No, I disagree. If someone is talking loudly about his or her personal life in public, he's sharing that information with the world. You can listen, ask him to keep it down, or make amusing commentary. You are exercising your freedom of speech, not hurting anyone, and peer pressure is how acceptable public behaviour is enforced.
Jamming his cell phone (and everyone else's) is another matter.
The funny thing about radio waves... if you don't specifically block them, they just keep going. If you specifically block them, then there's no need for a jammer.
Restricting the negative effects of a jammer to a particular piece of property is NOT simple.
And I'm sure that annoying cell phone user would tell you that if you want peace and quiet, stay home.
You're acting illegally, without regard to others because you're somewhat annoyed by the behaviour of a few people and going over and you don't "feel like" going over and telling them so. I take it back. You're WAY more selfish and inconsiderate than baby momma.
Someone else used the phrase "passive-agressive nerd rage." It fits you pretty well.
"GPS on the other hand should be jammable at all times."
Ah. Good thing you don't make decisions. GPS is used for all sorts of things you wouldn't expect. Apparently banking systems, including ATMs depend on the time signals. Cell phone towers. Parts of the electrical grid. Air navigation systems.
"If I run a cinema or entertainment venue- I should be allowed to block cell phone signals. If on my private property I want to block cell signals on my private proerty I should be allowed."
Sure. Just make sure you engineer your walls so the jamming signal stays inside. Oh, right, if you did that (which is entirely within your rights as a property owner), you wouldn't need the jammer.
Funny how the US is eager to call shooting wars "police actions" (as if a country can engage in police actions uninvited in another sovereign nation) AND to label industrial espionage and pranks "war" whenever they involve computers. Maybe that ties in with things like the war on drugs, war on terrorism, etc. Maybe in the US war means the opposite of what it does to everyone else!
There are always study design and interpretation issues, especially with convenience samples, but if you don't have significant results to start with, there's nothing more to discuss.
If you've got an issue with a particular person talking on her phone, sit down beside her and make snarky remarks until she shuts up or hits you. Don't interfere with everyone else in the area just for your personal convenience. Hey... that's what you're mad at baby mamma for doing isn't it?
Yes, I see, not reading it on my phone, you do have a little section on the statistical test buried in the fourth part of the first results section.
You don't mention correction for multiple tests, and you did quite a few. If you included p-values (which is why it's important to do so), the reader could estimate whether your results are actually significant or not. If your p-values are not quite a bit smaller than 0.05 then your results are not actually significant.
If you're going to write a paper, put the relevant details in. What kind of statistical tests did you do? What correction for multiple comparisons did you do? What are the actual p-values you obtained, for each test? Are the distributions of your data normal? Do they meet the assumptions of your test?
You're splitting hairs. It's pretty hard to prevent someone who's determined from killing someone too, but the punishment is made harsh enough that it's an effective deterrent for most people. Anyway, even in the US there are several legal limitations on freedom of speech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_States
I suppose if research conclusively links skinny models to anorexia and all the anorexics or their parents sue the fashion industry it will have much the same effect as an actual ban.
Cigarette ads on radio and television are illegal in the US. That's a direct precedent.
If "it makes someone feel bad" is sufficient reason to infringe on peoples' freedoms, then what's next? Enact a law requiring high school athletes and cheerleaders to date the campus nerds?
I think you've got some problems with your analogy there (but it's great rhetoric, hey?). The situation we're considering is one where some advertising is shown to promote behaviours that are a public health problem. So going with your analogy, try putting an ad that promotes beating up nerds on TV. Or one that shows nerds cutting themselves because they're social outcasts.
Cigarette advertising is a good precedent - it's illegal on TV, radio and billboards in the US, and in may other media in other places. If a behaviour has been shown to be a serious public health hazard, and is encouraged by certain forms of media, that media has been banned in the past.
Nope. Some people believe they're fat and do something about it. Some are wrong to start with, or do the wrong things about it. Others give up or don't care.
Freedom of speech is limited in all kinds of ways. False advertising for example. Or making health claims. Controls on what you can and can't do in ads aren't new.
They don't use mass transit much in farming communities in Europe either. However, it works nicely for the urban areas, where most people live. The US also has some urban areas I believe....
Slashdot Mirror
No, I disagree. If someone is talking loudly about his or her personal life in public, he's sharing that information with the world. You can listen, ask him to keep it down, or make amusing commentary. You are exercising your freedom of speech, not hurting anyone, and peer pressure is how acceptable public behaviour is enforced.
Jamming his cell phone (and everyone else's) is another matter.
