I was under the impression it was VoIP and no minutes were billed on your cell phone. If minutes are indeed billed for talk time then I am mistaken and sorry for my ignorance.
I guess you are right, the compensation is not zero but you can effectively use unlimited minutes on the network for a fraction of the cost it takes AT&T to provide those minutes. Phone companies don't have the bandwidth to provide all their customers tons of talking time, that is why they sell minutes. By charging for minutes they can estimate usage as well as pay for required upgrade if usage nears capacity. Take that ability away from them and you will create a mess of unreliable and over utilized networks because of unpredictability of usage and inability to pay for upgrades.
Also, I don't believe one bit that it uses zero bandwidth. Unless I am having a huge brain fart, all the research I have done says that it does indeed use bandwidth which is also intuitive. You can't transmit voice without using bandwidth.
What I was saying, and apparently you missed it, is that the bandwidth needs to be paid for by someone. In this case both you and Google are buying the bandwidth and effectively leasing a slice of the network to carry out these communications. The iPhone app does not have these characteristics.
Fine, let me come over and use your shower and all the water I want just because it's in the interest of keeping things fair.
It costs AT&T money to provide that bandwidth. Saying they should have no right to how much of it and how it is used is about the same as saying electricity companies, water companies and gas companies should let you take as much electricity, water and gas as you want as long as you are paying a flat monthly fee.
This isn't about net neutrality, it's about a company's need to be compensated for the service it provides. If we were billed on a per kb usage then it would be different.
No one seems to get that the application does nothing without a phone and network. Until Google has their own network that they are willing to give these services out on I would say it is legitimate for AT&T to not want to deal with all the bandwidth that this app would use. The list is awesome and I would love to have it but you have to be reasonable. You can't expect a company to take a huge hit on bandwidth with zero compensation from the customer. As someone who doesn't use tons of bandwidth, I want to be charged a fair rate and not have it inflated because every dipshit wants to use VoIP with a million features rather than placing a phone call on their phone. Contrary to everyone's belief bandwidth costs money and apps like this, if everyone was using them, would eat up most of it. Sure phone companies are screwing us, but have a little bit of knowledge of what you are asking the phone company to offer for free before demanding it. If they go bankrupt you won't be able to use the app anymore anyway or the rates for a standard plan are going to skyrocket even further so they can cover all these apps.
Well if you want to play with your wii alone. Sure. You are right. But if you buy what you are going to need at some point, what you are going to go out and buy the first time friends/family come over to play then you are wrong. Four remotes, four nunchuks, probably at least one classic controller, rechargeable batteries if you want, a GOOD game or two. Add all that up and it will be more than the console.
Now I get it that some people buy the console, take it home, and mess around with it for a week before they realize what they should have bought with it. As far as I am concerned though they should have bought that stuff with the console they just didn't know yet. I don't think many people in good faith could tell a friend shopping for a Wii that they shouldn't buy this stuff with the console on the first day(assuming they have the money). Some can't afford it, or want to put off the purchases to make it seem less expensive, but there is no getting around that an actively played Wii is going to end up with 4 remotes, 4 nunchuks, and other crap. It's mostly psychology that people won't spend all that money the first day(who would want to spend more on this crap than the console?) but that doesn't change the need for it all on the first day.
If you play multilayer. I know this is slashdot and you don't have friends but humor me here. Anyway, when you want to play a game such as super smash brothers with friends you all need(want) a nunchuk. You gave the boxing example for 2. I am sure there are other games but I haven't bought a game for the Wii in a year so I wouldn't know. I have 4 controllers, 4 nunchuks and 1 classic controller.
This is so I can use my Wii for what it was made for, playing with "wii" not "mii". The whole point of the Wii is a relaxed family/friends system. Without owning everything you need to have a group of people play you are missing out.
I do find is scary that anyone can just up and sell my rights away with no legal grounds. That is beyond fucked up. What is to stop me from selling google the rights to all music and movies (besides a huge lawsuit that I can fight with the sales money). I don't get this at all.
