It's really a matter of chance as to whether you get someone who can answer your question or whose just going to flip through their script trying to find something that seems to fit.
I've found what seems to be a really good diagnostic question for determining if you've got a script reader or someone that knows (or can find) the answer to your questions regarding to software tech support. "What's the most recent build ID for [product]?"
If they don't answer you within a minute, hang up, call back, and get somone else. If they do answer (and are correct, or at least plausibly correct if you don't know) you can get down to asking your real question.
If you're not in a situation where a question like the above makes sense, be vague when you first state your problem. If they attempt to answer your question- hang up or ask to be transferred; if they ask you to provide more details you've got someone worth talking to.
Also, get several possible solutions to your problem each time you call. If you have to, say you've already done the first thing they suggest (because, more than likely, it would be true if you hung up, tried it, and had to call back when it didn't work). If the representative is thrown by you saying "Yeah, I've done that, that's not the problem." hang up or ask to be transferred.
This is of course all assuming you have a pretty good idea what's wrong to begin with and can adequately describe the problem, of course... If you aren't giving them anything to work with it's not their fault if they can't help you.
What I think is being overlooked here is that a lot of the phone menu systems are in place BECAUSE they're ineffective and annoying. If most folks get fed up and never open a complaint ticket, guess what? It appears that you have a high rate of customer satisfaction.
Apple sells the experience of using tightly-integrated hardware and software. They can't do that if they suddenly have to make sure their software will work with every home-built x86 whitebox on the face of the earth.
Who says they have to? I don't call up Compaq, HP, Dell, Gateway, etc. whenever I have a problem with my box of $5 flaming shit. Why? because I didn't buy my computer from them, and have no reason to expect support from them. Apple could put a similar kind of caveat on a publically available OSX86. If you haven't bought one of their computers you get no guarantee, no warrantee, and no support... from them, anyway. I'm sure other companies would pop up to fill the service void.
What Apple does is something that Microsoft can never do, unless they start selling their own brand of computers and restrict Windows to only run on Microsoft PCs.
Oh... you mean like Palladium? Even so, I still like the idea posted by another user pointing out that they (Apple) could start from scratch with an x86 motherboard w/o all the mistakes and legacy of the past. THAT would be nice.
Whether we're talking about 10,000,000 heads coming up or some other combination is beside the point. The point is that the odds are vanishingly small of any pre-specified combination coming up (where the result for each coin is specified independently). The odds in this case are very easy to compute: 1/2 raised to the 10,000,000 power.
Precisely. And the key lies in the meaning of "prespecified." The outcome of evolution is not "prespecified" because we already know the outcome, just as I already knew the outcome of my series of coin tosses. Both are "post-specified" after the fact. And that makes that sort of probabilistic calculation invalid.
If the microstate falls into a rare macrostate people will still find it miraculous even if it was simply a matter of inevitability. If you sit around and flip a coin a hundred times you probably will get pretty excited after you've flipped 6 heads or 6 tails in a row... even though this is pretty much guaranteed to happen at least once per 100 flips.
"100% heads or tails" will only contain two microstates regardless of how many times you flip the coin. "Only one heads or only on tails" will contain {twice the number of times you flip the coin} microstates (provided you flip at least 3 times). "heads = tails" will contain half the number of all possible microstates (or the two "tails = heads+1" and "heads = tails+1" macrostates if you flip an odd number of times).
The smaller the macrostate compared to other macrostates, the more impressed you'll be when you flip a microstate from it. (this is why you're more impressed to flip 6 heads in a row rather than 4. Ratio between smallest/largest macrostate in a 6flip is 2:32 while in a 4flip it's 2:8)
The unspoken assumption behind this type of "probability calculation" is that the microstate for a given protein or DNA sequence falls into a macrostate equivalent in meaning to "all heads or all tails." For most non-trivially defined genetic macrostates, this isn't the case. In most proteins, amino acids can be swapped out for other amino acids without affecting the function of the protein significantly or at all. Few DNA codons are unique and can be interchanged with codons coding for the same protein or, in light of the previous sentence, with the codons coding for certain other aminos.
A macrostate such as "protein that does X" or "gene that codes for a protein that does X" does not contain only the single microstate which happens to be the one currently in use. TalkOrigins' "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" FAQ contains a report where the "functions as a cytochrome" macrostate for ~100 amino acids length pepetides contained about 60% of all microstates.
The trouble is, while all microsates can be rigorously defined (though this may be impractical), how one chooses macrostates is up for debate. To go back to the coin flipping example, one set of macrostates could be in ratios of H:T OR T:H (for a 6flip, 6:0, 5:1, 4:2, 3:3). Another could be just H:T (for 6flip, 6:0, 5:1, 4:2, 3:3, 2:3, 1:5, 0:6). You could highlight any microstate containing 4 Heads or tails in a row (I.E. HHHHTT, THHHHT, HHHHTH, etc.). You could define a macrostate for alternating heads and tails. You could have a macrostate for the mantissa of pi in binary for however many digits. These are just possibilities for a random sequence of two values with no real-world significance... imagine how complicated things can be when you have 4 or 20 values to choose from and poorly understood variations in real-world behaviour for a given sequence.
