On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:39:40 -0600, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Since statistics have shown that cell phone use is at least as much an
accident causer as drunk driving, it's difficult for me to get upset
about restrictions on their use while driving. If you *have* to make a
call, pull over and stop.

Just a little clarification on this one. Statistics have not shown
that cell phone use is a dangerous as drunk driving - *controlled
tests* have shown essentially that. The thing that interests me is
that the total number of accidents per mile driven in the US hasn't
moved significantly in the last few years while cell phone use has
gone through the roof. The *tests* show phone use while driving to be
much more dangerous than the *statistics* show it to be. I think the
truth is that most people who are seriously distracted by their cell
phone were previously seriously distracted by something else,
resulting in a wash as far as accident rates are concerned. With about
50% of the drivers I see on a daily basis on the phone I would expect
massive pile-ups at every intersection, but it doesn't happen, so
there is some disconnect between the controlled test results and the
real world. Not an uncommon problem with testing, I might add.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"I'm not exactly burned out, but I'm a little bit scorched and there's some smoke damage."

"Bill" wrote in message
...



Tonight my car almost got bumped into in a parking lot by a car backing
out of a
parking space--the driver talking on the phone. What was interesting this
time
was that it was a Police Car! No kidding... Actually, my hat is off to
those guys;

Ride with a cop sometime and watch them typing on their laptop while
driving.

wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:34:23 -0500, "J. Clarke"
People like you are the reason that such laws are being enacted you know.

Quite possibly. But, I'm not sure if that's intended to be a criticism
or perhaps you're just stating a fact. If it's a criticism, why do you
think so?

It's not the person who once every six months answers a call, it's the
ones who drive around all day with the phone glued to their ear.

And those are the people that I'd like to see affected by this new
law.

... and if they haven't and aren't causing accidents, why does this bother
you so much?


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Tim Douglass wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:39:40 -0600, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Since statistics have shown that cell phone use is at least as much an
accident causer as drunk driving, it's difficult for me to get upset
about restrictions on their use while driving. If you *have* to make a
call, pull over and stop.

Just a little clarification on this one. Statistics have not shown
that cell phone use is a dangerous as drunk driving - *controlled
tests* have shown essentially that. The thing that interests me is
that the total number of accidents per mile driven in the US hasn't
moved significantly in the last few years while cell phone use has
gone through the roof. The *tests* show phone use while driving to be
much more dangerous than the *statistics* show it to be. I think the
truth is that most people who are seriously distracted by their cell
phone were previously seriously distracted by something else,
resulting in a wash as far as accident rates are concerned. With about
50% of the drivers I see on a daily basis on the phone I would expect
massive pile-ups at every intersection, but it doesn't happen, so
there is some disconnect between the controlled test results and the
real world. Not an uncommon problem with testing, I might add.


There you go throwing facts into the discussion. That should bring things
to a grinding halt. :-)

Good call on the tests. It would be interesting to find out if the people
designing the test had a certain desired outcome in mind when designing
those tests.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Neil Brooks wrote:

On Dec 29, 4:15Â*pm, Swingman wrote:
On 12/29/2009 4:19 PM, Matt wrote:



On 12/29/2009 2:50 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:

I certainly consider a cell phone to be mostly an emergency device.
Considering this discussion is prompted by the need/desire to use

.... snip


Pardon me, but aren't you two guys being just a tad smug in thinking
that the rest of the world has no other needs than yours?

I'm in the construction business. On an average day I make or take
upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour, all absolutely essential to the
supervising, decision making, scheduling, and coordinating of every
aspect of the millions of parts/actions and decisions that go into a
construction project.

In the first decade of the 21st century my office has increasingly
become the Blackberry cell phone in my hand, allowing me to supervise
and coordinate _every_ step of the process where I happen to be standing.

My business is, in short, based on instant COMMUNICATION, the instancy
of which has always been essential to increasing efficiency and the
ability to supervise ... and a well supervised project is a better built
project.

