, etc was a godsend.
It got me away from my desk, while remaining fully responsive to my customers and employees.
Its cut international long distance charges to zero with skype and SIP clients right there on the phone.
By and large the intrusion into private time has been less than you might expect. Most people are fairly responsible
about calling after normal business hours, and the few pests that require excessive hand-holding soon find that voice mails
will be responded to in a time frame longer than it would take for them to solve it themselves.
Answering an email on a tablet or phone now and then is a small price to pay for not having to sit in the office all day waiting
for something to happen. Having my full source code base on the device for quick reference is another godsend.
What you propose is actually only half doable. There are things Tesla did back then that we still don't know how to do today. It's a testament to his genius, which is legendary.
Name one.
Ah, but Sir, you besmirch the name of Tesla!
Blasphemy!
Faithful followers of Father Tesla will not be pleased.