AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have government rights of way that are not granted to others.
Until someone else comes along and gets a franchise and then they have access to the rights-of-way, too. Or uses a delivery system that doesn't need access to rights-of-way.
My money's on him not understanding what "entitled" means.
My money's on him being part of a generation that thinks that "data wants to be free" (as in beer) and that he was born to help data achieve its goal. He's entitled to free content because... well, just because. If misusing the phrase "net neutrality" can help him get more access to free content, then he'll do that.
A small mom and pop ISP could offer last mile internet to a LIMITED number of people. Just as a mom and pop sandwich shop can offer less coverage than McDonalds.
Well, do'h. A small company serves a smaller area than a national one. This is "news for nerds"?
So why can't we run fiber? Because the big ISPs have exclusive franchise licenses that preclude anyone else from competing against them.
Exclusive franchises have been against federal law for almost 20 years.
Ah, so carving content up into basic, standard, and premium internet tiers will make that better, right? Because we all love how cable has fucked over content for the last quarter century.
You mean the same way Sling has carved it's content up into tiers? Seems like a consistent business model, even for a company that is billing itself as "ala-carte".
No. UBI does not pay people to do anything. It pays them for breathing. That's not a significant "something".
It assumes that anyone who is doing nothing is doing nothing because they can't find a job or have no skills.
No
Yes. It assumes that people who are doing nothing deserve money for doing nothing. That implies a reason that justifies getting money for nothing, like "can't find a job" or "have no skills".
UBI doesn't assume anything - it is not even a living , sentient thing.
Oh for fuck's sake. You know that the colloquial meaning of that kind of statement is not that the inanimate object somehow actually thinks or assumes. The meaning is that the basis behind the system is that there is an assumption on the part of the proponents, that the reason for having the program is the assumption... The only justification for UBI is if you assume that people deserve money for voluntarily doing nothing. You're wasting everyone's time by being this stupid.
Some people who advocate it, though, think that it is a net positive for the society.
"Some people" think a lot of nutty things. Paying people to do nothing is not now and never will be a net positive for society.
Some even think that it is the only way to humanely deal with a situation where a vast majority of "work" is done by machines.
And there you've just proven the assumption about "can't find a job". It doesn't matter if the vast majority of work is done by machines if people can still find a job, so the only significance to machines is if they keep people from finding jobs. Thus, UBI assumes that people cannot find a job.
That may or may not be a valid reason to hand people money for doing nothing. But simply choosing to do nothing is not. Until you separate the two conditions and treat them appropriately, a blanket UBI is unwarranted.
"A living wage" is not something that people are entitled to, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
So what do you propose we do with people unable to earn a living wage? Slums? Work camps? Organ farms?
I like your proposals. I vote "yes". Oh, wait, you were putting those words in someone else's mouth.
How about welfare? How about reserving welfare for those who need it, and not for those who don't? The guy working for Instacart at $1/hr who could get a real job paying decent money, but would rather work a gig when he wants, sit at home when he doesn't, shouldn't be getting welfare so he can do that.
That's the problem with UBI. It pays people to do nothing. It assumes that anyone who is doing nothing is doing nothing because they can't find a job or have no skills. They need to get a living wage just because they exist. That's the fail in the concept.
More importantly, while I agree that delivery is a basic skill, but so is violence and crime.
Oh, another thing I vote for. Let's pay the violent criminals $1/hr because they have a simple job. Sheesh, what a stupid idea.
Personally, if I were put in a situation where my kids are starving because of my inability to earn a living wage, I'd have zero problems robbing a bunch of free market libertarians to provide them with basic needs.
And we'd have no problems putting you in jail. Does that solve your problem? No? What happens when someone else who is having problems feeding his kids sees that you have something he needs and he robs you for it? And he isn't polite when he takes it, you wind up not in jail but in the hospital. Does that solve your problem? Yes? It does?
or socialist hellhole that provides basic needs for everyone and is otherwise orderly and allows productive members to produce?
We already have a society where productive people can produce. The difference in having a "socialist hellhole" is that you also allow people who could be productive to live off the productivity of other people. Eventually there's more idle than working. Why should anyone work when they get what they need handed to them for free?
