..help you with today?
Nope, that's excellent.
Now we can compare numbers. According to the this NCS article based on this 2009 National Safety Council estimate (pdf) we have 636,000 crashes, 330,000 injuries, 12,000 serious injuries, and 2,600 deaths by cell phone. For a total of about 1.4 million crashes. I selected this new link as it had grand totals like your 2008 data. If we just compare injuries and deaths we have...
Your numbers look good: 1) Drunks win at killing people 4 to 1. 2) Cell phone users pull ahead with injuries.
In conclusion: It's much more likely that I will be injured rather than killed. I'm slightly more likely to be injured by a cell phone user than a drunk. But, in the less likely case that the driver tries to kill me, drunks do a much better job.
Others can decide if the additional 636,000 crashes without injury are significant because we do not know how many drunks get away.
With the numbers above people can really decide on which they think is worse. I'd rather neither were driving around.
Who cares! if they're not as bad as some a**hole with a
As far as "playing" I think this has been completely one sided. You have not posted a single link to support any of your arguments. You aren't even in the game.
The people above and I have included numerous links. I do not think ignoring news of death and destruction has anything to do with common sense. Include some links to statistics that indicate an "order of magnitude". Oh never mind, here it is car accident statistics. Looks like there are lots and lots of cell phone drivers causing problems. Here are facts on hands free vs hand held, there's no significant difference. Here's a study on drunk driving vs cell phone driving. A study from the University of Utah showing cell phones are as bad as drunk driving. There is lots of evidence if you're willing to do a little research.
My personal experience is that I have more trouble with cell phone drivers because there are so many out there. About an hour ago someone with a cell phone swerved into my lane. The road was perfectly straight.
A guy driving a BMW tried to kill me. He wasn't paying attention and came over into my lane.
So what is the difference between drunk drivers or cell phone users trying to kill us?
The reason you do not hear about these things is because you do not research them. Searching the web reveals lots of death and destruction from cell phone users.
I guess the phrase "significant factor" is what you thought my comment was about. I do not believe Linux is a large or even significant consideration in the sales of PS3s. It would be a consideration if I were going to buy one. With the feature removed it is a definite lost sale and others in the Open Source community feel the same.
It is strange to watch people throw money away yet I've seen it happen many times.
I don't think the Mythbusters episode didn't say that driving while phoning isn't dangerous.
Nor did I say they did. I indicated it was just as dangerous either way so I agree with what you have written about road safety. They do not get it.
I have found that cell phone users have actually tried to run me down on the motorcycle. Hold the phone, don't hold the phone, there is little difference once any thought provoking question is asked. The person on the phone is no longer giving operation of their vehicle proper attention. I would like to see the Driving Under the Influence laws modified to include cell phone usage. Anyone using one for non-emergency use while operating a vehicle should be subject to DUI laws and the appropriate insurance penalties. Want to make a call? Pull over so others won't be killed.
The conclusion of that Mythbusters episode was that using a cell phone was as impairing as drunk driving. If you do not believe Mythbusters, check out the NTSB (staff usage ban), NTSB (2006 CDL recommended ban), NTSB (2005 teen ban) or the Center for Transportation Research News. They know what the rest of us survivors do, that these people are dangerous.
Wonder who switched his bulb on. Second place really sucks in two player game.
When I look at products I like to see Linux support listed. So I buy stuff from ZA Reason and System76 and used to like the PS3. If you have to hack it, the product has less of a future. Imagine a marketing department deciding to remove a major bullet point from the sales brochure, does this really make sense if you want to sell something?
I saw something about Dynamic Books on one of my news feeds. It looks like you can completely configure the book (useful for teachers), distribute it to students computers, and they can interactively create notes and links within the books. Looks cool but is probably a Windows only thing.
I would have stored the plans to my purple pony, created with Blender, on my DmCrypt partition, with the 30 plus character passphrase, that you have to type in when Fedora boots, and never even created a Facebook account. But I would have to agree with the comments above, most people don't care about what they use if it works.
Maybe pcause posted the wrong article. Maybe by evil he meant to outline all the terrorist videos YouTube hosts. See the SMACKDOWN Corps for a complete list.
He taught the principles of Saul Alinsky in college... the "ends justify means" guy. Check your morals at the door.
Ever looked at a precipitation map of Antarctica? Most of the continent is a desert.
Good point, it doesn't usually snow in a desert. Think it has something to do with moisture. In Tibet, where it gets really cold and there's moisture during the winter, it can snow a lot.
Everything that can be invented has been invented. -- Charles Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899