Deggesty The evidence in hand does not prove that the engineer used his cell phone--nor does it prove that he did not use it. Likewise, a verdict of "not guilty" simply is the result of insufficient evidence to prove guilt; it does not prove innocence, so the verdict cannot be "innocent."
The evidence in hand does not prove that the engineer used his cell phone--nor does it prove that he did not use it.
Likewise, a verdict of "not guilty" simply is the result of insufficient evidence to prove guilt; it does not prove innocence, so the verdict cannot be "innocent."
Johnny
schlimmSome would call it (obsessive) compulsive or anankastic style.
Thanks schlimm. Had to look that up but I learned a new word today. Never studied Greek. Didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night either.
Norm
Norm48327 dehusman Euclid Even the use of the word “indicate” indicates a bit of backpedaling on the part of the NTSB No its technically correct for the NTSB to use that wording because that is really the only thing they can say based on the evidence they have. They look at data, they can only say what the data has told them. If you read past investigations they use similar wording. The only reason it would be an issue is if you are wanting to create a conspiracy theory. For the other 99.99% of us, what they said was pretty clear. Don't waste your breath Dave. Bucky believes that only what he says is truth and rebukes your opinion merely to keep his post count up. Some call that "trolling".
dehusman Euclid Even the use of the word “indicate” indicates a bit of backpedaling on the part of the NTSB No its technically correct for the NTSB to use that wording because that is really the only thing they can say based on the evidence they have. They look at data, they can only say what the data has told them. If you read past investigations they use similar wording. The only reason it would be an issue is if you are wanting to create a conspiracy theory. For the other 99.99% of us, what they said was pretty clear.
Euclid Even the use of the word “indicate” indicates a bit of backpedaling on the part of the NTSB
No its technically correct for the NTSB to use that wording because that is really the only thing they can say based on the evidence they have.
They look at data, they can only say what the data has told them.
If you read past investigations they use similar wording.
The only reason it would be an issue is if you are wanting to create a conspiracy theory. For the other 99.99% of us, what they said was pretty clear.
Don't waste your breath Dave. Bucky believes that only what he says is truth and rebukes your opinion merely to keep his post count up. Some call that "trolling".
Some would call it (obsessive) compulsive or anankastic style.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
oltmannd Apps can also automatically download and update without any intervention.
On an iPhone this feature is user selectable and can be disabled for all apps or individual apps.
Paul of Covington Euclid “Does not indicate” and “indicates no” are NOT two ways of saying the same thing Euclid, we agree on the meaning of these phrases, but this is as good as you are going to get. How can you prove a negative? All you can do is look for any indication that something happened, and if you find none, then you have to conclude that it didn't. Their use of "...does not indicate..." is perfectly appropriate.
Euclid “Does not indicate” and “indicates no” are NOT two ways of saying the same thing
Euclid, we agree on the meaning of these phrases, but this is as good as you are going to get. How can you prove a negative? All you can do is look for any indication that something happened, and if you find none, then you have to conclude that it didn't. Their use of "...does not indicate..." is perfectly appropriate.
Paul,
Yes it is perfectly appropriate for as far as it goes. The only problem is that we don't know how far that is.
Euclid“Does not indicate” and “indicates no” are NOT two ways of saying the same thing
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
tree68I could be wrong, but I believe that if you place your phone in "airplane mode," the radio portion is shut off (ie, no phone or data will move). This does, however, allow you to use apps which don't use a data or phone connection (games, book readers, etc.).
Yes. All the radios are off in "airplane mode" - cell and Wifi. However, as long as the phone is on and with the radios left on, there will be all sorts of data traffic between the phone and local cell tower with data going to and from apps that you've given permission. For example, I believe Google maps gets data from your phone regularly about your speed and position - even when you are not using the map. Apps can also automatically download and update without any intervention.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
EuclidThat does not seem very simple. If the data did not indicate that the phone was not being used, what did indicate that the phone was not being used?
Once you have all the data and there is none consistent with active phone use at th time of interest, You conclude "there is no indication of the phone being used".
Except to pound nails.
I could be wrong, but I believe that if you place your phone in "airplane mode," the radio portion is shut off (ie, no phone or data will move).
This does, however, allow you to use apps which don't use a data or phone connection (games, book readers, etc.).
And this would likely be the bone of contention.
