On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 02:23:45 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
Yup. And when the police shoot an unarmed man "in the torso", which means,
"in the back".
Or when Commissioner Davis hailed as a "ferocious firefight" the "gun
battle" with an unarmed, unresisting, and prostrate Boston bomber, hiding i
the hull of a boat.
Or, when Governor Cuomo haled what amounts to a cowardly sniper as a "hero"
so as to take public scrutiny away from the fact that the officer committed
what amounts to a criminal act of sniping.
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été v?
?rifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
Congresswoman discusses government task for that recommends that the NSA
stop collecting phone records, and the Washington DC msnbc correspondent
breaks in saying "Right now, in Miami, Justin Bieber...let's watch".
Heh heh heh ...
We're doomed. :(
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 18:53:30 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
BTW, one of the NHTSA statistical papers on distractions listed "fatigue" as
a major factor in accidents, far more so than just talking to someone.
So we have to put things into perspective, bearing in mind that the
"industry" likes to blow things out of proportion, to intensify their
effects for news-worthy reasons.
For example, look at this use of "high octane" where the sole purpose is to
artificially *intensify* the scare-value of the word "gasoline"...
"six million gallons of high octane gasoline provided fuel for the raging
Huh? When I parse that sentence, I immediately realize that six million
gallons of _not_ high octane gasoline would have provided just as much fuel
(in fact, exactly the same amount of BTUs) for the raging inferno!
"police had recovered ... a container for high-octane fuel tank gasoline."
Huh? What's that? Do such containers even exist?
Specifically, how would a "high-octane" fuel tank differ from a
not high-octane fuel tank? The fire either fuel could cause would be
absolutely indistinguishable in all ways.
The District Attorney likened the volatility of the accelerant to that of
''a high-octane'' gasoline.
I guess that argument works on OJ Juries, but, the volatility of a
high-octane gasoline is EXACTLY the same as that of a not
In all these examples, the news (or the DA) attempts to "intensify" the
scare power of "gasoline"; so my warning here is to be on the lookout for
similar intensification efforts when it comes to McCarthyism, Salem Witch
Trials, and cellphone related distractions.
which doesn't exist. that's the point.
it's an *asusmption* that call records showing activity around the time
of the *assumed* time of collision is a factor.
it might be related, or it might not. nobody knows exactly what
happened except those involved in the collision and they're not going
to admit it's because of a phone or they're incapable of admitting
anything, i.e., dead.
that doesn't make driving any less boring. there's really not a lot to
do, which is why shitty drivers manage to avoid crashing all the time.
actually, it hasn't been proven.
that's the fault of the driver. stupid drivers will always exist.
autonomous vehicles can't happen fast enough.
that's only because cellphones are visible, plus you can't tell if
they're using a speakerphone.
people do all sorts of things while driving, such as:
i see people eating/drinking food very frequently.
that's the point. none are acceptable, but people only focus on phones
being a factor.
Its not that hard with voice calls, bit harder with SMS, particularly
if they are preparing the first one and haven't sent it yet.
Sure, but that isnt the only way to know that.
Yes and that isnt that hard to do. And to do it the other way in this
The authoritys do know what phone SIMs you have unless you go out of your
way to get an anonymous one which is rather harder to do in this country.
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:18:20 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
"Call details" give date, time, duration, whether incoming or outgoing, &c.
(Android 2.3.5 as embodied in antique Moto Droid X2.) Not clear whether
"time" shows time call began or time call ended; nor what TZ is in use.
HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp
The real bull elephant in the room is the fact that the accident rates are
entirely unaffected in both Australia and in the United States by the use of
cellphones (we can presume NHTSA numbers of 5% for handheld and 2% for
texting) while driving.
The female elephant in the room is the fact that cellphones are likely to be
at least as common in cars as drivers with eye-correction (glasses or
That is to say, they're nearly ubiquitous, so, of course they're gonna be
found "in use" during an accident in a huge number of situations.
For example, about 75% of American adults apparently wear eye correction
(either near or far sighted or both):
Therefore, we'd expect about 75% of all accidents to "involve" a driver who
needs corrective devices.
Notice how horrible a statistic I can make news out of if I want to?
I could get a Salem-Witch-Trial McCarthyism-Red-Scare style news story out
the door simply by fomenting the concept that people needing corrective
devices "cause" 75% of all the accidents!
My point is that it's entirely the wrong approach to simply see if the
cellphone was being _used_ at the time of the accident, just as it would be
the wrong approach to see if corrective lenses were being used at the time
of the accident.
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:50:25 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
You're approaching the problem the hard way.
The facts don't make the news because the facts aren't scary.
With cellphone use almost ubiquitous in both Australia and in the USA,
nearly 100% of all crashes "involve" cellphones - just like nearly 100% of
all crashes involved people wearing socks.
They do it anonymously, as reported in the papers I already cited, but even
so, you're approaching the problem in the wrong direction.
It's like you're trying to prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster by
finding people who took pictures of the Loch Ness Monster, which you must
concede is an unreliable approach by all accounts.
You're missing the accidents.
Where are the accidents?
They don't exist.
The record in both Australia and in the United States shows that extremely
These are facts which Rod Speed intimates that mysteriously clever aliens
must have manipulated so as to EXACTLY cancel out the astoundingly huge
increase in accidents he fabricated in his own mind must have occurred:
If you're asking _why_ the accident rate, in the real world, isn't affected
one bit by the explosion of cellphones, it's NOT because people aren't using
People are using cellphones, for millions and millions of miles driven!
"the _use_ of cellphones is consistently at about 2% for texting and at
abuot 5% for handheld use while driving (with visible-headset use roughly
around half of a percent)"
The most obvious reason why cellphone use isn't causing accidents is so
simple, most people don't want to believe it.
The reason is simply that the additional distraction of cellphone use is
simply added to an already long list of (far more important) distractions,
as the NHTSA says so themselves:
So what we have is the cellphone is no more distracting than talking to a
Examining the Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving Using
I realize all this doesn't make the news, simply because none of what I'm
telling you is the slightest bit scary. And not scary doesn't make news.
But you have to read more than the "scary" news to understand boring facts.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.