Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/05/2024 08:36, Andrew wrote:
>> Chris wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 06:34:27 -0000 (UTC) :
>>
>>>> Take a look at the accident numbers for the entire world, by country.
>>>> <https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm>
>>>
>>> If you select "accidents involving casualties" there clearly is a reversal
>>> in the downward trend around 2010 in the US. The increasing trend continues
>>> until covid and the latest data still shows greater numbers of accidents
>>> since 2004.
>>
>> You don't get it that numbers of accidents isn't a valid metric.
>> It's the accident rate that matters since it's normalized properly.
>
> The numbers have gone up 28% between 2011 and 2016. Do you really
> believe that's driven by something else??
>
>> Bear in mind accident-rate statistics have been compiled for a hundred
>> years and yet you dispute them only because you don't like what they are.
>>
>> Do you know why you can't find statistics that back up your belief system?
>> I do.
>>
>> They don't exist.
>>
>> If they did exist, you'd find them.
>> And you haven't.
>
> So taking the data from OECD and normalising by the population and miles
> driven data from IIHS, both sources being ones you've recommended, the
> accident rate has rapidly increased since 2010. NB: the iphone was
> launched in 2007.
> https://ibb.co/tpXpCDY
>
> Still believe the data doesn't exist?

So Arlen has been shown to be spreading lies and he's suddenly stopped
posting. Hmmm, I wonder why?

Give it a few days and he'll be back with a new nym spouting rubbish about
something completely different yet the same.

On 2024-06-01, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 30/05/2024 08:36, Andrew wrote:
>>> Chris wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 06:34:27 -0000 (UTC) :
>>>
>>>>> Take a look at the accident numbers for the entire world, by
>>>>> country. <https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm>
>>>>
>>>> If you select "accidents involving casualties" there clearly is a
>>>> reversal in the downward trend around 2010 in the US. The
>>>> increasing trend continues until covid and the latest data still
>>>> shows greater numbers of accidents since 2004.
>>>
>>> You don't get it that numbers of accidents isn't a valid metric.
>>> It's the accident rate that matters since it's normalized properly.
>>
>> The numbers have gone up 28% between 2011 and 2016. Do you really
>> believe that's driven by something else??
>>
>>> Bear in mind accident-rate statistics have been compiled for a
>>> hundred years and yet you dispute them only because you don't like
>>> what they are.
>>>
>>> Do you know why you can't find statistics that back up your belief
>>> system? I do.
>>>
>>> They don't exist.
>>>
>>> If they did exist, you'd find them. And you haven't.
>>
>> So taking the data from OECD and normalising by the population and
>> miles driven data from IIHS, both sources being ones you've
>> recommended, the accident rate has rapidly increased since 2010. NB:
>> the iphone was launched in 2007. https://ibb.co/tpXpCDY
>>
>> Still believe the data doesn't exist?
>
> So Arlen has been shown to be spreading lies and he's suddenly stopped
> posting. Hmmm, I wonder why?
>
> Give it a few days and he'll be back with a new nym spouting rubbish
> about something completely different yet the same.

He's probably in the low phase of his current manic episode.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

bad��sector wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 21:42:00 -0400 :

>> The main message I wanted to communicate is that people believe in myths
>> that have no basis in fact when you bother to doublecheck the facts.
>
> There's a dividing line you seem to be confused about, the one between
> science and belief, the two equally are important realms that are by
> definition mutually exclusive of one another. The latter tries to
> process issues that the former is incapable of resolving. To think that
> all that is is what we 'know' in the folly of many. I once read a
> perfect example of this when an astronomer (of all people!) said "we
> cannot find dark matter so it does not exist".

You touch on a point that I've always tried to figure out why people come
up with religious beliefs about anything (e.g., Apple phones), where that
belief system is always two things, it seems, which is the crime here.

1. The belief is fed to the people (by someone with something to gain)
2. The belief is wrong

Take the iPhone, for example:
a. Apple feeds iPhone owners all sorts of false messaging, right?
b. And Apple benefits greatly by feeding Apple owners these myths

Same here with cellphones.
a. The government benefits with the increased revenue from ticketing
b. And the government feeds people that it's "doing something" for safety.

And yet, as with Apple, the only benefit is to their bottom line.
Even as most people never question those two myths, right?

Back to your point, religion was the first "science" that explained
everything, such that you could ask any question you wanted to ask about
why things happen and the answer was that "god" did it, that's why.

While Apple and the government benefit greatly in earning revenue from
spewing these lies, I don't gain any monetary gain by informing you of the
truth.