You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct hire,
or as a subcontractor.

Sorry, but you guys are thinking no further your hat brim ...


You, of course, mean that we're thinking of the society, as a whole,
rather than thinking of YOU, as ... seemingly ... you think we ought.

Wow, the arrogance of that statement is stunning. You, of course having
the correct overview of what is right for society, as a whole vs. say,
someone who is making society work by productively contributing to commerce
and production.




--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Lee Michaels wrote:
"Swingman" wrote

You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
hire, or as a subcontractor.

sniff

Does that mean you are not going to hire me?

I wouldn't want to work for the kind of guy who has to call me on the cell
phone instead of yelling across the office "Hey, Clarke, get in here".

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:56:24 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

There you go throwing facts into the discussion. That should bring things
to a grinding halt. :-)

Good call on the tests. It would be interesting to find out if the people
designing the test had a certain desired outcome in mind when designing
those tests.

It's NOT a good call without the actual stats to back it up. Most
every accident of import is thoroughly examined by police. Those are
existing and proven facts. Show me where all this "controlled" bull is
created and I'll reconsider my statement.

He says they are controlled tests, I said they're actual facts from
accidents. Yet, without shred of proof at all, you're prepared to jump
on his "controlled tests" theory.

Obviously, you're biased.

In article , wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:56:24 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

There you go throwing facts into the discussion. That should bring things
to a grinding halt. :-)

Good call on the tests. It would be interesting to find out if the people
designing the test had a certain desired outcome in mind when designing
those tests.

It's NOT a good call without the actual stats to back it up. Most
every accident of import is thoroughly examined by police. Those are
existing and proven facts. Show me where all this "controlled" bull is
created and I'll reconsider my statement.

Google on "cell phone use as dangerous as drunk driving". I think you'll be
surprised at what you find. Four of the first five hits refer to a *single*
study conducted by researchers at the University of Utah using simulators.

The fifth does cite actual accident statistics, but states "The risk of having
a traffic accident while using a cellular phone is the same as that while
driving drunk" -- which is decidedly not the same thing as saying that the
levels of danger are equivalent, because it addresses only the frequency of
accidents and not their severity. My gut feeling is that people yapping on
cell phones cause minor accidents, and drunk drivers cause serious ones: we're
all far too familiar with reports in the newspaper of drunk drivers killing
people, but when was the last time you read about a fatal accident caused by
an idiot on a cell phone?

He says they are controlled tests, I said they're actual facts from
accidents. Yet, without shred of proof at all, you're prepared to jump
on his "controlled tests" theory.

Excerpts from the articles referenced by Google:
"Using a driving simulator under four different conditions..."
"Each study participant drove the simulator..."
"The volunteers in the new study drove a virtual vehicle..."

Obviously, you're biased.

Obviously, you and I couldn't be, eh? :-)

On 12/29/2009 10:20 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Swingman" wrote:


If you truly handle "upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour", you are
basically functioning as a full time traffic cop leaving little, if
any time to function as the CEO of your company which I would think
would be your primary responsibility.

Just an observation.

And an extremely faulty one ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:33:13 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Dec 29, 11:20*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Swingman" wrote:

Pardon me, but aren't you two guys being just a tad smug in thinking
that the rest of the world has no other needs than yours?

I'm in the construction business. On an average day I make or take
upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour, all absolutely essential to
the supervising, decision making, scheduling, and coordinating of
every aspect of the millions of parts/actions and decisions that go
into a construction project.

In the first decade of the 21st century my office has increasingly
become the Blackberry cell phone in my hand, allowing me to
supervise and coordinate _every_ step of the process where I happen
to be standing.

My business is, in short, based on instant COMMUNICATION, the
instancy of which has always been essential to increasing efficiency
and the ability to supervise ... and a well supervised project is a
better built project.

You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
hire, or as a subcontractor.

Sorry, but you guys are thinking no further your hat brim ...