Why not dump all propaganda? Why just block the Russian propaganda?
Because pretty much everything is propoganda. Propoganda doesn't mean "false news". It meas information intended to promote one's agenda, or to hinder someone else's. VOA (Voice of America) is propoganda. Radio Moscow, Russia Today, WAPO, NYT, all have agendas to promote and agendas to hinder.
Please elaborate how hacking is now qualified when a 10 year old trying something when it shouldn't work in fact does work. That's like someone saying to a child "you're not playing with the toy correctly"
He picked it up and looked at it. And it unlocked.
That's not "hacking". That's not "cracking". That's "looking at a device in the same way everyone else looks at it."
I suppose you'd call this kid a lock-picking genius if he walked up to an unlocked door and it opened when he pushed on it.
The Reuters article that prompted this discussion is absolutely pathetic reporting, since it doesn't bother to link to the rule. The previous discussion at least had this link.
If you look therein, you will find no mention of A/323, and no mention of any intention to allocate frequency space for the backchannel. There is limited space already, it doesn't seem likely there will be one.
In any case, the use of an amplified antenna would prevent the backchannel. The amplifier is one-way and any outgoing transmission would be prevented. With the existing limits on signal range, any station that cuts off viewers that can't pick up a signal with an unamplified external antenna would be stupid. Relying on an internal antenna would be foolish and create safety issues.
You don't need to transmit anything back. The tracking is done entirely by the directionality and selectivity providing different content to different people and monitoring the results.
To "monitor the results" you would need to transmit something back. Of course, "directionality" would not work since there would be too much overlap and the signal would be interfering with itself. 'Selectivity' is a property of the receiver, and one would hope that they are all of about the same selectivity.
The day I am FORCED to watch commercials is the day I will never watch TV again.
The only way I can imagine that anyone could force you to watch commercials is if they treated you like Robot Chicken. That is, strapped you into a chair and held your eyelids open. Otherwise, you always have a choice.
Also, the day my TV wakes itself up to blast some damn "alert" about some thunderstorm 100 miles away or some lost kid is the day I put a REAL power switch on it.
If you know it is a possibility, why would you not install a true power switch before it happens? Are you just looking forward to the day that you can come to/. and bitch about your TV turning itself on and how Someone ought to do Something about it?
How do we differentiate between (a) the "asker" using his/her position to make those implications (i.e., did s/he intend those implications) and (b) the "askee" perceiving implications that weren't there or weren't intended?
That difficulty is why HR seminars on workplace sexual harassment advise everyone to steer clear of the problem by not asking in the first place. And then, if the issue comes up anyway (because just normal social interaction shows that there is a serious interest/connection possibility), they advise one of the two to change jobs (lateral transfer, shift change, etc) so the "position" isn't an issue anymore.
then we should change current sexual harassment law and embark on a widespread public education campaign that tells people that the first ask by itself does, in fact, constitute sexual harassment when directed at a person with relatively less power.
You're about twenty years too late with that suggestion.
The magazine "2600" is named after the frequency of the tone used to mark a long-distance trunk circuit as idle. Because there was no DC path on long distance trunks that could be used as a supervisory signal (like was available on the local loop), when one end of the trunk wanted to tell the other end that the line was idle it put a 2600 Hz tone on it.
The "whistle" was not created by "Captain Crunch" the hacker, it was a toy prize included in boxes of Captain Crunch the cereal, from which the hacker took his nym.
The tone was used to disconnect an existing long distance call. Your local end of the trunk knew it was still in use because your local loop was still active. The remote end thought the trunk had gone idle and disconnected the call from that point onward.
When the tone was stopped, the distant end believed it was being asked to initiate a new call and started listening for the DTMF in-band signalling that would route the new call. This was not the same set of tones as a touch-tone phone produced, so a device called a "blue box" was used by the hacker to generate the correct tones.
There were codes used to route the call via specific paths, so one game was to see how many trunks could get involved before the call was completed. Or you could force specific undersea cables to be used.
This was all described in a paper published in the Bell System Journal, intending to inform other Bell technical employees of the internals of the system. Hackers discovered this information and designed a simple tone generator system (the "blue box") to take advantage of it. Bell attempted to scour all the libraries where this journal was shelved to remove that article, and it is hard to find a bound copy from that time period that still has the article in it.