As for dark matter, it's a conundrum for sure. The galaxies are spinning at
far too great a speed at the outer edges, but it could be almost anything
(and yes, I'm aware of most of the theories to explain the discord).

It could be our equations are simply wrong on the grand scale of things.

Or, it could be matter in another dimension (orthogonal to our three, or
perhaps in the fourth time dimension, which already is orthogonal) is
influencing us. By way of background, if you know electrical engineering
(or math), the square root of minus 1 is either "i" or "j" depending on
whether you're an engineer or a mathematician, but it shows up in
electromagnetic wave equations due to the fact that time is 90 degrees
orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions.

Note that hypothesis is interesting which has an analogy that an ant in
flatland can't see you above it but if you stand over it, your shadow can
be seen by that ant in flatland. Your shadow influences what the ant can
see but the ant can't explain where the shadow came from since it can't
measure any massive object causing that shadow.
a. There's a shadow
b. But where is the mass that caused that shadow?
c. That mass is in a dimension orthogonal to what the ant can measure.

By the way, another non-intuitive interesting situation is that we all move
at the speed of light, but most people don't understand that sentence
because most of that movement is in the dimension of time - and yet -
everything moves at the same speed - but in the four dimensions - so it
only appears that some things are moving at speeds slower than the speed of
light - but if we were massless we'd be moving ONLY at the speed of light
in the spatial dimensions - which means we don't move through time at all.

That's really why time slows down as we approach the speed of light in the
spatial dimensions since everything moves at the speed of light.

Just as the fact that gravity isn't a force, most people can't fathom a
discussion at this adult level - since they're uneducated & ignorant of
such things. Worse, most have an IQ that can't handle this process.

Sigh.

On 6/1/24 23:01, Andrew wrote:
> bad������sector wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 21:42:00 -0400 :
>
>>> The main message I wanted to communicate is that people believe in myths
>>> that have no basis in fact when you bother to doublecheck the facts.
>>
>> There's a dividing line you seem to be confused about, the one between
>> science and belief, the two equally are important realms that are by
>> definition mutually exclusive of one another. The latter tries to
>> process issues that the former is incapable of resolving. To think that
>> all that is is what we 'know' in the folly of many. I once read a
>> perfect example of this when an astronomer (of all people!) said "we
>> cannot find dark matter so it does not exist".
>
> You touch on a point that I've always tried to figure out why people come
> up with religious beliefs about anything (e.g., Apple phones), where that
> belief system is always two things, it seems, which is the crime here.
>
> 1. The belief is fed to the people (by someone with something to gain)
> 2. The belief is wrong
>
> Take the iPhone, for example:
> a. Apple feeds iPhone owners all sorts of false messaging, right?
> b. And Apple benefits greatly by feeding Apple owners these myths
>
> Same here with cellphones.
> a. The government benefits with the increased revenue from ticketing
> b. And the government feeds people that it's "doing something" for safety.
>
> And yet, as with Apple, the only benefit is to their bottom line.
> Even as most people never question those two myths, right?
>
> Back to your point, religion was the first "science" that explained
> everything, such that you could ask any question you wanted to ask about
> why things happen and the answer was that "god" did it, that's why.
>
> While Apple and the government benefit greatly in earning revenue from
> spewing these lies, I don't gain any monetary gain by informing you of the
> truth.
>
> As for dark matter, it's a conundrum for sure. The galaxies are spinning at
> far too great a speed at the outer edges, but it could be almost anything
> (and yes, I'm aware of most of the theories to explain the discord).

Right, too many galaxies are too big to be so close to the Big Bang and
that proves that one shouldn't be theorizing about physics either while
using a cell-phone (correction, no cell-phones then, so maybe one
shouldn't be gobbling up everything that's said to be a fact).

> It could be our equations are simply wrong on the grand scale of things.
>
> Or, it could be matter in another dimension (orthogonal to our three, or
> perhaps in the fourth time dimension, which already is orthogonal) is
> influencing us. By way of background, if you know electrical engineering
> (or math), the square root of minus 1 is either "i" or "j" depending on
> whether you're an engineer or a mathematician, but it shows up in
> electromagnetic wave equations due to the fact that time is 90 degrees
> orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions.
>
> Note that hypothesis is interesting which has an analogy that an ant in
> flatland can't see you above it but if you stand over it, your shadow can
> be seen by that ant in flatland. Your shadow influences what the ant can
> see but the ant can't explain where the shadow came from since it can't
> measure any massive object causing that shadow.
> a. There's a shadow
> b. But where is the mass that caused that shadow?
> c. That mass is in a dimension orthogonal to what the ant can measure.
>
> By the way, another non-intuitive interesting situation is that we all move
> at the speed of light, but most people don't understand that sentence
> because most of that movement is in the dimension of time - and yet -
> everything moves at the same speed - but in the four dimensions - so it
> only appears that some things are moving at speeds slower than the speed of
> light - but if we were massless we'd be moving ONLY at the speed of light
> in the spatial dimensions - which means we don't move through time at all.
>
> That's really why time slows down as we approach the speed of light in the
> spatial dimensions since everything moves at the speed of light.
>
> Just as the fact that gravity isn't a force, most people can't fathom a
> discussion at this adult level - since they're uneducated & ignorant of
> such things. Worse, most have an IQ that can't handle this process.
>
> Sigh.