If you truly handle "upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour", you are
basically functioning as a full time traffic cop leaving little, if
any time to function as the CEO of your company which I would think
would be your primary responsibility.

Just an observation.

Lew

I can't speak for Swing, but my calls are usually about 20-30 seconds
unless I am doing a pitch for my product.

Yeah, on a jobsite, lots of the calls are yes/no decisions or supplier
updates. I don't have anywhere near the production levels you two
carry, and I'm very happy for that, but I, too, get calls from the
lumber yard updating delivery schedule, return calls from clients
about a pending time schedule, etc.

As to Swingy, we don't see him in the pictures of his jobsites, so
he's likely behind the camera and Crackberry more often than not.
That's a fulltime job until he springs for a project manager. Can you
say "Cha CHING!"?


--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:54:34 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
scrawled the following:

wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:34:23 -0500, "J. Clarke"
People like you are the reason that such laws are being enacted you know.

Quite possibly. But, I'm not sure if that's intended to be a criticism
or perhaps you're just stating a fact. If it's a criticism, why do you
think so?

It's not the person who once every six months answers a call, it's the
ones who drive around all day with the phone glued to their ear.

And those are the people that I'd like to see affected by this new
law.

... and if they haven't and aren't causing accidents, why does this bother
you so much?

They have and are, Mark. Ask any savvy insurance guy. Also, cops are
notorious drivers, despite the extra high-speed training...if they got
it. It's too expensive for most cities nowadays. Cops are one of the
worst sets of distracted drivers. Check their stats. It's scary.
While you're there, check their shooting stats. That's the scariest
stat I can think of. Their bystander/perp scores are painful.

When vital info is passed over a phone line, the person receiving it
uses all his attention on it, to the near exclusion of everything else
around them. Watch people on the phone some day. Hell, people in
London have put up mattress pads on telephone poles because people
have been bumping into them at a savage rate while texting on their
phones. _Train_ wrecks have been caused by texting, fer chrissakes.
Where have you been?

--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:39:36 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
scrawled the following:

Lee Michaels wrote:
"Swingman" wrote

You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
hire, or as a subcontractor.

sniff

Does that mean you are not going to hire me?

I wouldn't want to work for the kind of guy who has to call me on the cell
phone instead of yelling across the office "Hey, Clarke, get in here".

Lois doesn't think that of Perry.

--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor

On Dec 29, 11:12*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Neil Brooks wrote:
On Dec 29, 4:15*pm, Swingman wrote:
On 12/29/2009 4:19 PM, Matt wrote:

On 12/29/2009 2:50 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:

I certainly consider a cell phone to be mostly an emergency device..
Considering this discussion is prompted by the need/desire to use

... snip



Pardon me, but aren't you two guys being just a tad smug in thinking
that the rest of the world has no other needs than yours?

I'm in the construction business. On an average day I make or take
upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour, all absolutely essential to the
supervising, decision making, scheduling, and coordinating of every
aspect of the millions of parts/actions and decisions that go into a
construction project.

In the first decade of the 21st century my office has increasingly
become the Blackberry cell phone in my hand, allowing me to supervise
and coordinate _every_ step of the process where I happen to be standing.

My business is, in short, based on instant COMMUNICATION, the instancy
of which has always been essential to increasing efficiency and the
ability to supervise ... and a well supervised project is a better built
project.

You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct hire,
or as a subcontractor.

Sorry, but you guys are thinking no further your hat brim ...

You, of course, mean that we're thinking of the society, as a whole,
rather than thinking of YOU, as ... seemingly ... you think we ought.

* Wow, the arrogance of that statement is stunning. *You, of course having
the correct overview of what is right for society, as a whole vs. say,
someone who is making society work by productively contributing to commerce
and production.

Uh ... no. No arrogance at all.

Simply read what he wrote.

It's axiomatic. He expressed his concern in terms of what's best for
HIM.

I raised the issue that there IS a much larger issue: society as a
whole.

I didn't claim to have an answer. I claimed to have a perspective
that serves the interests of the MANY, not the "Me."