On a practical note, it would require a certain presence of mind to take the phone off "airplane mode" and secure it properly after a wreck such as occured. I would opine that if the "loss of memory" is real, and given that the wreck did occur, that the engineer probably wouldn't have had said presence of mind.
Which is why I'm sure that the location and state of the phone immediately after the wreck are important considerations.
jeffhergert ...they are almost pushing TE&Y to go to having their rules, timetables, spcl instructions, etc on an electronic device.
I'll stick with paper, too. I would opine, however, that we may see the day when all such documents are stored on a computer on the locomotive, where they can be updated electronically and automatically. Employees may be required to log in either at a fixed location (crew change point) or on the locomotive and somehow verify that they are on duty and familiar with any changes.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
My smart phone has a calculator App. It has a camera and picture gallery, a clock including stop watch. A memo pad and calendar. There are a few others where you (I think, I don't use them) can download things and view them later without being connected. Maybe these aren't really apps, but on my phone's screen it has them listed as such.
Under the rules that govern me, all of the above are not allowed in the controlling cab of a locomotive, whether stopped or moving, whether safety-sensitive duties are being performed by another crewmember. (The only allowed use of viewing stored media on an electronic device is to view rules, special instructions, timetables, etc.) Even though most new phones can do so much, when on duty about the only thing it can be used for is voice communication when stopped and no other safety sensitive duties are going on. Otherwise the phone has to be turned off and stowed. I think they think he was using his phone in this manner. (Maybe he had written himself a reminder, "slow down for curve" and was looking it up.)
The one thing that get's me, unrelated to this accident maybe, is that with all the DON'T DO IT! being put out about electronic devices, they are almost pushing TE&Y to go to having their rules, timetables, spcl instructions, etc on an electronic device. Well, this dinosaur prefers paper. Sure it's a pain with all the paperwork needed, but I don't have to worry about being without because a battery or the device itself goes belly up.
Jeff
oltmannd Euclid oltmannd Euclid Actually, the NTSB has not said that their investigation does indicate that the engineer was not using his cell phone. They have said that their investigation does not indicate that he was using his cell phone. That is a huge difference with two entirely different meanings. What that means is he wasn't overtly using the voice or data network from his phone. Smart phones automatically use the data network some on their own, receiving push notifications, update apps, etc. You can never rule out that he was using his phone for hammering nails or playing music so he could dance in the cab. That is not what I am referring to when I say there is a big difference in the two positions. The first position affirms that the engineer was NOT using his cell phone. If it were subsequently proven otherwise, then it shows that the NTSB analysis was defective. The second position merely affirms that the analysis finds no evidence of cell phone use. If that is subsequently proven otherwise, then it shows that NTSB analysis was incomplete. BIG difference. The NTSB has chosen their words very carefully to allow for the fact that they have not proven that there was no improper cell phone use. The NTSB placed themselves into a predicament where they needed to answer a question within a certain time limit even though they have unlimited time. The answer they gave on the cell phone could be the right answer, or it could be the answer needed to get them out of their predicament. We'll never know. If the data packets were consistent with a phone operating passively, then one would conclude that the data didn't indicate the phone wasn't being used to phone, text, or otherwise actively interact. It's that simple.
Euclid oltmannd Euclid Actually, the NTSB has not said that their investigation does indicate that the engineer was not using his cell phone. They have said that their investigation does not indicate that he was using his cell phone. That is a huge difference with two entirely different meanings. What that means is he wasn't overtly using the voice or data network from his phone. Smart phones automatically use the data network some on their own, receiving push notifications, update apps, etc. You can never rule out that he was using his phone for hammering nails or playing music so he could dance in the cab. That is not what I am referring to when I say there is a big difference in the two positions. The first position affirms that the engineer was NOT using his cell phone. If it were subsequently proven otherwise, then it shows that the NTSB analysis was defective. The second position merely affirms that the analysis finds no evidence of cell phone use. If that is subsequently proven otherwise, then it shows that NTSB analysis was incomplete. BIG difference. The NTSB has chosen their words very carefully to allow for the fact that they have not proven that there was no improper cell phone use. The NTSB placed themselves into a predicament where they needed to answer a question within a certain time limit even though they have unlimited time. The answer they gave on the cell phone could be the right answer, or it could be the answer needed to get them out of their predicament. We'll never know.
oltmannd Euclid Actually, the NTSB has not said that their investigation does indicate that the engineer was not using his cell phone. They have said that their investigation does not indicate that he was using his cell phone. That is a huge difference with two entirely different meanings. What that means is he wasn't overtly using the voice or data network from his phone. Smart phones automatically use the data network some on their own, receiving push notifications, update apps, etc. You can never rule out that he was using his phone for hammering nails or playing music so he could dance in the cab.