We're gettin' a stretch past Apple & Google; not that I'd have issues
with that ...I just don't have the time.

--
All species of mobile phones, media devices, Bluetooth or not, and
onboard presentation systems beyond what is essential for vehicle
control should automatically disable themselves within 10 meters of any
vehicle in motion at any speed. "Hands-Free does NOT mean Brain-Free".
In the case of approaching vehicles (pedestrian use included) that
distance should be multiplied (prorated) for every 5km/h of CLOSURE
speed (i.e. no such device should be operable within 200 meters of any
vehicle approaching at 100 km/h). Manufacturers of devices in which such
an automatic lockout feature is missing or can be disabled should first
pay large fines and then be barred from the jurisdiction market. With
respect to other road-hog conduct, in addition to intoxication or
attention-diverting use of lethal-technology while driving,
brake-checking and tailgating should also be hanging crimes. Any
irresponsible vehicle handling should in fact be punished exactly as it
would be in the case of irresponsible weapons handling (which ALSO needs
to be beefed up).

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> bad💽sector wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 21:42:00 -0400 :
>
>>> The main message I wanted to communicate is that people believe in myths
>>> that have no basis in fact when you bother to doublecheck the facts.
>>
>> There's a dividing line you seem to be confused about, the one between
>> science and belief, the two equally are important realms that are by
>> definition mutually exclusive of one another. The latter tries to
>> process issues that the former is incapable of resolving. To think that
>> all that is is what we 'know' in the folly of many. I once read a
>> perfect example of this when an astronomer (of all people!) said "we
>> cannot find dark matter so it does not exist".
>
> You touch on a point that I've always tried to figure out

Yet you don't respond to posts which directly answer the question at hand.

> why people come
> up with religious beliefs about anything (e.g., Apple phones), where that
> belief system is always two things, it seems,

You're more interesting in name calling or reducing topics you don't
understand into meaningless categories.

> which is the crime here.

There's no crime.

>
> 1. The belief is fed to the people (by someone with something to gain)
> 2. The belief is wrong
>
> Take the iPhone, for example:
> a. Apple feeds iPhone owners all sorts of false messaging, right?
> b. And Apple benefits greatly by feeding Apple owners these myths
>
> Same here with cellphones.
> a. The government benefits with the increased revenue from ticketing
> b. And the government feeds people that it's "doing something" for safety.
>
> And yet, as with Apple, the only benefit is to their bottom line.
> Even as most people never question those two myths, right?
>
> Back to your point, religion was the first "science" that explained
> everything,

Religion was never and never will be a "science". They are diametrically
opposite in application.

[snip gibberish]

On 30 May 2024, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> posted some
news:v3adr4$138m$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com:

> sticks wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 11:43:22 -0500 :
>
>>> Where are your cites to facts upon which you base your belief
>>> systems?
>>
>> I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you made
>> up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a
>> troll. Of course, everyone already knows that.
>
> Of course you have no science to back up your imaginary belief system.
>
> The reason you are so desperate that you can't find any cites is that
> the imaginary myth you believe in, isn't supported by any reliable
> cites.
>
> The accident rate (slowly trending downward) did not show any effect
> whatsoever from the skyrocketing saturation of cellphones in the USA.
>
> Those who think it did are simply wrong, and the proof is none of them
> has provided even a single cite that backs up their belief in the
> myth.

That same logic applies to gun ownership.

On 29 May 2024, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> posted some
news:ifue5jpm5aafaccck2dvnn3ag7vndqttvq@4ax.com:

> In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 29 May 2024 13:25:00 -0400, Newyana2
><newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>>On 5/29/2024 12:48 PM, micky wrote:
>>
>>>> You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens
>>>> of posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
>>>> discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
>>>>
>>> Could be. I usually don't get caught up in his stuff.
>>>
>>
>> I've seen bot posts on Reddit. Usually I don't think of it until
>>someone points it out, then I realize that it probably is a bot
>>post. Then again, is there a difference between bots, marketing,
>>Chinese propagandists and Russian hackers? They're mostly only
>>identifiable by their viewpoint.
>
> Come to think of it, bots could be valuable for Chinese and Russians.
> You only have to teach English to one computer instead of a bunch of
> people.