Because it was the local end of the call that maintained the record of called number and time spent on the call, it was usually a toll-free number that the hacker used. The only evidence of the hack would be extremely long calls to toll-free numbers.
If you practiced, you could actually whistle the disconnect tone yourself. It was somewhat fun to walk past someone who was on a long distance call and then whistle 2600 Hz for a few seconds or even less. If they were engrossed in the conversation they wouldn't notice the whistle, but the phone system did. Their next words were usually "hello? Hello? Are you there?"
When I said that the emergence of Man wasn't spontaneous, what I meant was that we're pretty sure it was gradual.
What does "pretty sure" mean? If it is anything other than "it's the best hypothesis that we can test against", then it's too strong a phrase. We simply do not know.
We can make a pretty damned good guess.
Which is nothing close to proof, and miles from "know". It's a belief based on facts that are not known -- which is a pretty good definition of religion. It's like having faith that the Monet on your wall is real based on lack of ability to prove it isn't.
When I hear "Creationist", I infer the emergence of Man, not the emergence of life.
"Creationist" is the belief that God created the universe, including the Earth, Man, and all of the animal and plant life here. It isn't limited to just "Man". When you talk about putting Creationists in the same barrel as others, you have to use their definition of their label, because that's the definition that they use.
In any case, the argument is the same. The "emergence of Man" is a fact that science cannot prove. It can propose theories, but there is no way to prove which one is right, if any.
No argument from me that the origin of life is a mystery. But the origin of Man was a different event
Then you do not understand what Evolution claims or how it is supposed to work. The "origin of Man" is just an incremental difference in the chain of incremental changes that leads from "single cell" to the present day. In Evolution, man came about in the very same way that the aardvark did, and the duckbill platypus, etc. We're just a continuously changing version of one kind of animal that scientists want to identify as "human", with a pretty arbitrary starting date and an as-of-yet undefined end. Some day scientists will decide we have evolved into a different thing, and they will have the benefit of the historical record that recent Man has recorded for him, so they will be able to say "this is how Man Version 2 came to be. Today's Man Version 1 can't do that -- the historical record starts well into his existence.
and we have pretty good observable evidence that it wasn't spontaneous.
No, you don't. You see certain fossil records and assume that you know facts about them. You then use those facts to lead to other facts. Those facts wind up proving that Man got here via evolution, after the first cells got here via evolution, and so on. You did not observe the event, which is what it would take for science to prove the event.
Until you understand that science cannot prove that the painting you have hanging on your wall is a real Monet, only that it is not, then you cannot understand why your "observed evidence" cannot prove that a specific event took place. Just as the forger of your perfect copy was able to create the "evidence" that makes his copy look real, it is possible that the "evidence" that you rely on to prove the origin of Man was fabricated to give you that impression. That latter fact is why science cannot prove how a specific event took place unless that event was observed. Creationism falls into category. Evolution as the process of slow change over time is not.
What I forgot to add last time is that while "global warming" or "climate change" is a measurement (observation), the reason why it is happening is a theory and falls into the scientific method.
But that doesn't stop me from lumping them in with the people who say the earth isn't heating up or that vaccines cause autism.
You know, there is a significant difference between beliefs in things that cannot ever be proven or disproven and things that can be.
Creationism deals with something that can never be proven. It isn't supposed to be the same as "evolution", but many evolutionists confuse evolution with "how life began". Evolution as "changes over time" have been observed; there is little doubt it exists. How life originated cannot be observed.
Science is not intended to deal with answering questions of how something in the past actually happened, only with proposed mechanisms whereby it could have. A pretty simple example of this is demonstrated by a perfect copy of a Monet. All the scientific methods in the world could not prove that the forgery was painted last month, if the copy is perfect. Science cannot say "this was painted by Monet", it can only say that based on all the measurements it cannot be proven in was not painted by him. It is a matter of faith to believe that science must be able to detect the forgery, thus if it cannot detect it as a forgery it must be real.
Whether vaccines cause autism is a hypothesis that can be tested via the scientific method -- which we just discussed here in/.. The mean temperature of the planet is a measurement that we can make. The biggest problem is making the measurement correctly and dealing with the large areas where the measurements have to be indirect, but it's still a measurement.
