SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: engineer who wrote (125801)12/2/2002 1:06:15 AM
From: Jon Koplik  Respond to of 152472
 
NYT -- Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost.

December 2, 2002

Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 12:20 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Researchers say increased cell phone use
has led to more crashes caused by drivers on the phone, but
the value people place on being able to call from the road
roughly equals the accidents' cost.

Opponents of banning cell phone usage by drivers have cited
studies that showed the benefit of car calls outweighed the
toll from such accidents -- medical bills and property
damage, for example.

Harvard researchers, drawing on previous research involving
cell phones and government figures for auto accidents, says
in a study there is a growing public health risk from the
reliance on cell phones in cars. The number of cell phone
subscribers has grown from 94 million in 2000 to more than
128 million.

Data on the number of crashes caused by cell phones is
incomplete, said the study being released Monday by the
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. But it suggested that
drivers talking on their phones are responsible for about 6
percent of U.S. auto accidents each year, killing an
estimated 2,600 people and injuring 330,000 others.

The figure was reached using current cell phone usage
estimates to update a 1997 study. That study looked at
phone records of Canadian drivers involved in crashes to
see if they were making calls at the time.

The cell phone industry found fault with the projections
and their connection to wireless phones.

``It's sort of assumptions built on assumptions,'' said
Kimberly Kuo, spokeswoman for the Cellular
Telecommunications & Internet Association. ``There are not
a lot of substantial findings that allow us to make policy
conclusions.''

The Harvard researchers also updated previous studies on
the economic costs associated with accidents caused by cell
phones, such as medical bills and loss of life. The costs
added up to an estimated $43 billion a year -- about the
same as the researchers arrived at for the value that cell
phone owners put on their phones.

Joshua Cohen, lead author of the study, said an individual
has a small risk of being in an accident caused by a driver
who is talking on the phone, but an overall public health
issue exists nonetheless. At the same time, he urged
careful consideration when deciding whether to ban cell
phone usage.

``People place a value on these calls, so just wiping out
the phone calls and saying we are going to ban them, that's
not something that should be taken lightly,'' he said.

Cell phone owners cited benefits such as security and peace
of mind for instant communication, increased productivity,
privacy and quicker crime and accident reporting.

New York state banned driver cell phone use for drivers use
in June 2001. Six other states have some regulation of
in-vehicle use of cell phones, ranging from a
one-hand-on-the-steering-wheel rule to prohibiting school
bus drivers from using a phone.

Felix Ortiz, a New York assemblyman who fought for six
years to pass the ban, is helping lawmakers elsewhere write
similar legislation.

``Whether they say I'm crazy or they harass me, you know
what? I think I am doing the right thing for the public
safety and for the quality of life,'' he said.

The Harvard study found that a cell phone user has about a
13 chances in 1 million of being killed in an accident
while making a call; that compares with 49 in 1 million for
someone driving without a seat belt.

Other drivers and pedestrians have about four chances in 1
million of dying in an accident caused by a cell phone
user, according to the study. Their chance of being killed
by a drunken driver is more than four times as high -- 18
in a million.

The statistics are based on an average cell phone owner
using 600 minutes a year.

Harvard's statistics update a center study released two
years ago that estimated the chance of being killed while
driving and talking on a cell phone were about six in a
million and 1.5 in a million for other people on the road.

The original study was financed by the center and a grant
from AT&T. The second phase was paid for solely by the
center, which is supported by money from government,
academia and individuals and private companies, including
some automakers and insurers.

The original study found that the costs saved by a cell
phone ban would be $2 billion, compared with about $25
billion in benefits lost, meaning a cell phone ban would
have a loss to society of about $23 billion.

Cohen said the figures changed because more people are
using cell phones, and they have better estimates of
accidents caused by cell phone use, including those not
reported to authorities.

^------

On the Net: Harvard Center for Risk Analysis:

hcra.harvard.edu

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company.



To: engineer who wrote (125801)12/2/2002 1:17:26 AM
From: Jon Koplik  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 152472
 
Off topic : NYT -- New Design Coming for (U.S.) Paper Currency.

December 1, 2002

New Design Coming for Paper Currency

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 2:01 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The last time Andrew Jackson got a
makeover, he ended up with a big head, slightly off-center.
This time, he will get a little color.