I suppose my point is that there IS math available for calculating the probability for a given protein or DNA sequence... it's just not likely to be understood or effectively argued by your standard issue arm chair creationist.
..to archive and serve every reply they recieve in a handy dandy internet database as a matter of public record and require URLs to the archive be included in the spam.
*Every* reply. Candidate A sends you spam? Reply detailing why Candidate B is better. Candidate J tells you how he's tough on crime? Reply talking about how J's daughter was repeatedly given a slap on the wrist after crimes for which other people are sent to federal prison. An RIAA shell candidate sends you spam? Reply with an MP3 as an attachment. Attach goatse! Attach the plans to the secret death ray! Attach your vacation photos and free up some of your own webspace! Reply grinding your own personal political axes.
Read through the archive and reply pointing out how 90% of the responses offered are merely a form letter.
Read through the archive and reply pointing out how the other 10% of actual responses with content make contradictory arguments.
And the spamming candidate has to pay to host all of this.
It would still be cheaper than TV/Cable advertising, though.
We listen to the majority but protect the individual from that same majority.
Corporations are not individuals.
Copyright was put in place to balance the cost/profit trade-off inherent in the broad publishing and distribution of new works.
It was put in place so that Publisher X couldn't take a look at the works put out by Publisher A and publish ONLY those works from Pubisher A that were doing well. Thus Publisher X not only cuts into the profits of Publisher A, X has also not had to incur the losses and risks of all the unsuccessful content produced. Publishers A and X are understood to be substantially similar entities in terms of capital and structure.
Fair Use is also a rather interesting concept. It's whatever uses We, the People, view as fair. It's amorphous and undefined... it does, and should, change over time with new technologies.
In the past the gulf between Publisher A and Individual X was usually fairly large. Individuals did not own large volume printing presses, for example. People have an intuitive grasp of the "similar entity" idea and, so, don't view it as unfair if they, say, copy a couple lines of prose onto the front of a mix tape for their beloved or record their favorite TV shows or, gasp, share files.
The problem, currently, is that the difference between Publisher and Individual has effectively shrunk to one of method with the advent of digital media and the internet. While the average internet user does not have the capitalization of your average RIAA/MPAA/etc. member they find themselves with the ability to publish worldwide. However, remember that Copyright was put into place to balance the risks and returns of publishing new content. In an environment where any schmoe can publish globally there is apparently very little risk... thus the allowable balances to ensure fair return are necessarily as small. The Auld Publishers Association misses this point. They want their same high protections (and high profits) when they move into our low risk (and low cost) medium.
Corporations have no Right to Profit. If they cannot compete in new media the solution is not to crush the competition and stifle new media. If they wish to languish in outdated and expensive distribution models that is their choice... it is not upon us to finance their folly.
But what's the point? They already own the politicians and wisper the sweet nothings of protecting the corporate citizen from the evils of mob rule.
Slashdot Mirror
It's really a matter of chance as to whether you get someone who can answer your question or whose just going to flip through their script trying to find something that seems to fit.
I've found what seems to be a really good diagnostic question for determining if you've got a script reader or someone that knows (or can find) the answer to your questions regarding to software tech support. "What's the most recent build ID for [product]?"
If they don't answer you within a minute, hang up, call back, and get somone else. If they do answer (and are correct, or at least plausibly correct if you don't know) you can get down to asking your real question.
If you're not in a situation where a question like the above makes sense, be vague when you first state your problem. If they attempt to answer your question- hang up or ask to be transferred; if they ask you to provide more details you've got someone worth talking to.
Also, get several possible solutions to your problem each time you call. If you have to, say you've already done the first thing they suggest (because, more than likely, it would be true if you hung up, tried it, and had to call back when it didn't work). If the representative is thrown by you saying "Yeah, I've done that, that's not the problem." hang up or ask to be transferred.
This is of course all assuming you have a pretty good idea what's wrong to begin with and can adequately describe the problem, of course... If you aren't giving them anything to work with it's not their fault if they can't help you.
What I think is being overlooked here is that a lot of the phone menu systems are in place BECAUSE they're ineffective and annoying. If most folks get fed up and never open a complaint ticket, guess what? It appears that you have a high rate of customer satisfaction.
Who says they have to? I don't call up Compaq, HP, Dell, Gateway, etc. whenever I have a problem with my box of $5 flaming shit. Why? because I didn't buy my computer from them, and have no reason to expect support from them. Apple could put a similar kind of caveat on a publically available OSX86. If you haven't bought one of their computers you get no guarantee, no warrantee, and no support... from them, anyway. I'm sure other companies would pop up to fill the service void.
Oh... you mean like Palladium?
Even so, I still like the idea posted by another user pointing out that they (Apple) could start from scratch with an x86 motherboard w/o all the mistakes and legacy of the past. THAT would be nice.