Some intelligent people believe some stupid shit.
Yes, yes they do. But I think I see that statement in a different context than you do.
A phone is a location tracking device. It has to be in order for it to work with cellular networks.
That's why he said he keeps it in airplane mode all the time. As long as you don't turn WiFi on while in airplane mode, the cell system can't track you and you can't be tracked by the location of the WiFi router.
If you don't want people to track you, why do you carry one around with you?
Because it plays music and takes pictures. And there are times when I want to make calls.
So let the corporation set up a reflector for that.
The "corporation" doesn't need to do that. There's already a system in place to deal with providing correct caller ID information -- which once again I will tell you is NOT "calling country id".
But most of the time, call centers are taking inbound calls.
The first thing Dell, e.g., asks me for when I call them for support is a number they can call me back at if the connection is lost. Comcast does the same thing. Lots of call centers do that, so they can recover a contact without forcing the customer to call back in and get someone else at random. The same person I'm already dealing with and I've told the problem to will call me back and we'll pick up from where we left off, instead of forcing me to go through the phone tree again and waste a lot of time. It's called "good customer service". It also saves THEM a lot of time and money because I don't have to waste the time of a different person going through the stuff I've already covered with the first one.
But your statement is a complete nonsequitor. So what if most of the calls are incoming? They need to make outgoing calls that show the correct caller ID for the company they are representing, and just blocking calls if the correct caller ID doesn't match the "country of origin" is stupid.
So only allow it if the dealer has registered the call originator.
The car dealer isn't a phone company. They can't "register" the survey company. There is no system for them to tell all the phone companies in the world that someone in Arkansas, for example, is authorized to use their incoming number for caller ID. It just doesn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have government rights of way that are not granted to others.
Until someone else comes along and gets a franchise and then they have access to the rights-of-way, too. Or uses a delivery system that doesn't need access to rights-of-way.
My money's on him not understanding what "entitled" means.
My money's on him being part of a generation that thinks that "data wants to be free" (as in beer) and that he was born to help data achieve its goal. He's entitled to free content because ... well, just because. If misusing the phrase "net neutrality" can help him get more access to free content, then he'll do that.
A small mom and pop ISP could offer last mile internet to a LIMITED number of people. Just as a mom and pop sandwich shop can offer less coverage than McDonalds.
Well, do'h. A small company serves a smaller area than a national one. This is "news for nerds"?
So why can't we run fiber? Because the big ISPs have exclusive franchise licenses that preclude anyone else from competing against them.
Exclusive franchises have been against federal law for almost 20 years.
Ah, so carving content up into basic, standard, and premium internet tiers will make that better, right? Because we all love how cable has fucked over content for the last quarter century.
You mean the same way Sling has carved it's content up into tiers? Seems like a consistent business model, even for a company that is billing itself as "ala-carte".
NN holds that if you pay for X speed then you should get X speed no matter what site you go to.
You were doing reasonably well until you dropped this whopper into the discussion.
Net neutrality is when an ISP treats all of the same kind of services that traverse it's net the same way.
Yes - but also to do something.
No. UBI does not pay people to do anything. It pays them for breathing. That's not a significant "something".
It assumes that anyone who is doing nothing is doing nothing because they can't find a job or have no skills.
No
Yes. It assumes that people who are doing nothing deserve money for doing nothing. That implies a reason that justifies getting money for nothing, like "can't find a job" or "have no skills".
UBI doesn't assume anything - it is not even a living , sentient thing.
Oh for fuck's sake. You know that the colloquial meaning of that kind of statement is not that the inanimate object somehow actually thinks or assumes. The meaning is that the basis behind the system is that there is an assumption on the part of the proponents, that the reason for having the program is the assumption ... The only justification for UBI is if you assume that people deserve money for voluntarily doing nothing. You're wasting everyone's time by being this stupid.
Some people who advocate it, though, think that it is a net positive for the society.
"Some people" think a lot of nutty things. Paying people to do nothing is not now and never will be a net positive for society.
Some even think that it is the only way to humanely deal with a situation where a vast majority of "work" is done by machines.