I don't know if its just me but you seem to be implying that the iPhone has become popular because of articles about it. I think there are articles about it because it is a good phone that is popular. People like to read about things they like and buy and thus its easy to get high readership on an article about a something that people love. I want an iPhone but not because of articles. I want it because in my opinion it's the best 'phone'(palm top) out there. It may not have the most features and blackberry's may have more and better features but blackberrys lack the usability that the iPhone delivers.
You talk about a fallacy in your second sentence so you should know it is a fallacy to assume that the articles are creating the popularity and not the other way around. You don't know which caused which and you are just assuming the one that fits your position. Could it be that this article was written because of the previous article claiming Japan hated the iPhone (omfg negative press about the iPhone, that can't happen under your assumptions)? If the previous hate article didn't exist then this article wouldn't exist. Find a article about Japan hating Nokia then you can ask why there wasn't an article about Nokia. You are comparing Apples to oranges.
I have the iPod Touch and I think it may be one of the greatest devices I have used, when I have wifi, and it is still lacking many of the iPhones features.
So while you may be right about the iPhone sales in Japan, I think you are wrong about this so called Apple conspiracy. It's not everyone's fault that Apple makes some great products. It's not just marketing that gets people to buy millions of units of something as expensive as an iPhone.
Have you even tried using other phones and comparing them to the iPhone? All the 'iPhone killers' I have used are unbearably clunky and lack everything that makes the iPhone popular while only technically including the same features.
Wrong. See the thousand other posts in this vicinity that say it merely means 90% of bills have contacted cocaine. No conclusions about how many people are users or how many bills have been touch by users could ever be determined from this. One person could get coke on all the bills, does that mean all people are cocaine users? Or, and more likely, contaminated bills contaminate other bills in any situation where multiple bills touch.
Theoretically a handful of users could contaminate the whole system.
That is why it is important to say: I don't know, but I know where you might be able to look(even if you know the answer). Far too often we are black and white with this sort of thing. People taking the stance that we should spoon feed and those taking the stance that we should force reason. The fact is that some things need to be spoon fed. How do you expect someone to google something if they don't know how to properly operate google. Same goes with every subject. At the same time its better to stop the spoon feeding at a point when you still know the answers so that you can guide the still learning child in the correct direction.
I agree though. People are 'lazy' (or smart). If they think someone has the answer they will keep asking for it. Why look further than the adult right next to you if you think they have the answer (because they always have in the past). So like I said above, teachers, parents, and other more knowledgeable people need to tell their inferiors to find the answer themselves after providing a basis for finding that answer.
The problem has become where that cut off point is and how to determine it. When is it time to stop giving out facts and start making kids find already known answers? With the advent of the internet and search engines (electronic parents) this will be even harder. Teachers will give assignments and kids will go look up the answers rather than forming their own. Accepting the wiki entries as fact rather than reasoning through it. Rather than looking up "how to find the area of a triangle" kids will simply put numbers into calculators, not understanding the point of the exercise is NOT to find the answer, but to experience the process of finding an answer. With all of the technology we have today its hard to teach kids critical thinking when all or most of the answers are already easy to find. This makes people unable to reason through a new problem.
This also explains the "smart student with low grades" and "dumb student with high grades" effects we are seeing more than ever these days. The student is smart (can reason extremely well) but doesn't care to deal with the BS school system where knowing the answer is more important than knowing how to find the answer. Or the student is 'dumb' and some sort of motivation forces the memorization of these facts but without understanding of how or why they are important other than for the grade.
With iPhones in our pockets do we need to learn lists of facts and figures, past presidents, countries, capitals? No. But do we require this? Yes.
We need to change the whole structure of teaching. We need to teach differently because computers have changed everything. People no longer need to be walking encyclopedias. Rather than teaching the details we need to teach with breadth. There is far too much to know and far too little time in our lives to learn it for our current system to handle.
Outsourcing isn't always in India. The true and proper term for that is generally off-shoring. Outsourcing simply means outside the company and I am guessing that this outsourcing isn't the kind that goes to India, based on the scale of the outsourcing and the way it was presented in the summary.