And ... best of luck arguing with that.

On 12/30/2009 8:58 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
On Dec 29, 11:12 pm, Mark& wrote:
Neil Brooks wrote:
You, of course, mean that we're thinking of the society, as a whole,
rather than thinking of YOU, as ... seemingly ... you think we ought.

Wow, the arrogance of that statement is stunning. You, of course having
the correct overview of what is right for society, as a whole vs. say,
someone who is making society work by productively contributing to commerce
and production.

Uh ... no. No arrogance at all.

Simply read what he wrote.

It's axiomatic. He expressed his concern in terms of what's best for
HIM.

And of course, he's the only one on the planet who has this point of view.

I raised the issue that there IS a much larger issue: society as a
whole.

Which of course, is comprised of FAR more people holding your point of view
than that of the opposite. No question. It's a given.

I didn't claim to have an answer. I claimed to have a perspective
that serves the interests of the MANY, not the "Me."

I see, you speak for the "people", whereas "the rest of us" (I, and Mark, and
Karl, and Tim, and Robatoy, and ...) all speak for ourselves.

And ... best of luck arguing with that.

Oh right, absolutely NO arrogance there.

--
"Even if your wife is happy but you're unhappy, you're still happier
than you'd be if you were happy and your wife was unhappy." - Red Green
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:56:24 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

There you go throwing facts into the discussion. That should bring
things
to a grinding halt. :-)

Good call on the tests. It would be interesting to find out if the
people
designing the test had a certain desired outcome in mind when designing
those tests.

It's NOT a good call without the actual stats to back it up. Most
every accident of import is thoroughly examined by police. Those are
existing and proven facts. Show me where all this "controlled" bull is
created and I'll reconsider my statement.


One only needs to google in order to read the very tests he spoke of. As he
stated, there are no statistics to refer to in support of the claim of
increased accidents with cell phone use, since the accident rate has been
fairly flat despite the dramatic increase in cell phone use.

He says they are controlled tests, I said they're actual facts from
accidents. Yet, without shred of proof at all, you're prepared to jump
on his "controlled tests" theory.

No - the controlled tests are quite well publicized. They're available to
read (or to recap) on the net. The actual facts from accidents do not show
a rise in accidents comenusrate with the climb in cell phone use.


Obviously, you're biased.

Hell - we all are.

--

-Mike-

"Neil Brooks" wrote in message
...


It's axiomatic. He expressed his concern in terms of what's best for
HIM.

Boy - you don't get it do you? He was using himself as just one example of
how and why people use things like cell phones in necessary and productive
ways, despite the self-righteous proclamations from some, about the vanity
of a society that uses them.

I raised the issue that there IS a much larger issue: society as a
whole.

And he pointed out that said society includes many types of people you
obviously have not considered in your determination of what a society should
need.

I didn't claim to have an answer. I claimed to have a perspective
that serves the interests of the MANY, not the "Me."

You really believe you have the insight into what's better for the many?
And you don't even understand the many? No - you have your own ideas that
you think everyone should follow. That's fine - it's what opinions are all
about, and there's nothing wrong with an opinion. But - an opinion is not
what serves the interests of the many, it only serves the interest of the
individual.

--

-Mike-

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:44:57 -0800, Tim Douglass wrote:

I think the truth is that most people who are
seriously distracted by their cell phone were previously seriously
distracted by something else ...

That might well be the case since I can't imagine a good driver who would
compromise his/her driving by using a cell phone, eating, shaving,
applying makeup, etc..

I think they should all be ticketable offenses.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:01:48 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

Cops should be issued beanbag guns to stop people from committing these
almost-infractions. It'd work better than a ticket, I'll bet. It's not
that rights are being taken away, it's stopping people from being idiots
and causing a danger to others in society.

That idea has a certain appeal, but I hope the cop pulls them over
first :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:14:49 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm in the construction business. On an average day I make or take
upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour, all absolutely essential to
the supervising, decision making, scheduling, and coordinating of
every aspect of the millions of parts/actions and decisions that go
into a construction project.