Euclid Actually, the NTSB has not said that their investigation does indicate that the engineer was not using his cell phone. They have said that their investigation does not indicate that he was using his cell phone. That is a huge difference with two entirely different meanings.
What that means is he wasn't overtly using the voice or data network from his phone. Smart phones automatically use the data network some on their own, receiving push notifications, update apps, etc.
You can never rule out that he was using his phone for hammering nails or playing music so he could dance in the cab.
If the data packets were consistent with a phone operating passively, then one would conclude that the data didn't indicate the phone wasn't being used to phone, text, or otherwise actively interact.
It's that simple.
Yes. There is never "proof" of anything in the real world. Just more or less likely.
There is no proof that the derailment even happened at all.
They had to have looked at the traffic going to and from that cell phone - not the data itself - nobody stores that - just the data packet headers/footers. If the data packets were consistent with a phone operating passively, then one would conclude that the data didn't indicate the phone wasn't being used to phone, text, or otherwise actively interact.
Could he have been using an app locally? Not likely. Most need a data connection to deliver some info to the app or back to Apple/Google. Could he have been hammering nails with it? More likely than any other useage scenario going undetected.
EuclidEven the use of the word “indicate” indicates a bit of backpedaling on the part of the NTSB
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
gardendance Please allow me to add my vote to "does not indicate" and "indicates no" mean two different things. Unfortunately many people do not understand the English language, for example I wonder how passengers get off trains when the crew announces "all doors will not open", which is different from "not all doors will open".
Please allow me to add my vote to "does not indicate" and "indicates no" mean two different things. Unfortunately many people do not understand the English language, for example I wonder how passengers get off trains when the crew announces "all doors will not open", which is different from "not all doors will open".
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
dehusman ricktrains4824 Sorry, but to quote Judge Judy, if you can't show it, you can't prove it, so it does not exsist. Sorry, but unless you can provide a link that shows where Judge Judy said that, she didn't say it and your quote doesn't exist. 8-)
ricktrains4824 Sorry, but to quote Judge Judy, if you can't show it, you can't prove it, so it does not exsist.
Sorry, but unless you can provide a link that shows where Judge Judy said that, she didn't say it and your quote doesn't exist. 8-)
I was wondering if anyone would catch onto that.... Touché.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
wanswheel NTSB has not credited Bostian with stowing his cellphone. His lawyer has. http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20150610.aspx http://www.keller-goggin.com/members.html
You linked only to a law firm. Where is a lawyer's statement about stowing the phone?
Well, so much for people's understanding of the English Language.
"Yes, but..."
I have to agree with Euclid that “does not indicate cell phone use,” and “does indicate no cell phone use.” do not mean exactly the same thing, but how can you absolutely prove a negative? How can you demand proof that he did not use his cellphone? All you can do is try to find evidence to the contrary, and they are saying that they found none. Euclid sounds like a lawyer desperately trying to find any little nuance, any little slip-up to try and instill doubt in a jury's mind.
zugmannYeah, but it is Bucky. He's been doing this for years, and will keep on doing it.
Sounds like a psychological problem.
Norm48327CORRECTION: The discussion would be more productive if you would cease hammering on the same thing over and over ad infinitum.
Yeah, but it is Bucky. He's been doing this for years, and will keep on doing it.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Actually, I am not sure where people get the idea that the NTSB is trying to tar Bostian. I think they are bending over backwards to not blame him. They had to deal with the cell phone issue because that is foremost in the mind of the public with these types of accidents. So they had to deal with it and assure us that no cell phone use occurred.
I do not think that cell phone use by Bostian played any role in the crash. But I also do not believe that the NTSB has proven that. I think they had to get off the hot seat, so they announced a conclusion. Then they left the door open in case they find otherwise in the future.
It is NOT two different ways of saying the same thing.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.