And there you've just proven the assumption about "can't find a job". It doesn't matter if the vast majority of work is done by machines if people can still find a job, so the only significance to machines is if they keep people from finding jobs. Thus, UBI assumes that people cannot find a job.
That may or may not be a valid reason to hand people money for doing nothing. But simply choosing to do nothing is not. Until you separate the two conditions and treat them appropriately, a blanket UBI is unwarranted.
"A living wage" is not something that people are entitled to, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
So what do you propose we do with people unable to earn a living wage? Slums? Work camps? Organ farms?
I like your proposals. I vote "yes". Oh, wait, you were putting those words in someone else's mouth.
How about welfare? How about reserving welfare for those who need it, and not for those who don't? The guy working for Instacart at $1/hr who could get a real job paying decent money, but would rather work a gig when he wants, sit at home when he doesn't, shouldn't be getting welfare so he can do that.
That's the problem with UBI. It pays people to do nothing. It assumes that anyone who is doing nothing is doing nothing because they can't find a job or have no skills. They need to get a living wage just because they exist. That's the fail in the concept.
More importantly, while I agree that delivery is a basic skill, but so is violence and crime.
Oh, another thing I vote for. Let's pay the violent criminals $1/hr because they have a simple job. Sheesh, what a stupid idea.
Personally, if I were put in a situation where my kids are starving because of my inability to earn a living wage, I'd have zero problems robbing a bunch of free market libertarians to provide them with basic needs.
And we'd have no problems putting you in jail. Does that solve your problem? No? What happens when someone else who is having problems feeding his kids sees that you have something he needs and he robs you for it? And he isn't polite when he takes it, you wind up not in jail but in the hospital. Does that solve your problem? Yes? It does?
or socialist hellhole that provides basic needs for everyone and is otherwise orderly and allows productive members to produce?
We already have a society where productive people can produce. The difference in having a "socialist hellhole" is that you also allow people who could be productive to live off the productivity of other people. Eventually there's more idle than working. Why should anyone work when they get what they need handed to them for free?
Why not dump all propaganda? Why just block the Russian propaganda?
Because pretty much everything is propoganda. Propoganda doesn't mean "false news". It meas information intended to promote one's agenda, or to hinder someone else's. VOA (Voice of America) is propoganda. Radio Moscow, Russia Today, WAPO, NYT, all have agendas to promote and agendas to hinder.
An entire summary repeating standard reasons why everyone reuses code. Must be a click-bait article. Thanks.
Please elaborate how hacking is now qualified when a 10 year old trying something when it shouldn't work in fact does work. That's like someone saying to a child "you're not playing with the toy correctly"
He picked it up and looked at it. And it unlocked.
That's not "hacking". That's not "cracking". That's "looking at a device in the same way everyone else looks at it."
I suppose you'd call this kid a lock-picking genius if he walked up to an unlocked door and it opened when he pushed on it.
There was no hacking or cracking here. It is a flaw in the system.
By implementing this standard,
The Reuters article that prompted this discussion is absolutely pathetic reporting, since it doesn't bother to link to the rule. The previous discussion at least had this link.
If you look therein, you will find no mention of A/323, and no mention of any intention to allocate frequency space for the backchannel. There is limited space already, it doesn't seem likely there will be one.
In any case, the use of an amplified antenna would prevent the backchannel. The amplifier is one-way and any outgoing transmission would be prevented. With the existing limits on signal range, any station that cuts off viewers that can't pick up a signal with an unamplified external antenna would be stupid. Relying on an internal antenna would be foolish and create safety issues.
You don't need to transmit anything back. The tracking is done entirely by the directionality and selectivity providing different content to different people and monitoring the results.
To "monitor the results" you would need to transmit something back. Of course, "directionality" would not work since there would be too much overlap and the signal would be interfering with itself. 'Selectivity' is a property of the receiver, and one would hope that they are all of about the same selectivity.
To which "dikes" do you refer?
Diagonal cutters. But you probably knew that.
What stops Samsung from, say, putting the baseband of a low-end Galaxy phone in each TV and leasing airtime from some MVNO for the uplink?
Nothing stops them from paying the money to try this, but a pair of dikes will stop it from working.