I missed the original post but the above reprint makes me wonder. How
did we ever build the Empire State Building, Hoover Dam, the Panama
Canal, etc. before the advent of cell phones - or any phones in some
cases?

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Larry Blanchard" wrote:

I missed the original post but the above reprint makes me wonder.
How
did we ever build the Empire State Building, Hoover Dam, the Panama
Canal, etc. before the advent of cell phones - or any phones in
some
cases?

Or buy an item in a retail store, make the most menial decision
without a conference, etc.

Lew

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:11:22 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
Or buy an item in a retail store, make the most menial decision
without a conference, etc.

That reminds me of some guy I watched talking on his cell phone while
he was in the corner store in my building. I knew immediately what he
was looking for ~ the ATM.

THREE TIMES he walked right by it and then had to asked the cashier if
there was an ATM on the premises.

I use a cell phone for the occasional outgoing call only. The rest of
the time it's turned off. As far as I'm concerned, cell phones do more
than just distract people. They sap 50% of one's mental prowess.
That's the only way I can explain some of the idiots I see attempting
to walk and talk on the cell phone at the same time.

And have you heard? The newest affliction is carpal tunnel syndrome of
the arm that people are getting from holding the cell phone to the ear
for too long a period.

On Dec 30, 8:21*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:11:22 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"

Or buy an item in a retail store, make the most menial decision
without a conference, etc.

That reminds me of some guy I watched talking on his cell phone while
he was in the corner store in my building. I knew immediately what he
was looking for ~ the ATM.

THREE TIMES he walked right by it and then had to asked the cashier if
there was an ATM on the premises.

I use a cell phone for the occasional outgoing call only. The rest of
the time it's turned off. As far as I'm concerned, cell phones do more
than just distract people. They sap 50% of one's mental prowess.
That's the only way I can explain some of the idiots I see attempting
to walk and talk on the cell phone at the same time.

And have you heard? The newest affliction is carpal tunnel syndrome of
the arm that people are getting from holding the cell phone to the ear
for too long a period.

One of these days I am going to jam one of those BlueTooth ear-phone
devices in the asshat's ear.

Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Larry
Blanchard wrote:

I missed the original post but the above reprint makes me wonder.
How did we ever build the Empire State Building, Hoover Dam, the
Panama Canal, etc. before the advent of cell phones - or any phones
in some cases?


The dam was ahead of schedule and under budget. The Empire State Building
was built faster than any other tall building of its day. Maybe that was
because they were not interrupted by the damned phone.

Faster communication does not mean better communication.

wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:54:34 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
scrawled the following:

wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:34:23 -0500, "J. Clarke"
People like you are the reason that such laws are being enacted you
know.

Quite possibly. But, I'm not sure if that's intended to be a criticism
or perhaps you're just stating a fact. If it's a criticism, why do you
think so?

It's not the person who once every six months answers a call, it's the
ones who drive around all day with the phone glued to their ear.

And those are the people that I'd like to see affected by this new
law.

... and if they haven't and aren't causing accidents, why does this
bother
you so much?

They have and are, Mark. Ask any savvy insurance guy. Also, cops are
notorious drivers, despite the extra high-speed training...if they got
it. It's too expensive for most cities nowadays. Cops are one of the
worst sets of distracted drivers. Check their stats. It's scary.
While you're there, check their shooting stats. That's the scariest
stat I can think of. Their bystander/perp scores are painful.

When vital info is passed over a phone line, the person receiving it
uses all his attention on it, to the near exclusion of everything else
around them. Watch people on the phone some day. Hell, people in
London have put up mattress pads on telephone poles because people
have been bumping into them at a savage rate while texting on their
phones. _Train_ wrecks have been caused by texting, fer chrissakes.
Where have you been?