-----
I think that outsourcing should be fine because even if you hire your own people they can probably steal the information just as easily and then you don't even have a company to sue, only a person(with far less ability to pay any judgment). Also, I doubt that a network engineer in a firm offering these services has the time to look through all of your shit, find important stuff to steal and find a willing buyer.
If you have some sort of secret formula that can be copied and pasted and is then instantly useful then I would change my statements. Generally its hard to steal something and start a directly competing business unless your business if founded on some sort of extremely simple proprietary knowledge.
"What does 58.44 represent in the following equation?" Would obviously include an equation after it which used the molecular mass of NaCl in a computation. You would have to recognize how 58.44 interacted with the equation in order to correctly answer the question. I didn't make up an equation because I have already spent enough time on this crap.
I have never taught a single class. That doesn't make me any less capable of understanding how teachers ask questions. Nor does it make my original argument, that your first post is a fallacy, any less valid. It also doesn't make a difference on subsequent arguments unless you can point to a valid reason why it may.
These questions are common when taking tests that should be short answer but are multiple choice due to class sizes and grading restrictions.
Also, I find it humorous that you are randomly bringing up the fact that it is cheating to use an iPhone/computer on a test. I hope no one would try and say it is not cheating but for some reason you just randomly bring it up.
I am glad you are sticking to the argument at hand rather than attacking my character.
Have you ever take a higher education course? I have seen all sorts of ways to ask 'simple' questions. The idea being that you must understand the concepts and the question more than just memorization of key numbers and figures.
Teachers are not trying to write the easiest or most correct way of asking a question, they are trying to test knowledge. Many times that means wording questions differently than they would be in a normal conversation.
I almost feel like digging up old test questions I have been asked as examples but I don't have my old tests close by. Regardless, it would not be rare to see a question worded 'oddly' in a university/college setting. For instance the second question I proposed above "What does 58.44 represent in the following formula?" Would require you to demonstrate far greater understanding of chemistry than would asking "What has the molecular weight 58.44?"
The former question is a college/university level question while the latter is a high school level question.
I don't see how this is relevant to my post at all. Thanks though. I was pointing out that the 'moderated insightful' parent to my post was actually someone who wanted to twist things to look smart. In other words I was proposing that the same question can be asked in many ways. The number doesn't have to be in the answers part of the question as the parent is implying but instead can be in the question. The parent was exploiting a single case and extrapolating the idea to all cases. This is clearly a mistake in logic that I was pointing out only due the parent being modded insightful when in reality the parents post is a fallacy.
I don't see how you missed what I was doing there.
Although this specific question may not lend it's self to needing to google a number alone, a completely different question could for instance:
"What is the significance of 3.14...." or "What does 58.44 represent in the following formula?".
These questions keep the number in the question while giving you no other information but the number to google.
Price could have something to do with this. Apple's goal was never to gain huge market share. They are perfectly happy with making huge margins on their products rather than power tripping on attempted world domination but making slim margins.
If I know Google I they will be following the world domination model and probably will be close to giving the OS in an attempt to gain a huge market share....Microsoft starts a search company, Google starts an OS company... Let the war begin.
So the government isn't this so called warlord, and you aren't this so called slave?
Get a grip. All government does is streamline and legitimatize the systematic distribution of society's resources. Usually to benefit those in charge.
A smart 'warlord', and thus one what would stay in power, would want society to be as productive as possible. This 'warlord'(defense company) would create incentives to generate new and powerful technology to streamline all processes of society in order to reap the maximum benefits.
Just take a look at when the US was the most powerful and where the US is now and you will see huge correlation with more government control equaling less productivity.
Slashdot Mirror
I posted in another response that due to inaccurate information on the web, including
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Voice
I was under the impression it was VoIP and no minutes were billed on your cell phone. If minutes are indeed billed for talk time then I am mistaken and sorry for my ignorance.
Sorry for the misunderstanding then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Voice
Points to it being a VoIP application as well as all other articles I have read.
