Unfortunately, that website has it completely wrong. If you go and look at the NHTSA study they're quoting, those are the statistics for ANY distraction while driving (not just eating).

Eating is a distraction, contributing up to 2.15 percent of the risk in crashes and near-crashes according to the study. Nowhere near what that web page is claiming.

That's why a critical eye is needed when reading stuff online. You can't just find something that agrees with your point of view and take it face value without digging a little deeper.

--
Psych Central - Get your psychology on!
http://psychcentral.com/

And worse, it's not even a particularly new finding from this research team. They reported on something similar 3 YEARS ago:

http://pinktentacle.com/2008/12/scientists-extract-images-directly-from-brain/

Last, neurofeedback -- a technique that's been around and well-understood for 2 decades now -- isn't likely to teach anyone a skill like juggling. It can help guide you to better understand your bodily responses and reflexes, but it's not like you can imprint one fMRI image onto another person. Neurofeedback takes time and practice, so it's nothing like the Matrix.

--
Psych Central - Get your psychology on.
http://psychcentral.com/

I've had both 1st and 2nd generation Kindles and have flown with them each dozens of times. Which means they've been each X-rayed dozens of times.

They both work fine and have never had to be reset. With the 3G radio off, a single charge on either of them lasts weeks, even with daily use.

Kindles are bullet-proof, hardy devices that you can read in direct sunlight. I've even dropped them both, with no damage to either.

This is exactly what an e-reader should be.

--
Psych Central - get your psychology on

More importantly, the judgment found something glossed over in the summary -- the court did not recognize Righthaven as an entity that had any significant rights in the copyright, and therefore could not sue in the first place.

That's because the agreement with Stephens Media was so specific in carving out Righthaven's rights to the copyright that the only right they really had, according to the court, was the right to sue others to protect the copyright. This is not a recognized transferable right.

That's a pretty big finding. You can't just assign your copyrights to another company for the sole purpose of suing others.

--
Psych Central
http://psychcentral.com/

As usual, the summary leaves out an important modifier -- this only applies to Google APPS, not Google.

From TFA:

For this reason, soon Google Apps will only support modern browsers. Beginning August 1st, we’ll support the current and prior major release of Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer and Safari on a rolling basis. Each time a new version is released, we’ll begin supporting the update and stop supporting the third-oldest version.

Google will still support all older browsers on its search engine. It wouldn't make sense to discriminate there.

--
Psych Central
http://psychcentral.com/

So I'm sorry, someone basically took the Miserable Users hack for vBulletin originally released in 2004 and -- 7 years later -- ported it to Drupal??

http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=59727&page=8

Astounding. Neither original, nor news, nor particularly interesting.

There are many powerful, easy-to-use and easy-to-develop for open source CMS systems available; Drupal is not one of them.

--
Psych Central
http://psychcentral.com/

While the headline and blurb suggest that indeed Facebook is being targeted in some manner, the article body itself makes absolutely no specific reference to Facebook. What this suggests is that the headline and blurb (introductory text to the article) were written by someone else -- an editor, usually -- who either didn't read the article very carefully, or made an assumption about what is actually being done.

It's odd how this could have been published as-is on a respected news website like the Telegraph.

I think many commenters here don't understand how a free-market system and capitalism works.

A company can charge ANY price it wants for its products, regardless of the cost to make them. Do you really believe, for instance, that a BMW 5 series costs $20-30k more to make than a similarly equipped 3 series? Heck no -- in fact, the two cars share a lot of the same major parts (like engines in certain versions of them).

A manufacturer can set any price it feels the market can bear. And from a marketing and computer upgrade standpoint, this move by Intel makes perfect sense for the normal consumer market. Instead of having to upgrade your whole computer in 2 years, pay Intel the $50 and your computer may be good for another 2 years.

This "you're being ripped off" bit is ridiculous and would only be a logical argument in a socialist system where all prices were pre-determined by a government entity and set according to exactly what it cost to make the product + X percent markup.

Luckily, we do not live in such a system.

--
Mental health and psychology at Psych Central

C'mon, this is old news! We reported on this a week ago...

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/04/13/fast-food-induces-haste-impatience/