I thought the discussion was regarding *talking* on cell phones while
driving. Texting is a completely different animal and falls under the same
area as using a laptop or reading a book or newspaper while driving.





--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Seriously, never munched on a potato chip while driving cross country
huh?

I agree with the rest listed, but some folks pretend that all drivers
must always have both hands on the wheel (at 10 and 2) 100% of the
time and be staring intently at the road maintaining a stoney silence
and never so much as talking to a passenger, and that is taking the
pendulum too far the other way. There should be parameters, but I
don't know exactly how to specifically define them so that some
reasonably fair enforcement can occur.




On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:39:41 -0600, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:44:57 -0800, Tim Douglass wrote:

I think the truth is that most people who are
seriously distracted by their cell phone were previously seriously
distracted by something else ...

That might well be the case since I can't imagine a good driver who would
compromise his/her driving by using a cell phone, eating, shaving,
applying makeup, etc..

I think they should all be ticketable offenses.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Larry
Blanchard wrote:

I missed the original post but the above reprint makes me wonder.
How did we ever build the Empire State Building, Hoover Dam, the
Panama Canal, etc. before the advent of cell phones - or any phones
in some cases?



Slower


The dam was ahead of schedule and under budget. The Empire State
Building was built faster than any other tall building of its day.
Maybe that was because they were not interrupted by the damned phone.

Faster communication does not mean better communication.

Now corrected. You made the comment about slower communication that I
inadvertently clipped. My reply is to that comment. Cell phones do not
necessarily speed a project.

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:39:36 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Lee Michaels wrote:
"Swingman" wrote

You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
hire, or as a subcontractor.

sniff

Does that mean you are not going to hire me?

I wouldn't want to work for the kind of guy who has to call me on the cell
phone instead of yelling across the office "Hey, Clarke, get in here".

God I hate the boss' who are so important that they feel the need to
scream stuff down the hall to subordinates so that everyone else has
to hear him yell down to Clarke 12 times a day...

wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:56:24 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

There you go throwing facts into the discussion. That should bring
things
to a grinding halt. :-)

Good call on the tests. It would be interesting to find out if the
people
designing the test had a certain desired outcome in mind when designing
those tests.

It's NOT a good call without the actual stats to back it up. Most
every accident of import is thoroughly examined by police. Those are
existing and proven facts. Show me where all this "controlled" bull is
created and I'll reconsider my statement.

He says they are controlled tests, I said they're actual facts from
accidents. Yet, without shred of proof at all, you're prepared to jump
on his "controlled tests" theory.

Obviously, you're biased.

Actually, I am not. I very seldom use the cell phone for calls while I'm
driving (less than once or twice a month). I use it as an MP3 player, but
that requires no intervention on my part from the time I leave the parking
lot to the time I pull in the driveway at home.

Frankly, I find it amusing that so many people find cell phone use to be
so important for their social interactions that they are on the phone from
the time they leave their work to the time they get home. What's even more
amusing to me is the amount of personal information people are willing to
share in public during their "private" cell phone chats. I'm betting many
of these are the same people who got all bent out of shape over monitoring
oversees calls to terrorist countries, yet they are willing to share the
most intimate details of their latest medical ailment or inter-familial feud
with the public.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

dhall987 wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:39:36 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Lee Michaels wrote:
"Swingman" wrote

You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
hire, or as a subcontractor.

sniff

Does that mean you are not going to hire me?

I wouldn't want to work for the kind of guy who has to call me on
the cell phone instead of yelling across the office "Hey, Clarke,
get in here".

God I hate the boss' who are so important that they feel the need to
scream stuff down the hall to subordinates so that everyone else has
to hear him yell down to Clarke 12 times a day...

I wouldn't want to work the the guy that has to contact me 12 times a day no
matter the method. I'm considering in our shop banning cell phones during
work hours because they are becoming a distraction.

"Dave Balderstone" wrote:
Of the four of us in the family, Only me and daughter have cell
phones.

I see her bills as it's my name on the account, and of course I see
mine.

