They have never improved significantly, in fact I find that their quality has been compromised, especially with their new series with their bad reception and low battery life.

And you thought that was enough? The logo resurrected inside my own house on a modem that my internet provider had given me in exchange for an old one to promise better service. They think they can succeed by teaming with internet providers after blowing it in the cell phone industry?

Since then the unit has been resetting on its own from once a month up to 3 times in 10 minutes. I am not exaggerating. That modem was a significant source of anger, and now the warrantee (???) is expired because i was suppose to exchange it withing a year. Well with all the support calls they should have suggested it to me. For a while I thought it may have been our dedicated cable or the Linksys wireless router that is loved by all, causing my misery. Even by removing all the possible interference it would still fail.

A faulty object replacing a magnificent piece of technology, the Terayon modem, must be under their responsibility. I may have had an inferior transfer rate with the previous one, but it had NEVER failed.

but i do know that i personally have a higher percentage of traffic blunders when distracted. so far i haven't killed anyone.

If 8% of all drivers on the road were drunk, wouldn't we see an ENORMOUS increase in fatal accidents?

Just as an example, let's say that you use a cell phone in your car for an average of 10 minutes a week, and for those ten minutes you are driving with the equivalent of a BAC of .08%, just barely legally drunk.

Over a lifetime, how many accidents will that produce? 1? And of those accidents, what percent are fatal? 2.5%?

The result wouldn't be enough to make a big difference in the stats.

I think the only way to really judge whether cell phone use affects driving ability is by testing drivers in the act, and I think that's what the good studies are doing. Stuff like this always takes a long time to build a consensus, and of course, there is big money on the other side. If there is good science that can show that this thesis is BS, Motorola and Nokia will be able to fund it. So I trust the eventual outcome.

And right now, the consensus seems to be headed in the direction I called here, which is that you shouldn't talk on the phone while driving.

The main reason there are not more accidents is that "92 percent of drivers are not on a cell phone and are compensating for drivers on cell phones," he adds.

i'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean, but it sounds like BS.

and fatalities per mile, fatalities per registered car and fatalities per registered driver have all been falling steadily over the past 10 years (just as cell phone adoption has been rising).

ok, cars have more airbags now than they did 10 years ago. are people drinking and driving less? beats me, but i'm willing to guess that that number hasn't changed very much (not nearly as much as the number of drivers talking while driving).

so here are the trends we're dealing with:

car safety (improving steadily)*
drunk driving (probably not changing much)
cell phone use (skyrocketing)
fatal accidents (declining steadily)

i'm no freakonomist but i don't see how you could look at that and say that talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as driving drunk. are all the phone-related accidents are minor?

*cars probably aren't even safer considering the percentage of suv's on the road now compared to 10 years ago.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-06/uou-doc062306.php

So motorola, no, we shouldn't be using your nifty new headset in the coffe shop, and we shouldn't be using it in the car.

In your cube, fine.