I would venture to say that while texting while driving while tired is more dangerous than driving while tired, talking on a cell phone while driving while tired is very likely dramatically safer than just driving while tired.
Did you read the methods used in that study? The only conclusion that they could legitimately come to is that people who got in accidents while on the phone were on the phone. They literally only counted accidents that happened while someone was on the phone. They dismissed all accidents that did not happen when on the phone, and virtually all phone calls that happened without producing an accident.
Your link is like every other "Cell Phones are dangerous" study, complete BS made up to rationalize a pre-conceived bias. The designers of this study were either grossly incompetent, or outright dishonest.
This sounds like BS. One trip to a museum and the students have measurable increase in critical thinking, social tolerance, and historical empathy? I am just not buying it. The only part that sounds even measurable is that some of the kids might, after visiting a museum for the first time, say "Yeah, I would go again."
Too bad we live in such a misandristic society. If we didn't, we could see the huge number of women who commit these kinds of 'rape' prosecuted as if we were all equals.
That leaves a situation where everyone is driving without the financial means to pay if they get into an accident. Driving becomes a gamble with your entire financial future.
I used to purchase a bunch of stuff from DX. I quit because their shipping was frequently so slow that I didn't need what was ordered by the time it got here. My longest wait was 4 months for items that said they were in stock the entire 4 months. Everything I ordered did come in. It just took forever to get here.
What are you talking about? Killing the neighbor would not be proportionate to the offense. Killing the cat most certainly would be. Of course, with the current state where 'crazy cat lady' is the norm, the cops, judge and jury might disagree.
This kind of thing could be the push that leads to wide spread use of autonomous cars. As large groups of people get to the point that no one will insure them, or their insurance many times more than they earn in a year, they will have little choice but to drop those rates by letting the car do the driving. If the cars are better than most drivers, we would quickly see the insurance rates skyrocket for anyone manually driving a car.
That is silly. 20%, or even 10% would make all the difference in the world for most people.
most people don't keep accurate enough weight and calorie intake records (along with constant physical activity levels) to see such a difference.
because people tend to under/overestimate calorie content of foods based on those feelings, rather than actual calorie content.
This is called confirmation bias. When you get the results you want assume the data to be true. When you don't, just assume the data is bad so that you can dismiss it.
And as I said repeatedly, if you aren't getting enough calories, it is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE for your body to deposit excess fat.
Nobody ever gets that few calories. If they did, there are all sorts of other health problems the person would be facing. So, you are repeating a hypothetical situation that never happens. Not with trim people. Not with fat people. Not with people who have made fitness the primary focus in their lives. About the only place that you might find this is in third world countries where people are literally starving to death.
It is only physics in universes where the human body cannot reduce it's work load to use less energy. Of course, you could mean that you keep reducing the number of calories as the body reduces workloads. There comes a point where you will lose weight, but it won't be pretty or healthy.
And you are fooling yourself if you think that different people don't have widely different abilities to digest various foods. In fact, you are fooling yourself if you think that different people's bodies don't behave differently with regard to what gets burned vs. what gets stored with the calories they do digest.
Well look at that. They did a very poor job of advertising it. Up until last year, there was a Blockbuster 5 blocks from my home. I would walk past it at least 3 times a week. While their windows were always full of advertising, they never advertised that. It's too bad for them, because I would have likely been a customer if they did.
By that logic, you are paying for spoon insurance, dishwasher insurance, keyboard insurance, and insurance for every other product you buy. Yes, auto manufacturers would have insurance. They have it now. It isn't now, and won't be when we have auto drive cars validly referred to as the consumer having insurance.
Liability auto insurance would become unnecessary, and Comp/Coll would likely be low enough that it would just get rolled into your homeowners/renters insurance.
It always amazes me that video stores never took on the Netflix all you can eat model. Given that disks are not consumables, there really is not increase in cost to the store by letting someone swap out a movie 10 times in a day since every time the gluttonous user would take a new disk, they would bring back the one they previously had. In fact, it should improve the new release problem by giving the customer an incentive to return the new release as soon as possible.
From a dollar stand point, it seems likely that getting 1000 people to commit to $10 a month guarenteed would be a better deal than hoping that those 1000 people would rent 5 movies every month at $2 a pop.
For customers, they would have the cost value of Netflix with the new releases of Amazon Instant.
The big problem for streaming services is that at the end of the day, they have to negotiate for every single viewing. They may do it in batches, but the content producers can always pull the rug out from under them. The way our copyright is set up means that there is simply no way around it. If Disney doesn't want you streaming their movies, you are not going to be streaming their movies. With physical disc rentals, the producers don't get any say beyond offering the disks up for sale.
And to be extra paranoid, I have a credit card that allows me to create temporary CC numbers that are only valid at one location for a certain dollar amount. This way Credit Card information can't be reused anywhere else either.
I have been surprised that this has not become the norm. What CC company are you using that has this feature?
Slashdot Mirror
I would venture to say that while texting while driving while tired is more dangerous than driving while tired, talking on a cell phone while driving while tired is very likely dramatically safer than just driving while tired.
Just as long as the same applies to anyone with a passenger in the car. Or using a radio.