The most noticeable features of the last redesign of U.S.
currency -- the oversized, off-center portraits -- produced
all kinds of derisive nicknames: funny money, Monopoly
money, cartoon money.

Color is coming, and government money makers are hoping for
a warmer reception for the changes. The new $20, with its
public unveiling set for the spring, is supposed to be in
circulation as early as next fall.

Jackson is first in line for a makeover. After the new $20
makes its debut, the new $50 (Ulysses S. Grant) and the
$100s (Benjamin Franklin) will follow in within 18 months.

In the works is a five-year effort, costing up to $53
million, to educate people about the changes. An important
goal is to help distinguish between genuine greenbacks and
bogus bills.

``If we learned anything from the issuance of the $20 in
1998, it is that things that we get used to here, because
we see it and work on it, when it is first in the hands of
the public it is seen as dramatic,'' said Thomas Ferguson,
director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
``Suddenly, we are asking them to accept something else.''

Portrait engraver Thomas Hipschen, who is working on the
current redesign, remembers spending countless hours during
the last makeover meticulously cutting into steel by hand
the portraits of Jackson, Franklin and Grant for the new
bills.

Relieved at first when the work was done, he then worried
about the public reaction to the changes.

``You worry about what the press is going to do,'' he said.
``I have an old clipping file about all the horrible things
they said about the portraits that I engraved. Some fun
things, too. ``

Everyone is a critic.

``Well, you are not going to please everybody. This is a
situation where everybody is going to weigh in on it,''
Hipschen said. ``You really have to have a thick skin, I
think. But I don't really take it to heart that much. When
my artist friends come back and say, `What were you
thinking?' -- that kind of hurts to the quick. But the
general population, they are going to get on the bandwagon,
one way or the other, and I'm just going to have to live
with it.''

To give the new bills color, the bureau has had to buy five
printing presses, to operate in Washington and at a bureau
facility in Fort Worth, Texas. To run the new presses,
Ferguson said, some existing workers are getting trained,
and a few new people have been hired. The Fort Worth plant
is being expanded, providing room for the new presses and
space for public tours, he said.

Adding color to the notes is a challenge.

``It is new,
and anything that is new provides another opportunity to do
well -- or not,'' Ferguson said. ``There can be color
variations that we wouldn't get with a single color ink,
like when we use black or green. So there are additional
inspection requirements.''

Green and black ink is now used on neutral-colored paper.
With the makeover, color tints will be added in the neutral
areas of the note. Ferguson would not say which colors will
be used, but said they will vary by denomination.

Money makers want the new notes to have an American look
and feel, and not be confused with, for instance, the
colorful euro, the paper currency of the European Union.

``When we look at something as fundamentally revolutionary
as adding color, going from a currency system that has been
monochromatic certainly for all of our lives, our parents'
lives, ... we want to do it in a responsible way that
recognizes that tradition,'' Ferguson said. ``So that when
people around the world see that first new U.S. $20, they
will know it as a U.S. $20.''

Recent changes in paper money design have been driven by
the desire to thwart high-tech counterfeiters. Over the
years, counterfeiters have graduated from offset printing
to increasingly sophisticated color copiers, computer
scanners, color ink jet printers and publishing-grade
software, all readily available.

Some anti-counterfeiting features included in the last
redesign will be retained, the bureau said. They include
watermarks that are visible when held up to a light;
embedded security threads that glow a color when exposed to
an ultraviolet light; and minute images, visible with a
magnifying glass, known as microprinting.

The new notes may sport more distinct color-shifting ink.
In the last redesign, color-shifting ink that looks green
when viewed straight on but black at an angle was used in a
spot on some notes.

Even after the greenbacks' last makeover, which started
with a revamped Franklin on the $100 in 1996 and ended with
new $5s and $10s in 2000, some collectors still complained
that U.S. currency is boring.

Ferguson has a different take.

``Our notes now, in the
highest sense of the word, are utilitarian,'' he said.
``U.S. currency is a continuum of design, versus a
revolution of design.''

Under the redesign, the size of the notes will not change
and the same faces will appear on the same bills. But the
portraits and buildings may be presented differently.

Hipschen said if he were king for a day, he would put Duke
Ellington on one of the bills, would replace all the
portraits with different American figures and would make
notes longer as they increase in denomination.

``We could have gone where no man had gone before,'' he
joked.

^------

On the Net: Bureau of Engraving and Printing:

bep.treas.gov

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company.