I guess you are right, the compensation is not zero but you can effectively use unlimited minutes on the network for a fraction of the cost it takes AT&T to provide those minutes. Phone companies don't have the bandwidth to provide all their customers tons of talking time, that is why they sell minutes. By charging for minutes they can estimate usage as well as pay for required upgrade if usage nears capacity. Take that ability away from them and you will create a mess of unreliable and over utilized networks because of unpredictability of usage and inability to pay for upgrades.
Also, I don't believe one bit that it uses zero bandwidth. Unless I am having a huge brain fart, all the research I have done says that it does indeed use bandwidth which is also intuitive. You can't transmit voice without using bandwidth.
What I was saying, and apparently you missed it, is that the bandwidth needs to be paid for by someone. In this case both you and Google are buying the bandwidth and effectively leasing a slice of the network to carry out these communications. The iPhone app does not have these characteristics.
Fine, let me come over and use your shower and all the water I want just because it's in the interest of keeping things fair.
It costs AT&T money to provide that bandwidth. Saying they should have no right to how much of it and how it is used is about the same as saying electricity companies, water companies and gas companies should let you take as much electricity, water and gas as you want as long as you are paying a flat monthly fee.
This isn't about net neutrality, it's about a company's need to be compensated for the service it provides. If we were billed on a per kb usage then it would be different.
No one seems to get that the application does nothing without a phone and network. Until Google has their own network that they are willing to give these services out on I would say it is legitimate for AT&T to not want to deal with all the bandwidth that this app would use. The list is awesome and I would love to have it but you have to be reasonable. You can't expect a company to take a huge hit on bandwidth with zero compensation from the customer. As someone who doesn't use tons of bandwidth, I want to be charged a fair rate and not have it inflated because every dipshit wants to use VoIP with a million features rather than placing a phone call on their phone. Contrary to everyone's belief bandwidth costs money and apps like this, if everyone was using them, would eat up most of it. Sure phone companies are screwing us, but have a little bit of knowledge of what you are asking the phone company to offer for free before demanding it. If they go bankrupt you won't be able to use the app anymore anyway or the rates for a standard plan are going to skyrocket even further so they can cover all these apps.
Well if you want to play with your wii alone. Sure. You are right. But if you buy what you are going to need at some point, what you are going to go out and buy the first time friends/family come over to play then you are wrong. Four remotes, four nunchuks, probably at least one classic controller, rechargeable batteries if you want, a GOOD game or two. Add all that up and it will be more than the console.
Now I get it that some people buy the console, take it home, and mess around with it for a week before they realize what they should have bought with it. As far as I am concerned though they should have bought that stuff with the console they just didn't know yet. I don't think many people in good faith could tell a friend shopping for a Wii that they shouldn't buy this stuff with the console on the first day(assuming they have the money). Some can't afford it, or want to put off the purchases to make it seem less expensive, but there is no getting around that an actively played Wii is going to end up with 4 remotes, 4 nunchuks, and other crap. It's mostly psychology that people won't spend all that money the first day(who would want to spend more on this crap than the console?) but that doesn't change the need for it all on the first day.
If you play multilayer. I know this is slashdot and you don't have friends but humor me here. Anyway, when you want to play a game such as super smash brothers with friends you all need(want) a nunchuk. You gave the boxing example for 2. I am sure there are other games but I haven't bought a game for the Wii in a year so I wouldn't know. I have 4 controllers, 4 nunchuks and 1 classic controller.
This is so I can use my Wii for what it was made for, playing with "wii" not "mii". The whole point of the Wii is a relaxed family/friends system. Without owning everything you need to have a group of people play you are missing out.
I would be willing to be even more than 300 on average. Rockband and a couple of other games plus extra controllers puts you easily above that mark.
The Wii is the worst though. The first day of owning a Wii you end up spending more on controllers and games than the console cost.
Interesting, I just got an unsolicited call on my cell about some health care shit. I should sue the shit out of them like every good American.
I do find is scary that anyone can just up and sell my rights away with no legal grounds. That is beyond fucked up. What is to stop me from selling google the rights to all music and movies (besides a huge lawsuit that I can fight with the sales money). I don't get this at all.
