I don't know what to make of your post. You said "statistically, driving with a passanger and talking to them is about as dangerous as talking on the cellphone while driving", but your link says "The scientific literature is mixed on the dangers of talking on a cell phone versus those of talking with a passenger." None of the referenced studies found that holding a conversation is without risk and several found that holding a conversation on a cell phone held a greater risk than holding it with a passenger. That certainly doesn't sound like the categoric fact that you are claiming.

On the subject of my post, how is it passive aggressive? I asked you to post a citation, posted a citation that refuted your point, then insinuated that you pulled the "statistic" (oh no, I used quotes again when referring to your data!) out of your ass. There was no passivity involved, I was directly challenging your assertion. I did not claim to be an expert although your post says I did. As for your post, with its patronizing "let me google that for you" and then telling me that I got a "slap" is just funny. Your googling didn't support your point, no slap was given.

I responded to you already, but here is some more:

Strayer DL, et al. "A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver," Human Factors (Summer 2006): Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 381–91. http://www.distraction.gov/dow...

Fitch, G. A., Soccolich, S. A., Guo, F., McClaffert y, J., Fang, Y., Olson, R. L., Perez, M. A., Hanowski, R. J., Hankey, J. M., & Dingus, T. A. (2013, April).
The impact of hand-held and hands-free cell phone use on driving performance and safety-critical event risk
(Report No. DOT HS 811 757). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
http://www.distraction.gov/dow...

From the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety:
"Two epidemiological studies have linked talking on a cellphone directly to increased crash risk, using cellphone billing records to verify phone use of crash-involved drivers. A 2005 Institute study of drivers in Western Australia found that when drivers were talking on mobile phones there was a fourfold increased likelihood of a crash resulting in injury to the driver. 10 The findings were consistent with 1997 research that showed phone use among Canadian drivers was associated with a fourfold increase in the risk of a crash involving property damage but no injury."

Seriously, there have been hundreds of studies on this topic. If all you can find is one paper, LMGTFY

[citation needed]

It doesn't offend, it simply isn't based on facts.

Here's a counter:

"One study using a driving simulator found that drivers conversing by cell phone were more likely than those talking to passengers to drift between lanes and to miss an exit they were instructed in advance to take."

From this article, linked about 4 posts above yours. I know your "statistic" was garnered from the "University of pulled it out of my ass" but this has been an area with quite a bit of study. If what you are saying has any basis in fact you should be able to cite some researchers who found that to be the case.

Also (cited later in the thread)

"It seems counterintuitive: why is talking on a cell phone while driving any more distracting than talking to a passenger? The reasons have to do with the way our brains process information, reports the Harvard Mental Health Letter."

"One study using a driving simulator found that drivers conversing by cell phone were more likely than those talking to passengers to drift between lanes and to miss an exit they were instructed in advance to take. When the researchers analyzed the complexity of the conversations in this study, they found that drivers and passengers tended to modulate their speech in response to external traffic cues. For example, they stopped talking when a traffic problem developed, or the passenger would offer advice to help the driver navigate. "

Ship AN. "The Most Primary of Care — Talking about Driving and Distraction," New England Journal of Medicine (June 10, 2010): Vol. 362, No. 23, pp. 2145–47.

Strayer DL, et al. "A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver," Human Factors (Summer 2006): Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 381–91.

article

Yeah, talking on the phone is only as bad as drunk driving. From the study: "We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit”. It doesn't matter if the call is made on the phone or using a hands-free set, having the conversation is the distracting part. From the article:

"The study found that compared with undistracted drivers:

Motorists who talked on either handheld or hands-free cell phones drove slightly slower, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes, displayed 24 percent more variation in following distance as their attention switched between driving and conversing, were 19 percent slower to resume normal speed after braking and were more likely to crash. Three study participants rear-ended the pace car. All were talking on cell phones. None were drunk."