The funny thing about radio waves... if you don't specifically block them, they just keep going. If you specifically block them, then there's no need for a jammer.
Restricting the negative effects of a jammer to a particular piece of property is NOT simple.
And I'm sure that annoying cell phone user would tell you that if you want peace and quiet, stay home.
You're acting illegally, without regard to others because you're somewhat annoyed by the behaviour of a few people and going over and you don't "feel like" going over and telling them so. I take it back. You're WAY more selfish and inconsiderate than baby momma.
Someone else used the phrase "passive-agressive nerd rage." It fits you pretty well.
"GPS on the other hand should be jammable at all times."
Ah. Good thing you don't make decisions. GPS is used for all sorts of things you wouldn't expect. Apparently banking systems, including ATMs depend on the time signals. Cell phone towers. Parts of the electrical grid. Air navigation systems.
"If I run a cinema or entertainment venue- I should be allowed to block cell phone signals. If on my private property I want to block cell signals on my private proerty I should be allowed."
Sure. Just make sure you engineer your walls so the jamming signal stays inside. Oh, right, if you did that (which is entirely within your rights as a property owner), you wouldn't need the jammer.
"I've considered firing an anti-radiation (HARM) missile at the Hatians"
I think that was a mission in the latest Grand Theft Auto.
Yeah right. Because talking on the phone is so much more distracting than constantly dialling, trying to get a connection.
Then you punch them back in self defence and/or have them charged with assault.
Actually, sleeping on a bus may not be entirely legal. Some places have anti-vagrancy laws.
So you support being responsible for gross human rights violations?
You live in a democracy. Prisoners you, as part of that democracy, are holding are being violently raped.
Funny how the US is eager to call shooting wars "police actions" (as if a country can engage in police actions uninvited in another sovereign nation) AND to label industrial espionage and pranks "war" whenever they involve computers. Maybe that ties in with things like the war on drugs, war on terrorism, etc. Maybe in the US war means the opposite of what it does to everyone else!
There are always study design and interpretation issues, especially with convenience samples, but if you don't have significant results to start with, there's nothing more to discuss.
If you've got an issue with a particular person talking on her phone, sit down beside her and make snarky remarks until she shuts up or hits you. Don't interfere with everyone else in the area just for your personal convenience. Hey... that's what you're mad at baby mamma for doing isn't it?
Yes, I see, not reading it on my phone, you do have a little section on the statistical test buried in the fourth part of the first results section.
You don't mention correction for multiple tests, and you did quite a few. If you included p-values (which is why it's important to do so), the reader could estimate whether your results are actually significant or not. If your p-values are not quite a bit smaller than 0.05 then your results are not actually significant.
If you're going to write a paper, put the relevant details in. What kind of statistical tests did you do? What correction for multiple comparisons did you do? What are the actual p-values you obtained, for each test? Are the distributions of your data normal? Do they meet the assumptions of your test?
You're splitting hairs. It's pretty hard to prevent someone who's determined from killing someone too, but the punishment is made harsh enough that it's an effective deterrent for most people. Anyway, even in the US there are several legal limitations on freedom of speech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_States
I suppose if research conclusively links skinny models to anorexia and all the anorexics or their parents sue the fashion industry it will have much the same effect as an actual ban.
Cigarette ads on radio and television are illegal in the US. That's a direct precedent.
I think you've got some problems with your analogy there (but it's great rhetoric, hey?). The situation we're considering is one where some advertising is shown to promote behaviours that are a public health problem. So going with your analogy, try putting an ad that promotes beating up nerds on TV. Or one that shows nerds cutting themselves because they're social outcasts.
Cigarette advertising is a good precedent - it's illegal on TV, radio and billboards in the US, and in may other media in other places. If a behaviour has been shown to be a serious public health hazard, and is encouraged by certain forms of media, that media has been banned in the past.
Nope. Some people believe they're fat and do something about it. Some are wrong to start with, or do the wrong things about it. Others give up or don't care.
Freedom of speech is limited in all kinds of ways. False advertising for example. Or making health claims. Controls on what you can and can't do in ads aren't new.
"The indirect offer to consumers seems to be, "buy this camera at a discount and in exchange we get access to its video feed.""
Hm. Cheap wifi webcam to stick on a robotic telescope?
The lawsuits might have helped.
"but the vast amount of Ameicans don't live in cities."
Um, 82% of Americans live in urban areas.
"where else do you have densities of 1 person per square mile"
Wow. So many people.
They don't use mass transit much in farming communities in Europe either. However, it works nicely for the urban areas, where most people live. The US also has some urban areas I believe....