I don't know if its just me but you seem to be implying that the iPhone has become popular because of articles about it. I think there are articles about it because it is a good phone that is popular. People like to read about things they like and buy and thus its easy to get high readership on an article about a something that people love. I want an iPhone but not because of articles. I want it because in my opinion it's the best 'phone'(palm top) out there. It may not have the most features and blackberry's may have more and better features but blackberrys lack the usability that the iPhone delivers.
You talk about a fallacy in your second sentence so you should know it is a fallacy to assume that the articles are creating the popularity and not the other way around. You don't know which caused which and you are just assuming the one that fits your position. Could it be that this article was written because of the previous article claiming Japan hated the iPhone (omfg negative press about the iPhone, that can't happen under your assumptions)? If the previous hate article didn't exist then this article wouldn't exist. Find a article about Japan hating Nokia then you can ask why there wasn't an article about Nokia. You are comparing Apples to oranges.
I have the iPod Touch and I think it may be one of the greatest devices I have used, when I have wifi, and it is still lacking many of the iPhones features.
So while you may be right about the iPhone sales in Japan, I think you are wrong about this so called Apple conspiracy. It's not everyone's fault that Apple makes some great products. It's not just marketing that gets people to buy millions of units of something as expensive as an iPhone.
Have you even tried using other phones and comparing them to the iPhone? All the 'iPhone killers' I have used are unbearably clunky and lack everything that makes the iPhone popular while only technically including the same features.
Duh! We have an established bribery system (campaign contributions) that ensures all contributors get their share of the winnings.
Wrong. See the thousand other posts in this vicinity that say it merely means 90% of bills have contacted cocaine. No conclusions about how many people are users or how many bills have been touch by users could ever be determined from this. One person could get coke on all the bills, does that mean all people are cocaine users? Or, and more likely, contaminated bills contaminate other bills in any situation where multiple bills touch.
Theoretically a handful of users could contaminate the whole system.
That is why it is important to say: I don't know, but I know where you might be able to look(even if you know the answer). Far too often we are black and white with this sort of thing. People taking the stance that we should spoon feed and those taking the stance that we should force reason. The fact is that some things need to be spoon fed. How do you expect someone to google something if they don't know how to properly operate google. Same goes with every subject. At the same time its better to stop the spoon feeding at a point when you still know the answers so that you can guide the still learning child in the correct direction.
I agree though. People are 'lazy' (or smart). If they think someone has the answer they will keep asking for it. Why look further than the adult right next to you if you think they have the answer (because they always have in the past). So like I said above, teachers, parents, and other more knowledgeable people need to tell their inferiors to find the answer themselves after providing a basis for finding that answer.
The problem has become where that cut off point is and how to determine it. When is it time to stop giving out facts and start making kids find already known answers? With the advent of the internet and search engines (electronic parents) this will be even harder. Teachers will give assignments and kids will go look up the answers rather than forming their own. Accepting the wiki entries as fact rather than reasoning through it. Rather than looking up "how to find the area of a triangle" kids will simply put numbers into calculators, not understanding the point of the exercise is NOT to find the answer, but to experience the process of finding an answer. With all of the technology we have today its hard to teach kids critical thinking when all or most of the answers are already easy to find. This makes people unable to reason through a new problem.
This also explains the "smart student with low grades" and "dumb student with high grades" effects we are seeing more than ever these days. The student is smart (can reason extremely well) but doesn't care to deal with the BS school system where knowing the answer is more important than knowing how to find the answer. Or the student is 'dumb' and some sort of motivation forces the memorization of these facts but without understanding of how or why they are important other than for the grade.
With iPhones in our pockets do we need to learn lists of facts and figures, past presidents, countries, capitals? No. But do we require this? Yes.
We need to change the whole structure of teaching. We need to teach differently because computers have changed everything. People no longer need to be walking encyclopedias. Rather than teaching the details we need to teach with breadth. There is far too much to know and far too little time in our lives to learn it for our current system to handle.
Outsourcing isn't always in India. The true and proper term for that is generally off-shoring. Outsourcing simply means outside the company and I am guessing that this outsourcing isn't the kind that goes to India, based on the scale of the outsourcing and the way it was presented in the summary.