The day I am FORCED to watch commercials is the day I will never watch TV again.
The only way I can imagine that anyone could force you to watch commercials is if they treated you like Robot Chicken. That is, strapped you into a chair and held your eyelids open. Otherwise, you always have a choice.
Also, the day my TV wakes itself up to blast some damn "alert" about some thunderstorm 100 miles away or some lost kid is the day I put a REAL power switch on it.
If you know it is a possibility, why would you not install a true power switch before it happens? Are you just looking forward to the day that you can come to /. and bitch about your TV turning itself on and how Someone ought to do Something about it?
How do we differentiate between (a) the "asker" using his/her position to make those implications (i.e., did s/he intend those implications) and (b) the "askee" perceiving implications that weren't there or weren't intended?
That difficulty is why HR seminars on workplace sexual harassment advise everyone to steer clear of the problem by not asking in the first place. And then, if the issue comes up anyway (because just normal social interaction shows that there is a serious interest/connection possibility), they advise one of the two to change jobs (lateral transfer, shift change, etc) so the "position" isn't an issue anymore.
then we should change current sexual harassment law and embark on a widespread public education campaign that tells people that the first ask by itself does, in fact, constitute sexual harassment when directed at a person with relatively less power.
You're about twenty years too late with that suggestion.
The "whistle" was not created by "Captain Crunch" the hacker, it was a toy prize included in boxes of Captain Crunch the cereal, from which the hacker took his nym.
The tone was used to disconnect an existing long distance call. Your local end of the trunk knew it was still in use because your local loop was still active. The remote end thought the trunk had gone idle and disconnected the call from that point onward.
When the tone was stopped, the distant end believed it was being asked to initiate a new call and started listening for the DTMF in-band signalling that would route the new call. This was not the same set of tones as a touch-tone phone produced, so a device called a "blue box" was used by the hacker to generate the correct tones.
There were codes used to route the call via specific paths, so one game was to see how many trunks could get involved before the call was completed. Or you could force specific undersea cables to be used.
This was all described in a paper published in the Bell System Journal, intending to inform other Bell technical employees of the internals of the system. Hackers discovered this information and designed a simple tone generator system (the "blue box") to take advantage of it. Bell attempted to scour all the libraries where this journal was shelved to remove that article, and it is hard to find a bound copy from that time period that still has the article in it.
Because it was the local end of the call that maintained the record of called number and time spent on the call, it was usually a toll-free number that the hacker used. The only evidence of the hack would be extremely long calls to toll-free numbers.
If you practiced, you could actually whistle the disconnect tone yourself. It was somewhat fun to walk past someone who was on a long distance call and then whistle 2600 Hz for a few seconds or even less. If they were engrossed in the conversation they wouldn't notice the whistle, but the phone system did. Their next words were usually "hello? Hello? Are you there?"
That is ancient history to most folks these days.
When I said that the emergence of Man wasn't spontaneous, what I meant was that we're pretty sure it was gradual.
What does "pretty sure" mean? If it is anything other than "it's the best hypothesis that we can test against", then it's too strong a phrase. We simply do not know.
We can make a pretty damned good guess.
Which is nothing close to proof, and miles from "know". It's a belief based on facts that are not known -- which is a pretty good definition of religion. It's like having faith that the Monet on your wall is real based on lack of ability to prove it isn't.
When I hear "Creationist", I infer the emergence of Man, not the emergence of life.
"Creationist" is the belief that God created the universe, including the Earth, Man, and all of the animal and plant life here. It isn't limited to just "Man". When you talk about putting Creationists in the same barrel as others, you have to use their definition of their label, because that's the definition that they use.
In any case, the argument is the same. The "emergence of Man" is a fact that science cannot prove. It can propose theories, but there is no way to prove which one is right, if any.
No argument from me that the origin of life is a mystery. But the origin of Man was a different event
Then you do not understand what Evolution claims or how it is supposed to work. The "origin of Man" is just an incremental difference in the chain of incremental changes that leads from "single cell" to the present day. In Evolution, man came about in the very same way that the aardvark did, and the duckbill platypus, etc. We're just a continuously changing version of one kind of animal that scientists want to identify as "human", with a pretty arbitrary starting date and an as-of-yet undefined end. Some day scientists will decide we have evolved into a different thing, and they will have the benefit of the historical record that recent Man has recorded for him, so they will be able to say "this is how Man Version 2 came to be. Today's Man Version 1 can't do that -- the historical record starts well into his existence.
and we have pretty good observable evidence that it wasn't spontaneous.
