I had the three blinking red lights (first example voice prompt on the 360 support line!), and they proceeded to lose my freakin' Xbox. After two weeks of "here's your reference number, call back in a few days" I finally got a voicemail saying that they have the shipping reference . . . but they didn't, you know, leave the fucking reference number.
They sure seem overwhelmed given that they claim to have a below-industry-standard failure rate.
I hate it when She puts all of creation at risk, just so She can play that stupid game. ('Course skeeball is like Spanish fly. This will probably be the first time I don't get laid.)
I disagree. The iPhone supports EDGE and Wi-Fi. In virtually all cases Wi-Fi will be faster. (And, therefore, preferred by the user.)
I'm going to get an iPhone unless the service is too expensive. I have Wi-Fi at home and at work. I don't anticipate using EDGE unless I'm pulled over to the side of the road loading a map. In which case I'll be so happy to have it that I won't really give a shit if it is slow.
As a side-effect, the typical iPhone could end up putting substantially less strain on the EDGE network than the typical non-iPhone EDGE device, since, for example, most email syncs will happen over Wi-Fi. (Consider that my phone spends at least two-thirds of every week day either at home or the office. That's half the hours of the week, assuming I never go home on the weekends!)
It think that this is a master stroke on AT&T's part. They're going to ding every iPhone buyer for data every month, and nobody is going to use it!
I love the idea of not trucking (with fossil fuel) produce into urban centers.
My problem with this is that there simply isn't enough solar energy falling on xm^2 to run a farm of 30xm^2. Doesn't matter how parabolic your solar collector is. I don't buy for a moment that you can make up any significant part of the difference burning the waste plant material. That leaves us grid power . . . which brings us back to fossil fuel.:-(
I think that "legal tender" only applies to settling debts. Since you have not yet incurred a debt with these people you cannot insist that they accept legal tender.
If you think I'm wrong I don't think you'll have any trouble finding a lawyer that will take cash in advance;-)
Allow me to reciprocate by apologizing for my snappy tone. I frequently run into people on/. who seem hell-bent on misunderstanding. Imagine my surprise when you turn out to be reasonable!
I was responding to, "If you could find a way to simply slow life processes down to the point where the subject hibernates for the trip (maybe losing a few years of normal life in the process) you might still have a winner." (Which was, in turn, in response to the problem that freezing preserves cells from decay, but bursts them in the process.)
My point was that freezing prevents decay, but that "cooling" to above freezing temperatures while "magically" slowing biological processes will not prevent decay on any kind of significant time line.
Did you just read my post without reading what it was in reply to? You might want to re-read before you get all smarmy next time.
Let me preface my response by saying that I basically agree with nearly everything you've said. I do have an opinion. Confirmation bias has a powerful effect on un-structured observation. I am working with a sample that won't stand up to any level of Scientific scrutiny. All absolutely true and correct.
I think that I was pretty clear that I was expressing what I have observed. Several people have basically refuted my comments by saying, "That's just what you have observed!" I have no defense when accused of doing exactly what I claimed I'm doing!
Okay, I agree with you that the data show that a person talking on hands free is just as distracted as someone who is talking on a handset. That isn't our point of disagreement. You seem utterly convinced that "distraction" is the only axis in the driving/cell phone dynamic.
The studies you cite have two things in common (that are germane to my point). 1. They're all synthetic. (Sit in front of a screen, wait for something to happen, mash a button.) None of them involve, you know, a car. 2. They are all studies of Psychology, not performance.
I . . . let's say suspect, that correct use of turn signals has a measurable impact on safety. I have not formally studied this question, but I am quite certain that people who are holding an object while driving are less apt to signal. I see it with cell phones and coffee cups daily. Therefore, two drivers, one on a handset and one hands free are equally distracted; yet the one on hands free is measurably safer. Do you disagree?
A passenger is in the same car looking at the same potentially dangerous situations that you are
That's a weird assumption. My experience is that passengers I'm conversing with are looking at me. It is my impression that this is normal conversational behavior.