If the microstate falls into a rare macrostate people will still find it miraculous even if it was simply a matter of inevitability. If you sit around and flip a coin a hundred times you probably will get pretty excited after you've flipped 6 heads or 6 tails in a row... even though this is pretty much guaranteed to happen at least once per 100 flips.
"100% heads or tails" will only contain two microstates regardless of how many times you flip the coin. "Only one heads or only on tails" will contain {twice the number of times you flip the coin} microstates (provided you flip at least 3 times). "heads = tails" will contain half the number of all possible microstates (or the two "tails = heads+1" and "heads = tails+1" macrostates if you flip an odd number of times). The smaller the macrostate compared to other macrostates, the more impressed you'll be when you flip a microstate from it. (this is why you're more impressed to flip 6 heads in a row rather than 4. Ratio between smallest/largest macrostate in a 6flip is 2:32 while in a 4flip it's 2:8)
The unspoken assumption behind this type of "probability calculation" is that the microstate for a given protein or DNA sequence falls into a macrostate equivalent in meaning to "all heads or all tails." For most non-trivially defined genetic macrostates, this isn't the case. In most proteins, amino acids can be swapped out for other amino acids without affecting the function of the protein significantly or at all. Few DNA codons are unique and can be interchanged with codons coding for the same protein or, in light of the previous sentence, with the codons coding for certain other aminos.
A macrostate such as "protein that does X" or "gene that codes for a protein that does X" does not contain only the single microstate which happens to be the one currently in use. TalkOrigins' "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" FAQ contains a report where the "functions as a cytochrome" macrostate for ~100 amino acids length pepetides contained about 60% of all microstates.
The trouble is, while all microsates can be rigorously defined (though this may be impractical), how one chooses macrostates is up for debate. To go back to the coin flipping example, one set of macrostates could be in ratios of H:T OR T:H (for a 6flip, 6:0, 5:1, 4:2, 3:3). Another could be just H:T (for 6flip, 6:0, 5:1, 4:2, 3:3, 2:3, 1:5, 0:6). You could highlight any microstate containing 4 Heads or tails in a row (I.E. HHHHTT, THHHHT, HHHHTH, etc.). You could define a macrostate for alternating heads and tails. You could have a macrostate for the mantissa of pi in binary for however many digits. These are just possibilities for a random sequence of two values with no real-world significance... imagine how complicated things can be when you have 4 or 20 values to choose from and poorly understood variations in real-world behaviour for a given sequence.
I suppose my point is that there IS math available for calculating the probability for a given protein or DNA sequence... it's just not likely to be understood or effectively argued by your standard issue arm chair creationist.
*Every* reply. Candidate A sends you spam? Reply detailing why Candidate B is better. Candidate J tells you how he's tough on crime? Reply talking about how J's daughter was repeatedly given a slap on the wrist after crimes for which other people are sent to federal prison. An RIAA shell candidate sends you spam? Reply with an MP3 as an attachment. Attach goatse! Attach the plans to the secret death ray! Attach your vacation photos and free up some of your own webspace! Reply grinding your own personal political axes.
Read through the archive and reply pointing out how 90% of the responses offered are merely a form letter.
Read through the archive and reply pointing out how the other 10% of actual responses with content make contradictory arguments.
And the spamming candidate has to pay to host all of this.
It would still be cheaper than TV/Cable advertising, though.
Corporations are not individuals.
Copyright was put in place to balance the cost/profit trade-off inherent in the broad publishing and distribution of new works.
It was put in place so that Publisher X couldn't take a look at the works put out by Publisher A and publish ONLY those works from Pubisher A that were doing well. Thus Publisher X not only cuts into the profits of Publisher A, X has also not had to incur the losses and risks of all the unsuccessful content produced. Publishers A and X are understood to be substantially similar entities in terms of capital and structure.
Fair Use is also a rather interesting concept. It's whatever uses We, the People, view as fair. It's amorphous and undefined... it does, and should, change over time with new technologies.
In the past the gulf between Publisher A and Individual X was usually fairly large. Individuals did not own large volume printing presses, for example. People have an intuitive grasp of the "similar entity" idea and, so, don't view it as unfair if they, say, copy a couple lines of prose onto the front of a mix tape for their beloved or record their favorite TV shows or, gasp, share files.
The problem, currently, is that the difference between Publisher and Individual has effectively shrunk to one of method with the advent of digital media and the internet. While the average internet user does not have the capitalization of your average RIAA/MPAA/etc. member they find themselves with the ability to publish worldwide. However, remember that Copyright was put into place to balance the risks and returns of publishing new content. In an environment where any schmoe can publish globally there is apparently very little risk... thus the allowable balances to ensure fair return are necessarily as small. The Auld Publishers Association misses this point. They want their same high protections (and high profits) when they move into our low risk (and low cost) medium.
Corporations have no Right to Profit. If they cannot compete in new media the solution is not to crush the competition and stifle new media. If they wish to languish in outdated and expensive distribution models that is their choice... it is not upon us to finance their folly.
But what's the point? They already own the politicians and wisper the sweet nothings of protecting the corporate citizen from the evils of mob rule.
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/bwb_origin.htm