Between the two of us? Fewer than 30 calls a month. Fewer than 10
text
messages a quarter.

Horses for courses...

Sounds like it's time to look at "Burn it" phone cards.

Lew

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Mark &
Juanita wrote:

Texting is a completely different animal and falls under the same
area as using a laptop or reading a book or newspaper while driving.


Deb and I (and darling daughter) still talk with disbelieve about the
time we saw a woman driving through the curves of the Canadian Rockies
just east of Field, heading west, with a point and shoot camera to her
eye trying to get a picture of the scenery.


I hear ya. This fourth of July, we were in Dallas and attended a wedding
in Lewisville. On the way back to my Sister-in-Law's house, we happened to
be driving by the Lewisville mall when they were having the fireworks grand
finale. On the interstate, there was a woman in one of those new VW bugs
driving in the middle lane with a camera taking pictures of the fireworks.
She was slowed down to about 35 mph on a 65 mph highway in the flippin'
middle lane. One of those, "Excuse me for staring, it's just that I've
never seen stupid of this magnitude before" moments.


.... snip
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
dhall987 wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:39:36 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Lee Michaels wrote:
"Swingman" wrote

You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
hire, or as a subcontractor.

sniff

Does that mean you are not going to hire me?

I wouldn't want to work for the kind of guy who has to call me on
the cell phone instead of yelling across the office "Hey, Clarke,
get in here".

God I hate the boss' who are so important that they feel the need to
scream stuff down the hall to subordinates so that everyone else has
to hear him yell down to Clarke 12 times a day...

I wouldn't want to work the the guy that has to contact me 12 times a
day no matter the method. I'm considering in our shop banning cell
phones during work hours because they are becoming a distraction.

Amen. When the boss is talking to the same employee 12 times a day then
he's doing something wrong, and that employee is getting precious little
work done due to all the time being wasted on the boss. I remember one
place I worked there was a daily meeting to keep the boss apprised of
progress. The meeting ostensibly was an hour and involved the entire
programming staff. The boss didn't understand the concepts of "secretary"
and "schedule" and "salesman" and so took every call that came into the
business herself--that meeting ended up dragging on for half the day. Every
day. But of course it was all _our_ fault that nothing got done.

On 12/30/2009 11:34 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Now corrected. You made the comment about slower communication that I
inadvertently clipped. My reply is to that comment. Cell phones do not
necessarily speed a project.

Tools do not make a project ... it is the craftsman's use of the tools
that do.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 12/31/2009 3:20 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I wouldn't want to work for the kind of guy who has to call me on
the cell phone instead of yelling across the office "Hey, Clarke,
get in here".

God I hate the boss' who are so important that they feel the need to
scream stuff down the hall to subordinates so that everyone else has
to hear him yell down to Clarke 12 times a day...

I wouldn't want to work the the guy that has to contact me 12 times a
day no matter the method. I'm considering in our shop banning cell
phones during work hours because they are becoming a distraction.

Amen. When the boss is talking to the same employee 12 times a day then
he's doing something wrong, and that employee is getting precious little
work done due to all the time being wasted on the boss. I remember one
place I worked there was a daily meeting to keep the boss apprised of
progress. The meeting ostensibly was an hour and involved the entire
programming staff. The boss didn't understand the concepts of "secretary"
and "schedule" and "salesman" and so took every call that came into the
business herself--that meeting ended up dragging on for half the day. Every
day. But of course it was all _our_ fault that nothing got done.

God save us, but do I pity the daily life of office drones ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Dec 31, 9:06*am, Swingman wrote:


God save us, but do I pity the daily life of office drones ...


Tried it. Failed miserably. Those poor cubicloids don't realize that
they're just going to go from one box to another.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:20:47 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
dhall987 wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:39:36 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Lee Michaels wrote:
"Swingman" wrote

You don't have a cell phone where I can get in touch with you NOW,
during business hours, you don't work for me, either as a direct
hire, or as a subcontractor.

sniff

Does that mean you are not going to hire me?