A passenger has a higher bandwidth of communication (expressions, non-verbals)
How, pray, am I meant to ascertain the expression on my passengers face while I'm looking at the fucking road? Non-verbal communication by passengers is a detriment to safety!
A final word. I'm a big fan of Science. But it takes a great deal of skepticism to prevent Science from becoming a pseudo-religious series of appeals to authority. When the Scientific conclusions are at odds with casual observation it's perfectly possible that the observations are flawed. It is also possible that the assumptions going into the experimentation were flawed, or that the results, while correct, are being misapplied. Oh, and don't take what some random guy on the Internet has to say too seriously!
"Restrict" doesn't mean "absolutely prevent under all circumstances". (While we're at it, "impair" doesn't either.)
I spend a couple of hours per week studying how people drive. Body mechanics aside, I assure you that people on handsets have markedly worse lane control, signal less frequently, and more frequently fail to check their blind spot than people not using handsets. People drinking coffee also signal less.
It is harder, if only slightly, to check the driver's side blind spot while holding a phone to your left ear. That seems to be ample excuse for a noticeable portion of drivers to blindly bomb into the left lane.
You make a good point. I think there are some factors pulling in the other direction.
Maybe I put too much emphasis on actually looking at the road. Elsewhere in this thread someone referred to the Utah "distraction blindness" study. But I still can't help but think that all is lost once a person looks away from the road. And, when in conversation with a person who is physically present, one is bound to look at that person from time to time.
I've seen bad driving caused by an argument with a passenger. And lots due to the driver disciplining children.
Let's say it's too close to call with any certainty;-)
You are reading too much into that study. It was about "distraction blindness", which is only one aspect of the problem at hand. I don't doubt their findings for one second. In fact, that's exactly what I was getting at when I said that hands free isn't as good as just driving the freaking car.
Having said all of that, people holding handsets to their heads are physically restricted from doing a proper head-check before a lane change. People who are holding a handset are have only one hand available for both steering and signaling. People who are talking on hands free (or to a passenger) do not suffer from these two limitations.
Hands free and handset users are "exactly equally impaired" in terms of "distraction blindness". Overgeneralizing the result is not beneficial to anyone.
When I saw your [1] I thought you were going to, you know, actually cite such a study. Imagine my disappointment when it was just a personal attack.
Can you give me any reference to such a study? Clearly, a well designed and executed study is more persuasive than my limited and anecdotal observation. But I'll take my observations over your gratuitous assertions any day.
I disagree. Talking on a hands-free system isn't as good as just driving the freakin' car, but it is better than using a handset.
I ride a motorcycle, and have, therefore, become a keen observer of other people's driving habits. I believe there is a clear hirearcy of cell phone related bad driving.
Email/SMS (Should be punishable by summary execution.)
Dialing (This seems to be far and away the most common cause of really bad driving.)
Talking on a handset. (It seems to create a total lack of awareness of the cell phone side of the vehicle. Not sure why.)
Hands free (Potentially less dangerous than talking with a passenger.)
You can make various arguments that talking to someone who isn't in the car requires more attention, but I think this is more than offset by the visual distraction of conversing with a passenger.
There are several other common distractions. Fiddling with the stereo, disciplining children, applying makeup, and eating come to mind. Map reading ranks. I actually saw a guy reading a novel while merging onto the highway about a week ago. Unreal.
Anyway, I think voice dialing is a HUGE win, and hands free talking has noticeably less negative impact on driving in my experience.
Slashdot Mirror
When I have my work phone forwarded to my cell it sure is nice that I get the caller's ID, not the switchboard number at my office.
Maybe you and I have a different idea of what constitutes a "feature".
-Peter
Allowing subscriber lines to set caller ID data is a feature, not a bug.
-Peter
Vocal Minority my ball sack.
