Hah, no offense taken. I just haven't kept up with these particular issues. Generally I'm more focused on watching the sad quality decline that is playing out in American news media right now, and the continued (perhaps increasing?) lack of unbiased veracity on nearly every channel.
From my reading of them, it seems Obama is no better than Bush on this stuff, and has essentially gone back on his word to be better. However, to me, it doesn't look like "more secrecy... than Bush" (as you said) -- merely the same level. Perhaps I am not interpreting it correctly.
There are more likely situations... e.g. suing Facebook or Google for privacy violations... or Toyota for automotive failure... oil companies for spills...
As far as the potential applications, Clanet waxes futuristic. "I can imagine [designing] a car. The faster it goes, the more it deforms and the less friction it has with surrounding air, so it can go even faster. It would be a fantastic car."
A car that changes its shape as it drives? Getting shorter, even? "Ouch, slow down, you hit my head!"
Automobile safety experts would have a field day with that.
Wow. That's perfectly vague and impressive sounding despite not really saying anything meaningful.
I think it clearly says "this thing is more than merely shiny and hip", no? If so, then the sentence worked fine. I don't need to get into the nitty-gritty details of my daily life and how specifically helpful I find these devices; I can just describe it as being helpful and useful in ways other things are not.
Actually, I said it "helps me do useful stuff in ways I couldn't before." The iPhone and iPad let me do the same stuff (not new) I could do before on laptops (or possibly other tablets; I've limited experience there) but it's much more portable and flexible than those items, which means I can be more flexible with where and how I get my info. This has direct impact on how/where I spend my time.
We can argue about other tablets being just as useful (or more useful) but I don't need any functionality beyond what I have now. (though the recent ruling that legalizes jailbreaking may open up new doors...)
Facebook is skewed -- perhaps not toward elites, but I wouldn't call it representative of the nation. For example, the study report (linked below) notes that they only used data from people aged 13-49. Alternatively, I suspect you are correct that "if anything, the study is biased towards schmucks."
Perhaps you should try reading the original blog post...
I did. See, I linked to it before! I've even read the actual report.
So no, a homeless man would not qualify as a "selfish elite" in this study unless he was a member of several classes considered "elite". He could, however, be selfish.
The reported information is still all about self-identified psychographics, which is a really lousy foundation upon which to build conclusions. They need to crosstabulate this with some hardcore demographics before the results are useful. You know, like income levels, education, etc.
But wait! The actual report says: "The upper and upper-middle classes are clearly
more likely to be iPad Owners. People with
household incomes of over $200,000 are 4 times
more likely, those earning $100,000-$199,999 are
over 2 times more likely, and earners in the
$75,000-$99,000 bracket are 32% more likely.
This appears to be more a matter of affordability
than class taste, however, as people earning less
than $25,000 are 50% more likely to wish they
could afford an iPad, and those in the $25,000-
$49,999 bracket are also more likely to wish they
could afford one."
Ah, good, demographics. We can build real conclusions on demographics! And the conclusion is that... people with more money are more likely to buy expensive gadgets.
You are spreading FUD and you should STFU because without actually reading anything about the study you are capable only of spewing total bullshit.
I (heart) you too! Next time I promise to not actually read the study first. I'll also set aside 20+ years of working in marketing and consumer research... and that college education in statistics... and common sense.
My thought exactly. Maybe only elitist snobs took the survey? In fact, according to the study author, the surveys were taken via Facebook, which I would expect already has a bias to it. (He also mispells the name of a another stat firm, Forrester.)
Secondly, they assume "selfish elites" based on people self-identifying themselves as "interested in business and finance". This is a purely psychographic correlation. They have made ZERO correlation to income levels or other economic demographics. This study is absolutely useless as a result: a homeless man interested in business and finance would still qualify as a "selfish elite" under these methods.
Media Matters is a media watchdog that is certainly politically motivated but frequently includes actual facts in their analysis. So it's a valid reference, and we can hope that readers will be intelligent enough to make up their own minds. I'll be nonpartisan and note that Newsbusters does the same thing, just from the other end of America's political spectrum.
Given the possible political angle, it is interesting to see what the different sides are saying about Righthaven.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a Javascript app for "This site has been Slashdotted"?
I do not know how much is a good thing, a town full of listening machine translation, there is a great place. You ;)
Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking shurikens on this motherfucking plane!
Hah, no offense taken. I just haven't kept up with these particular issues. Generally I'm more focused on watching the sad quality decline that is playing out in American news media right now, and the continued (perhaps increasing?) lack of unbiased veracity on nearly every channel.
Thanks again ... and here's another link in a similar vein.
Thank you, sincerely, for the links.
From my reading of them, it seems Obama is no better than Bush on this stuff, and has essentially gone back on his word to be better. However, to me, it doesn't look like "more secrecy... than Bush" (as you said) -- merely the same level. Perhaps I am not interpreting it correctly.