It helps greatly if they can speak what they "teach" first.

Watch for bot generated headlines in ABC and CBS AI generated content.

On 5/30/24 01:06, Andrew wrote:
> sticks wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 20:31:33 -0500 :
>
>> The big problem with his ridiculous speculation is calling statistics
>> FACT.
>
> Adults back up their strongly held belief systems with facts, don't they?

No, facts are the basis of knowledge; meanwhile wishes, suspicions, and
to some extent statistics are the basis of beliefs. The uninsured, the
criminals fearing capture, plus most of the low-damage accident actors
simply do NOT report an accident so that pool is misleading. Once you
know something it becomes a fact and gets removed from the beliefs
drawer and conversely until you know something it can be only in the
beliefs drawer. Nothing can be in both concurrently.

Overall statistical accident rates could only rise due to cell-phone use
IF all other causes remained fixed; a la-la entry in real life where all
causes have a dynamic effect so it is quite possible for electronic
bells and whistles like blind-spot alerts to reduce their part in
accidents while cell phones increase theirs resulting in no overall
statistical increase! Furthermore cell-phone use is categorised under
distractions and that cause is in fact on the rise even if other causes
are decreasing.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving

--
All species of mobile phones, media devices, Bluetooth or not, and
onboard presentation systems beyond what is essential for vehicle
control should automatically disable themselves within 10 meters of any
vehicle in motion at any speed. Hands-Free does NOT mean Brain-Free. In
the case of approaching vehicles (pedestrian use included) that distance
should be multiplied (prorated) for every 5 km/h of CLOSURE speed (i.e.
no such device should be operable within 200 meters of any vehicle
approaching at 100 km/h). Manufacturers of devices in which such an
automatic lockout feature is missing or can be disabled should first pay
large fines and then be barred from the jurisdiction market. With
respect to other road-hog conduct, in addition to intoxication or
attention-diverting use of lethal-technology while driving,
brake-checking and tailgating should also be HANGING crimes. Any
irresponsible vehicle handling should in fact be punished exactly as it
would be in the case of irresponsible weapons handling (which ALSO needs
to be beefed up).

bad sector wrote on Tue, 18 Jun 2024 06:48:14 -0400 :

> https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving

You're clearly not educated as a scientist is educated.
That link says NOTHING that detracts from my statement of fact.

My statement of fact is that the accident record shows absolutely no change
whatsoever in the reliably reported accident rates for all fifty states in
the United States when you look at the periods before, during and after the
meteoric rise of cellphone ownership from 0% to nearly 100% today.

I get it that most people believe in every myth in the book.
I get it that most people think the accident rate must have gone up.

Hell, even I, a trained scientist, would have thought it would have.
But it didn't.

The difference between stupid people and someone intelligent is that an
intelligent person is able to separate baseless myths from facts.

Nobody said that distracted driving wasn't the leading cause of accidents.
Nobody said cellphones were an *added* distraction.

Nobody said driving does not entails handline hundreds of distractions.

What I said was there is zero evidence that cellphones had any effect
whatsoever (up or down) on the accident rate, which has been reliably
reported by the US Census Bureau since well before any of us were born.

What just happened is you're so incredibly *desperate* to believe in the
baseless myth that you googled furiously and couldn't find even a single
cite of fact that disputes that fact. I knew that would happen.

While I'm surprised you did not cite bullshit insurance, lawyer and
ticketing agency cites, and while I commend you for at least citing the
NHSA, don't you think I've scoured the Internet for all known cites?

You think I'm stupid?
I'm not.

I'm extremely well educated in the sciences and in engineering.
I know full well how desperate uneducated people are to believe in myths.

You believe in a myth that has zero basis in actual fact.
You think I don't know that about you?

I knew you will never find a single reliable cite backing up your belief.
Because your entire belief system isn't based on any actual facts.

You believe in a baseless myth.
You cited a site that says nothing to dispute the facts.
<https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving>

All it says is what nobody disagrees with, which is that driving entails
handling hundreds (probably thousands!) of distractions.

Nobody said it didn't.
That NHTSA cite doesn't say anything about the facts I speak of.
That's because they *know* the facts (far better than you do, in fact).

What I said was that there is no change whatsoever in the accident rates
before, during and after cellphones skyrocketed.

Which is a fact you can't deny simply because it's a well-known fact.