I had the three blinking red lights (first example voice prompt on the 360 support line!), and they proceeded to lose my freakin' Xbox. After two weeks of "here's your reference number, call back in a few days" I finally got a voicemail saying that they have the shipping reference . . . but they didn't, you know, leave the fucking reference number.
They sure seem overwhelmed given that they claim to have a below-industry-standard failure rate.
-Peter
I hate it when She puts all of creation at risk, just so She can play that stupid game. ('Course skeeball is like Spanish fly. This will probably be the first time I don't get laid.)
-Peter
I spend 1/3 of the day (eight hours) at the office, and at least another 1/3 at home. That's the 2/3 I was talking about.
Anyway, it sounds like cellular modem would solve your problems better. I don't think that they're targeting the iPhone to you.
Also, alot is not a word. Not in English, anyway.
-Peter
I disagree. The iPhone supports EDGE and Wi-Fi. In virtually all cases Wi-Fi will be faster. (And, therefore, preferred by the user.)
I'm going to get an iPhone unless the service is too expensive. I have Wi-Fi at home and at work. I don't anticipate using EDGE unless I'm pulled over to the side of the road loading a map. In which case I'll be so happy to have it that I won't really give a shit if it is slow.
As a side-effect, the typical iPhone could end up putting substantially less strain on the EDGE network than the typical non-iPhone EDGE device, since, for example, most email syncs will happen over Wi-Fi. (Consider that my phone spends at least two-thirds of every week day either at home or the office. That's half the hours of the week, assuming I never go home on the weekends!)
It think that this is a master stroke on AT&T's part. They're going to ding every iPhone buyer for data every month, and nobody is going to use it!
-Peter
"poor Swedish legislation"
That would be bad Swedish legislation. "Poor" isn't a simply a grammatically superior version of "bad".
-Peter
Brilliant.
-Peter
I prefer the ones with four holes. Makes it easier to pee.
-Peter
I'm not referring to what is necessary, only to what is.
-Peter
I love the idea of not trucking (with fossil fuel) produce into urban centers.
:-(
My problem with this is that there simply isn't enough solar energy falling on xm^2 to run a farm of 30xm^2. Doesn't matter how parabolic your solar collector is. I don't buy for a moment that you can make up any significant part of the difference burning the waste plant material. That leaves us grid power . . . which brings us back to fossil fuel.
-Peter
I think that "legal tender" only applies to settling debts. Since you have not yet incurred a debt with these people you cannot insist that they accept legal tender.
;-)
If you think I'm wrong I don't think you'll have any trouble finding a lawyer that will take cash in advance
-Peter
Wow. Classy reply. (Clearly, you're new here :-)
/. who seem hell-bent on misunderstanding. Imagine my surprise when you turn out to be reasonable!
Allow me to reciprocate by apologizing for my snappy tone. I frequently run into people on
-Peter
You deftly missed my point.
I was responding to, "If you could find a way to simply slow life processes down to the point where the subject hibernates for the trip (maybe losing a few years of normal life in the process) you might still have a winner." (Which was, in turn, in response to the problem that freezing preserves cells from decay, but bursts them in the process.)
My point was that freezing prevents decay, but that "cooling" to above freezing temperatures while "magically" slowing biological processes will not prevent decay on any kind of significant time line.
Did you just read my post without reading what it was in reply to? You might want to re-read before you get all smarmy next time.
-Peter
How long does a steak last in the 'fridge? How about in the freezer?
The body's biological processes preserve it. If you slow those processes substantially they won't be able to prevent decay.
-Peter
Good point.
No.
-Peter
I think that I was pretty clear that I was expressing what I have observed. Several people have basically refuted my comments by saying, "That's just what you have observed!" I have no defense when accused of doing exactly what I claimed I'm doing!
Okay, I agree with you that the data show that a person talking on hands free is just as distracted as someone who is talking on a handset. That isn't our point of disagreement. You seem utterly convinced that "distraction" is the only axis in the driving/cell phone dynamic.