Obama promised openness and accountability. He delivered more secrecy and persecution of whistleblowers than Bush. (emphasis added)
I missed that news. Citation?
I wish I had mod points. Thank you, sir.
And they also found that the server was packing several blades...
Pylons typically have four large legs widely spaced apart ... They also typically have 6 arms ...
Ah, so we should fashion them after a four-legged Buddha? Although, "Centaur Buddha" sounds more like a 90s alt-punk band...
There are more likely situations... e.g. suing Facebook or Google for privacy violations... or Toyota for automotive failure... oil companies for spills...
Wait... they're suing anonymous people for things they haven't done yet? Who exactly is being served the suit?
They're not incompetent! This bill is the epitome of democracy: it's a Congressional Mad Lib, where The People get to write The Bill.
The rest of the bill is entirely made up of adjectives, expletives, and the names of various Congressional representatives. Organize them at will.
If I had mod points, I'd mark you as an overrated troll (because, of course, you're on topic!).
Yes, if you jailbreak the phone, its antenna stops working.
No, you're just jailbreaking it wrong... try the right hand...
Physics is pretty cool.
I liked this quote from the article:
A car that changes its shape as it drives? Getting shorter, even? "Ouch, slow down, you hit my head!"
Automobile safety experts would have a field day with that.
Well, I do remember this...
I'll have to try that, thanks.
Wow. That's perfectly vague and impressive sounding despite not really saying anything meaningful.
I think it clearly says "this thing is more than merely shiny and hip", no? If so, then the sentence worked fine. I don't need to get into the nitty-gritty details of my daily life and how specifically helpful I find these devices; I can just describe it as being helpful and useful in ways other things are not.
Or is that too vague?
Actually, I said it "helps me do useful stuff in ways I couldn't before." The iPhone and iPad let me do the same stuff (not new) I could do before on laptops (or possibly other tablets; I've limited experience there) but it's much more portable and flexible than those items, which means I can be more flexible with where and how I get my info. This has direct impact on how/where I spend my time.
We can argue about other tablets being just as useful (or more useful) but I don't need any functionality beyond what I have now. (though the recent ruling that legalizes jailbreaking may open up new doors...)
Facebook is skewed -- perhaps not toward elites, but I wouldn't call it representative of the nation. For example, the study report (linked below) notes that they only used data from people aged 13-49. Alternatively, I suspect you are correct that "if anything, the study is biased towards schmucks."
Perhaps you should try reading the original blog post...
I did. See, I linked to it before! I've even read the actual report.
So no, a homeless man would not qualify as a "selfish elite" in this study unless he was a member of several classes considered "elite". He could, however, be selfish.
The reported information is still all about self-identified psychographics, which is a really lousy foundation upon which to build conclusions. They need to crosstabulate this with some hardcore demographics before the results are useful. You know, like income levels, education, etc.
But wait! The actual report says: "The upper and upper-middle classes are clearly more likely to be iPad Owners. People with household incomes of over $200,000 are 4 times more likely, those earning $100,000-$199,999 are over 2 times more likely, and earners in the $75,000-$99,000 bracket are 32% more likely. This appears to be more a matter of affordability than class taste, however, as people earning less than $25,000 are 50% more likely to wish they could afford an iPad, and those in the $25,000- $49,999 bracket are also more likely to wish they could afford one."
Ah, good, demographics. We can build real conclusions on demographics! And the conclusion is that... people with more money are more likely to buy expensive gadgets.
You are spreading FUD and you should STFU because without actually reading anything about the study you are capable only of spewing total bullshit.
I (heart) you too! Next time I promise to not actually read the study first. I'll also set aside 20+ years of working in marketing and consumer research... and that college education in statistics... and common sense.
WHOOOSH.
Well yeah, considering that, for most of them (judging by the iPhone users and other macfans), that consists of "it's shiny and makes me look hip."
No, it's shiny and makes me look hip and it actually helps me do useful stuff in ways I couldn't before.
My thought exactly. Maybe only elitist snobs took the survey? In fact, according to the study author, the surveys were taken via Facebook, which I would expect already has a bias to it. (He also mispells the name of a another stat firm, Forrester.)
Secondly, they assume "selfish elites" based on people self-identifying themselves as "interested in business and finance". This is a purely psychographic correlation. They have made ZERO correlation to income levels or other economic demographics. This study is absolutely useless as a result: a homeless man interested in business and finance would still qualify as a "selfish elite" under these methods.
Media Matters is a media watchdog that is certainly politically motivated but frequently includes actual facts in their analysis. So it's a valid reference, and we can hope that readers will be intelligent enough to make up their own minds. I'll be nonpartisan and note that Newsbusters does the same thing, just from the other end of America's political spectrum.
Given the possible political angle, it is interesting to see what the different sides are saying about Righthaven.