Did you read the methods used in that study? The only conclusion that they could legitimately come to is that people who got in accidents while on the phone were on the phone. They literally only counted accidents that happened while someone was on the phone. They dismissed all accidents that did not happen when on the phone, and virtually all phone calls that happened without producing an accident.
Your link is like every other "Cell Phones are dangerous" study, complete BS made up to rationalize a pre-conceived bias. The designers of this study were either grossly incompetent, or outright dishonest.
This sounds like BS. One trip to a museum and the students have measurable increase in critical thinking, social tolerance, and historical empathy? I am just not buying it. The only part that sounds even measurable is that some of the kids might, after visiting a museum for the first time, say "Yeah, I would go again."
Too bad we live in such a misandristic society. If we didn't, we could see the huge number of women who commit these kinds of 'rape' prosecuted as if we were all equals.
That leaves a situation where everyone is driving without the financial means to pay if they get into an accident. Driving becomes a gamble with your entire financial future.
I used to purchase a bunch of stuff from DX. I quit because their shipping was frequently so slow that I didn't need what was ordered by the time it got here. My longest wait was 4 months for items that said they were in stock the entire 4 months. Everything I ordered did come in. It just took forever to get here.
When he says BB gun, he is probably thinking of one of those super low power units that pushes the BB out using a spring.
What are you talking about? Killing the neighbor would not be proportionate to the offense. Killing the cat most certainly would be. Of course, with the current state where 'crazy cat lady' is the norm, the cops, judge and jury might disagree.
This kind of thing could be the push that leads to wide spread use of autonomous cars. As large groups of people get to the point that no one will insure them, or their insurance many times more than they earn in a year, they will have little choice but to drop those rates by letting the car do the driving. If the cars are better than most drivers, we would quickly see the insurance rates skyrocket for anyone manually driving a car.
In fact, once everyone is paying for their actual risk, you no longer have insurance. You have a savings account with a middle man taking a huge cut.
People with an anus do.
I think you are agreeing with me, and just reading my post out of context, but I'm not sure....
most people don't keep accurate enough weight and calorie intake records (along with constant physical activity levels) to see such a difference.
because people tend to under/overestimate calorie content of foods based on those feelings, rather than actual calorie content.
This is called confirmation bias. When you get the results you want assume the data to be true. When you don't, just assume the data is bad so that you can dismiss it.
And as I said repeatedly, if you aren't getting enough calories, it is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE for your body to deposit excess fat.
Nobody ever gets that few calories. If they did, there are all sorts of other health problems the person would be facing. So, you are repeating a hypothetical situation that never happens. Not with trim people. Not with fat people. Not with people who have made fitness the primary focus in their lives. About the only place that you might find this is in third world countries where people are literally starving to death.
Everybody eats more than they burn. Everybody.
It is only physics in universes where the human body cannot reduce it's work load to use less energy. Of course, you could mean that you keep reducing the number of calories as the body reduces workloads. There comes a point where you will lose weight, but it won't be pretty or healthy.
And you are fooling yourself if you think that different people don't have widely different abilities to digest various foods. In fact, you are fooling yourself if you think that different people's bodies don't behave differently with regard to what gets burned vs. what gets stored with the calories they do digest.
Well look at that. They did a very poor job of advertising it. Up until last year, there was a Blockbuster 5 blocks from my home. I would walk past it at least 3 times a week. While their windows were always full of advertising, they never advertised that. It's too bad for them, because I would have likely been a customer if they did.
By that logic, you are paying for spoon insurance, dishwasher insurance, keyboard insurance, and insurance for every other product you buy. Yes, auto manufacturers would have insurance. They have it now. It isn't now, and won't be when we have auto drive cars validly referred to as the consumer having insurance.
Just like everything else you own, Comp/Coll auto insurance would likely just get rolled into that homeowners/renters insurance.
Liability auto insurance would become unnecessary, and Comp/Coll would likely be low enough that it would just get rolled into your homeowners/renters insurance.
If the mom and pop stores offered Netflix style all you can eat video rental, Redbox wouldn't hold up against them.
It always amazes me that video stores never took on the Netflix all you can eat model. Given that disks are not consumables, there really is not increase in cost to the store by letting someone swap out a movie 10 times in a day since every time the gluttonous user would take a new disk, they would bring back the one they previously had. In fact, it should improve the new release problem by giving the customer an incentive to return the new release as soon as possible.
From a dollar stand point, it seems likely that getting 1000 people to commit to $10 a month guarenteed would be a better deal than hoping that those 1000 people would rent 5 movies every month at $2 a pop.
For customers, they would have the cost value of Netflix with the new releases of Amazon Instant.
The big problem for streaming services is that at the end of the day, they have to negotiate for every single viewing. They may do it in batches, but the content producers can always pull the rug out from under them. The way our copyright is set up means that there is simply no way around it. If Disney doesn't want you streaming their movies, you are not going to be streaming their movies. With physical disc rentals, the producers don't get any say beyond offering the disks up for sale.
And to be extra paranoid, I have a credit card that allows me to create temporary CC numbers that are only valid at one location for a certain dollar amount. This way Credit Card information can't be reused anywhere else either.
I have been surprised that this has not become the norm. What CC company are you using that has this feature?
If he handed over the passwords to unauthorized individuals, he could have been legitimately arrested for being an accomplice in computer trespass.