-----
I think that outsourcing should be fine because even if you hire your own people they can probably steal the information just as easily and then you don't even have a company to sue, only a person(with far less ability to pay any judgment). Also, I doubt that a network engineer in a firm offering these services has the time to look through all of your shit, find important stuff to steal and find a willing buyer.
If you have some sort of secret formula that can be copied and pasted and is then instantly useful then I would change my statements. Generally its hard to steal something and start a directly competing business unless your business if founded on some sort of extremely simple proprietary knowledge.
I read it and it appears to dabble in all of the things mentioned(minus the coloring you gave them). As long as we are playing questions:
What is wrong with writing about more than one thing in a post?
Why all these "or" statements? (as opposed to and)
Why the chain of the loaded questions?
It's a sad day for everyone who loves the electric guitar. I am going to play loud for him today!!
This sounds crazy until you begin to think about how much control the governments of the world are beginning to gain over their citizens.
"What does 58.44 represent in the following equation?" Would obviously include an equation after it which used the molecular mass of NaCl in a computation. You would have to recognize how 58.44 interacted with the equation in order to correctly answer the question. I didn't make up an equation because I have already spent enough time on this crap.
I have never taught a single class. That doesn't make me any less capable of understanding how teachers ask questions. Nor does it make my original argument, that your first post is a fallacy, any less valid. It also doesn't make a difference on subsequent arguments unless you can point to a valid reason why it may.
These questions are common when taking tests that should be short answer but are multiple choice due to class sizes and grading restrictions.
Also, I find it humorous that you are randomly bringing up the fact that it is cheating to use an iPhone/computer on a test. I hope no one would try and say it is not cheating but for some reason you just randomly bring it up.
I am glad you are sticking to the argument at hand rather than attacking my character.
Have you ever take a higher education course? I have seen all sorts of ways to ask 'simple' questions. The idea being that you must understand the concepts and the question more than just memorization of key numbers and figures.
Teachers are not trying to write the easiest or most correct way of asking a question, they are trying to test knowledge. Many times that means wording questions differently than they would be in a normal conversation.
I almost feel like digging up old test questions I have been asked as examples but I don't have my old tests close by. Regardless, it would not be rare to see a question worded 'oddly' in a university/college setting. For instance the second question I proposed above "What does 58.44 represent in the following formula?" Would require you to demonstrate far greater understanding of chemistry than would asking "What has the molecular weight 58.44?"
The former question is a college/university level question while the latter is a high school level question.
I don't see how this is relevant to my post at all. Thanks though. I was pointing out that the 'moderated insightful' parent to my post was actually someone who wanted to twist things to look smart. In other words I was proposing that the same question can be asked in many ways. The number doesn't have to be in the answers part of the question as the parent is implying but instead can be in the question. The parent was exploiting a single case and extrapolating the idea to all cases. This is clearly a mistake in logic that I was pointing out only due the parent being modded insightful when in reality the parents post is a fallacy.
I don't see how you missed what I was doing there.
Although this specific question may not lend it's self to needing to google a number alone, a completely different question could for instance:
"What is the significance of 3.14...." or "What does 58.44 represent in the following formula?".
These questions keep the number in the question while giving you no other information but the number to google.
The question could easily be worded "Which substance has the molecular weight of 58.44". FYI
Price could have something to do with this. Apple's goal was never to gain huge market share. They are perfectly happy with making huge margins on their products rather than power tripping on attempted world domination but making slim margins.
If I know Google I they will be following the world domination model and probably will be close to giving the OS in an attempt to gain a huge market share. ...Microsoft starts a search company, Google starts an OS company... Let the war begin.
So the government isn't this so called warlord, and you aren't this so called slave?
Get a grip. All government does is streamline and legitimatize the systematic distribution of society's resources. Usually to benefit those in charge.
A smart 'warlord', and thus one what would stay in power, would want society to be as productive as possible. This 'warlord'(defense company) would create incentives to generate new and powerful technology to streamline all processes of society in order to reap the maximum benefits.
Just take a look at when the US was the most powerful and where the US is now and you will see huge correlation with more government control equaling less productivity.