It is true that there are a lot of things that distract drivers and every time there is a cell phone thread this point is brought up. The world isn't black and white (distracting vs. non-distracting). There are differing levels of distracted driving depending on the activity performed. Tuning the radio is not as distracting as watching TV. Smoking is not as distracting as making icy margaritas. And talking to a passenger is not as distracting as talking on a phone (although talking to a passenger while driving is distracting). When laws are made to restrict driving, legislatures must balance taking away freedom with a compelling public interest. Obviously some states feel that the freedom to use your phone while driving is outweighed by the societal harm from drivers distracted by such activities.

With your sig, I am really surprised that you take this position. Long before Dunning and Kruger wrote their famous paper it was well known that nearly everybody overestimates their skill in driving (c.f George Carlin on "idiots" and "assholes"). Have you considered that maybe you don't drive as well as you think you do when you are talking on the phone?

Exactly. And almost invariably you are talking about FUCKING NOTHING, you are just talking because you are afraid if you stop you will actually have to think. These aren't important conversations people are killing themselves and other people over, the vast majority are inane "What time are you going to get home?" conversations. I know family is important but you really don't need to call your wife from the road to tell her you spilled mustard on your shirt, go ahead and wait until you get home so it can be a big surprise for her!

(Sorry, I don't mean to attack you personally but more the idea of "I can't be out of touch with my family for even a second" that seems to pervade all cell phone threads)

Do you have evidence that feeding an animal grass rather than grain is healthier? In my searching it appears that grass fed beef has a higher ratio of Omega-3 fatty acids than grain-fed beef but the overall fat content of grass fed is lower so it's not like you are getting more Omega-3s by eating grass-fed beef. I couldn't find any hard data on the differences though, most of my search results were "health" sites which seemed to start with the conclusion that it is better than grain-fed then tried to find data to support their already-made conclusion. Are you aware of any studies on the actual health benefits of eating grass fed beef (or butter, or cream)? From my standpoint it seems like a dubious health benefit for a substantially increased price.

Unless you are a industrious poor person instead of a lazy poor person. I know the common narrative is that people are poor because they are lazy but in reality a lot of poor people work multiple jobs to make ends meet and work a lot harder than their middle class counterparts. Many are single parents who need to provide for a family on their income alone. I know it may seem to moderately well-off people that they worked hard to get where they are but in the majority of cases it was the circumstances into which you were born that determines your eventual earning power.

So the Lord of the Rings movies are canon, screw those dusty old books. Why rely on Tolkien when I can have Peter Jackson tell me about Hobbits?

Or even more nebulous, claim that their dog smells marijuana. The dog doesn't have to testify, so there is no way to impeach the evidence.

Sure, in this case the guy had a bunch of pot but we don't hear about the cases where the police claimed they smelled marijuana to justify a search but subsequently found none except through anecdotes from friends as there are no charges filed in those instances.

Why radical, sudden pressure changes? The plane doesn't teleport to altitide, it has to fly there. A quick search led me to an airline pilots forum, where they say it generally takes 25-35 minutes to climb to cruising altitude in a 747. Doesn't seem to radical to me.

But the whole heartbleed issue was caused by someone who was doing more than "half hearted scratching", he was adding an entirely new feature (heartbeats). Does anyone else think that hundreds of commits in a week is a BAD thing? It seems to me like committing that much code would make it so each change doesn't get as much of a review as it would if the changes were committed gradually. Poor review is what caused this problem in the first place, they run the risk of adding another critical vulnerability.

You don't control the airspace above your property. You cannot (legally) shoot down a drone any more than you can shoot a medical helicopter or cessna that flies over your house.

Exactly. How do personal drones equal government surveillience? The cell phones that most people carry provide a huge amount of data for the government. The phone sends its location, autoposts pictures and videos in the internet and stores a ton of data "in the cloud". It has a microphone, camera and the means to send data to an arbitrary place. Phones are nearly ubiquitous and have a ton of data on the person using them.

Contrast this with a drone. It is controlled and transmits video using a point to point system. None of its data ever transits public data networks and is only receivable over a small area. How is the government going to obtain this drone data?

Why is this moderated insightful? Twitter (and Comcast) responded to a warrant signed by a judge, not to a simple request by police. Yes, the judge is a total douchebag who is abusing the power of his office just like the mayor but once he signs the warrant if Twitter doesn't comply they are breaking the law.