I wouldn't want to work for the kind of guy who has to call me on
the cell phone instead of yelling across the office "Hey, Clarke,
get in here".

God I hate the boss' who are so important that they feel the need to
scream stuff down the hall to subordinates so that everyone else has
to hear him yell down to Clarke 12 times a day...

I wouldn't want to work the the guy that has to contact me 12 times a
day no matter the method. I'm considering in our shop banning cell
phones during work hours because they are becoming a distraction.

Amen. When the boss is talking to the same employee 12 times a day then
he's doing something wrong, and that employee is getting precious little
work done due to all the time being wasted on the boss. I remember one
place I worked there was a daily meeting to keep the boss apprised of
progress. The meeting ostensibly was an hour and involved the entire
programming staff. The boss didn't understand the concepts of "secretary"
and "schedule" and "salesman" and so took every call that came into the
business herself--that meeting ended up dragging on for half the day. Every
day. But of course it was all _our_ fault that nothing got done.

I don't think I've ever talked to my boss 12 times in one day. Once
is enough. ;-)

I had a similar situation a coupla decades ago. We were all way
behind on a new product so there were daily status meetings. When
asked by one retarded counter of beans why I was constantly behind I
told the dope that it was because I was constantly in meetings
explaining why I was behind. The result? Another daily meeting with
the third-line test manager. This one was *scheduled* for two hours,
of which my part was less than five minutes. Regardless, they wanted
me there for the entire meeting. I just didn't bother to go, so my
boss found someone else to make the muckymuck happy.

Now I work at a small company and in normal times we have two one-hour
meetings a week. One called my the engineering manager and one by the
director of technology. They cover the exact same topics. It's a
waste of at least one of the meetings but if that's what the owner
wants...

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:32:35 -0500, dhall987 wrote:

Seriously, never munched on a potato chip while driving cross country
huh?

If I'm out in the country on a long trip, and there isn't other traffic,
I've been known to sip a bit of coffee which my wife pours out of a
thermos. Only about 1/4 of a cup so it won't spill if I hit a pothole.

Other than that, only sucking on a hard candy to keep from being thirsty
too often.

But in traffic, nothing. No way. I don't even listen to music.

After driving for over 55 years, I've been involved in three minor and
one major accidents, all of which were the other driver's fault. And
that includes time spent on LA freeways and Chicago surface streets, as
well as five years as a full time RVer.

So it works for me. YMMV.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:02:58 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:

I still want my lasers...

I'm not quite that violent, but I've often thought of paintball rifles
mounted behind the grill as standard equipment. Then we could rate other
drivers by the amount of splatter on their cars :-).

Of course, there'd have to be a fine for "indiscriminate paintballing" to
control the wackos :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:41:25 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:01:48 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

Cops should be issued beanbag guns to stop people from committing these
almost-infractions. It'd work better than a ticket, I'll bet. It's not
that rights are being taken away, it's stopping people from being idiots
and causing a danger to others in society.

That idea has a certain appeal, but I hope the cop pulls them over
first :-).

I'm SURE glad I had swallowed that sip of coffee before reading your
post, Lar. vbg

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:47:12 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard
scrawled the following:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:14:49 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm in the construction business. On an average day I make or take
upwards of 20+ CELL phone calls an hour, all absolutely essential to
the supervising, decision making, scheduling, and coordinating of
every aspect of the millions of parts/actions and decisions that go
into a construction project.


I missed the original post but the above reprint makes me wonder. How
did we ever build the Empire State Building, Hoover Dam, the Panama
Canal, etc. before the advent of cell phones - or any phones in some
cases?

Yeah. I think I've used 200 minutes on my cell since I bought it 3
years ago, and a third of that was trying to erase text messages and
figure out the voice mail setup. It's an old Nokia candy bar. No
camera, no Internet, no touchscreen, no games, no nuttin'.

That's 5.55 minutes per MONTH. Beat that!

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?