No, you don't. You see certain fossil records and assume that you know facts about them. You then use those facts to lead to other facts. Those facts wind up proving that Man got here via evolution, after the first cells got here via evolution, and so on. You did not observe the event, which is what it would take for science to prove the event.
Until you understand that science cannot prove that the painting you have hanging on your wall is a real Monet, only that it is not, then you cannot understand why your "observed evidence" cannot prove that a specific event took place. Just as the forger of your perfect copy was able to create the "evidence" that makes his copy look real, it is possible that the "evidence" that you rely on to prove the origin of Man was fabricated to give you that impression. That latter fact is why science cannot prove how a specific event took place unless that event was observed. Creationism falls into category. Evolution as the process of slow change over time is not.
What I forgot to add last time is that while "global warming" or "climate change" is a measurement (observation), the reason why it is happening is a theory and falls into the scientific method.
But that doesn't stop me from lumping them in with the people who say the earth isn't heating up or that vaccines cause autism.
You know, there is a significant difference between beliefs in things that cannot ever be proven or disproven and things that can be.
Creationism deals with something that can never be proven. It isn't supposed to be the same as "evolution", but many evolutionists confuse evolution with "how life began". Evolution as "changes over time" have been observed; there is little doubt it exists. How life originated cannot be observed.
Science is not intended to deal with answering questions of how something in the past actually happened, only with proposed mechanisms whereby it could have. A pretty simple example of this is demonstrated by a perfect copy of a Monet. All the scientific methods in the world could not prove that the forgery was painted last month, if the copy is perfect. Science cannot say "this was painted by Monet", it can only say that based on all the measurements it cannot be proven in was not painted by him. It is a matter of faith to believe that science must be able to detect the forgery, thus if it cannot detect it as a forgery it must be real.
Whether vaccines cause autism is a hypothesis that can be tested via the scientific method -- which we just discussed here in /.. The mean temperature of the planet is a measurement that we can make. The biggest problem is making the measurement correctly and dealing with the large areas where the measurements have to be indirect, but it's still a measurement.
Some intelligent people believe some stupid shit.
Yes, yes they do. But I think I see that statement in a different context than you do.
They also triangulate on cell towers.
Radio isn't magic. If the phone is in airplane mode, there is no secret juju at the cell towers that can track you.
A phone is a location tracking device. It has to be in order for it to work with cellular networks.
That's why he said he keeps it in airplane mode all the time. As long as you don't turn WiFi on while in airplane mode, the cell system can't track you and you can't be tracked by the location of the WiFi router.
If you don't want people to track you, why do you carry one around with you?
Because it plays music and takes pictures. And there are times when I want to make calls.
So let the corporation set up a reflector for that.
The "corporation" doesn't need to do that. There's already a system in place to deal with providing correct caller ID information -- which once again I will tell you is NOT "calling country id".
But most of the time, call centers are taking inbound calls.
The first thing Dell, e.g., asks me for when I call them for support is a number they can call me back at if the connection is lost. Comcast does the same thing. Lots of call centers do that, so they can recover a contact without forcing the customer to call back in and get someone else at random. The same person I'm already dealing with and I've told the problem to will call me back and we'll pick up from where we left off, instead of forcing me to go through the phone tree again and waste a lot of time. It's called "good customer service". It also saves THEM a lot of time and money because I don't have to waste the time of a different person going through the stuff I've already covered with the first one.
But your statement is a complete nonsequitor. So what if most of the calls are incoming? They need to make outgoing calls that show the correct caller ID for the company they are representing, and just blocking calls if the correct caller ID doesn't match the "country of origin" is stupid.
So only allow it if the dealer has registered the call originator.
The car dealer isn't a phone company. They can't "register" the survey company. There is no system for them to tell all the phone companies in the world that someone in Arkansas, for example, is authorized to use their incoming number for caller ID. It just doesn't exist.