The studies you cite have two things in common (that are germane to my point). 1. They're all synthetic. (Sit in front of a screen, wait for something to happen, mash a button.) None of them involve, you know, a car. 2. They are all studies of Psychology, not performance.
I . . . let's say suspect, that correct use of turn signals has a measurable impact on safety. I have not formally studied this question, but I am quite certain that people who are holding an object while driving are less apt to signal. I see it with cell phones and coffee cups daily. Therefore, two drivers, one on a handset and one hands free are equally distracted; yet the one on hands free is measurably safer. Do you disagree?
That's a weird assumption. My experience is that passengers I'm conversing with are looking at me. It is my impression that this is normal conversational behavior.
How, pray, am I meant to ascertain the expression on my passengers face while I'm looking at the fucking road? Non-verbal communication by passengers is a detriment to safety!
A final word. I'm a big fan of Science. But it takes a great deal of skepticism to prevent Science from becoming a pseudo-religious series of appeals to authority. When the Scientific conclusions are at odds with casual observation it's perfectly possible that the observations are flawed. It is also possible that the assumptions going into the experimentation were flawed, or that the results, while correct, are being misapplied. Oh, and don't take what some random guy on the Internet has to say too seriously!
-Peter
"Restrict" doesn't mean "absolutely prevent under all circumstances". (While we're at it, "impair" doesn't either.)
I spend a couple of hours per week studying how people drive. Body mechanics aside, I assure you that people on handsets have markedly worse lane control, signal less frequently, and more frequently fail to check their blind spot than people not using handsets. People drinking coffee also signal less.
It is harder, if only slightly, to check the driver's side blind spot while holding a phone to your left ear. That seems to be ample excuse for a noticeable portion of drivers to blindly bomb into the left lane.
-Peter
The W3C advises against using "ecce hic" as link text.
-Peter
You make a good point. I think there are some factors pulling in the other direction.
;-)
Maybe I put too much emphasis on actually looking at the road. Elsewhere in this thread someone referred to the Utah "distraction blindness" study. But I still can't help but think that all is lost once a person looks away from the road. And, when in conversation with a person who is physically present, one is bound to look at that person from time to time.
I've seen bad driving caused by an argument with a passenger. And lots due to the driver disciplining children.
Let's say it's too close to call with any certainty
-Peter
You are reading too much into that study. It was about "distraction blindness", which is only one aspect of the problem at hand. I don't doubt their findings for one second. In fact, that's exactly what I was getting at when I said that hands free isn't as good as just driving the freaking car.
Having said all of that, people holding handsets to their heads are physically restricted from doing a proper head-check before a lane change. People who are holding a handset are have only one hand available for both steering and signaling. People who are talking on hands free (or to a passenger) do not suffer from these two limitations.
Hands free and handset users are "exactly equally impaired" in terms of "distraction blindness". Overgeneralizing the result is not beneficial to anyone.
-Peter
I live (and ride) in Denver. All numbers are 10 digits here. That may inflate my impression of the impact of dialing.
-Peter
When I saw your [1] I thought you were going to, you know, actually cite such a study. Imagine my disappointment when it was just a personal attack.
Can you give me any reference to such a study? Clearly, a well designed and executed study is more persuasive than my limited and anecdotal observation. But I'll take my observations over your gratuitous assertions any day.
-Peter
Your Dad needs Snopes.
Common sense includes not believing everything you hear!
-Peter
I ride a motorcycle, and have, therefore, become a keen observer of other people's driving habits. I believe there is a clear hirearcy of cell phone related bad driving.
You can make various arguments that talking to someone who isn't in the car requires more attention, but I think this is more than offset by the visual distraction of conversing with a passenger.
There are several other common distractions. Fiddling with the stereo, disciplining children, applying makeup, and eating come to mind. Map reading ranks. I actually saw a guy reading a novel while merging onto the highway about a week ago. Unreal.
Anyway, I think voice dialing is a HUGE win, and hands free talking has noticeably less negative impact on driving in my experience.
I would genuinely like to know why you disagree.
-Peter