'All you can eat in one sitting', not 'all you can eat in a lifetime'.
It does take some really specific use-cases to reach the cap. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, to be sure, that they hadn't considered providing that much service to those select people when they wrote up their marketing materials.
Again, in the buffet scenario you're totally comfortable with 'normal' but in the bandwidth area you're not. This is a classic double standard.
'Unlimited' is a loose word used to mean something similar to 'all you can eat'. You can believe that in one context words must be exact and in others it isn't required, but it simply isn't fair to do so.
In short, 'Limited in such a way that most people will be satisfied' is roughly the same as 'all you can eat in one sitting'.
That's understood from the context, but otherwise obvious from the line "could be construed as allegations of research misconduct, which would constitute a violation of Penn State policy".
Are you being serious?
Yeppers, I was 'on pause' there for a moment wondering how Penn State's policy impacted servers in England, etc. It all sounds a bit self-important to me.
No government agency (city, county, state) who has entered into any exclusivity agreement for provenance of communications systems shall receive Federal funding of any kind.
You're labeling me a damned idiot, and even openly stated that you believe that I have a 'bug up my ass' about Apple. You said so a post or two over, remember?
Busted? I think so...
Anyway, I'm specifically replying to your statement that...
There's no way to make a phone that doesn't suffer from signal attenuation when you cover the antenna.
Did you even watch the video? Because it shows two phones, made by the same company, on the same network, in the same physical location, being held in the same manner, achieving different results. That's pretty scientific, in so far as a youtube video can be. He even deliberately covers where the old device's antenna is as well, without that same result.
You're flaming me. And honestly I think you should apologize, if not for the anti-social behavior then at least for not even watching the video you 'rebutted' so handily.
And don't think this doesn't apply in reverse. You clearly have a bug up your ass over all things Apple, and you're latching on to this issue in a form of confirmation bias to bash Apple.
It's not like somehow those that defend Apple are irrational morons and only the Apple bashers are level-headed rationalists.
Clearly you are correct. Well, except the 'bug up my ass' over 'all things Apple'. In terms of hardware, I simply think that illustrating that Apple's crap is the same crap as everyone else's crap is, well, justice. They frequently deceive people and only rarely is it revealed. Now, when it comes to their 'store' and the implications of that monstrosity, that's another battle. But those are just coincidental evils. I have nothing against fruit-oriented companies, in general, Apple included.
I'm sure there's something that the company has done that I like, but no one wants to discuss those topics, so nothing comes immediately to mind.
Sleep deprivation? Seriously? That is something people routinely do to themselves, from working waaaay too much, to stupid teenagers trying to stay up for days at a time. Astronauts have to stay up for 72 hours straight as part of their training. Of course it impairs your judgment, even makes you hallucinate, but torture? By itself, not so much.
Anything can be torture, eventually. It's all a matter of degree.
You realize that you just lost your original argument ("man up" etc) by your own admission ("irrelevant")? Well, congratulations! Not many people are man enough to be able to do that.
Cute. The pseudonym isn't relevant. The identity is. But you knew that I meant that anyway, didn't you?
Accounts have these things called 'passwords' on them... you know what, nevermind.
You mean just as Apple haters are looking for ways to spread FUD and exaggerate an issue that isn't an issue for most?
I think some of us are amazed that this is an issue for anyone, period. This isn't aftermarket crap, remember? You pay more for Apple stuff for a reason, but apparently 'testing' and/or 'quality' is not that reason. If you see nothing to discuss there, then I don't know what to tell you.
And to me, the writer, it'd mean that I end up creating a role that I subconsciously follow and so no more disruptive posts that don't fit to my posting history. No thanks. There's enough groupthink already.
While it's handy to be able to filter out singleminded fanboys and shills, it isn't purely a good thing. What if one of them actually made sense one day? The "foes" wouldn't read it, the "friends" would frown, and he'd go back into posting same old shit because that's what's expected of him.
You're correct in that I didn't explicitly state that you would also have to use your account to express your own thoughts, without regard to deviating away from your self just for the purpose of scoring points.
I kind of thought it was obvious. If I wanted to interact with yesmen I'd use Facebook. This is a place for discussion...
So posting with a pseudonym is somehow more brave?
Irrelevant. Sign your work so it can be traced back to you.
On and about November 22, 2009, The Pennsylvania State University began to receive numerous communications (emails, phone calls and letters) accusing Dr. Michael E, Mann of having engaged in acts, beginning in approximately 1998, that included manipulating data, destroying records and colluding to hamper the progress of scientific discourse around the issue of anthropogenic global warming, These accusations were based on perceptions of the content of the emails stolen from a server at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain as widely reported,
Given the sheer volume of the communications to Penn State, the similarity of their content and the variety of sources, which included University alumni, federal and state politicians, and others, many of whom had had no relationship with Pel1l1 State, Dr. Eva J. Pell, then Senior Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, was asked to examine the matter. The reason for having Dr. Pell examine the matter was that the accusations, when placed in an academic context, could be construed as allegations of research misconduct, which would constitute a violation of Penn State policy,
Scientific hijinks!?!?! Somebody get me Penn State on the phone, NOW!!
You'd think they might have mentioned that he worked there. But maybe that only amuses me...
I don't expect my comments to stand on my merits and reputation, I expect my comments to stand on their own merits.
Then you're doing it wrong. Posting as an AC automatically lumps you in with trolls, shills, sock puppets, and liars. Sign your comments, at the very least, and stand behind what you say. Otherwise, why say it at all? Maybe just shoot yourself an email so you can see the text on the page? I dunno...
Being AC may simply mean that one hasn't bothered to create an account before now.
It could logically mean that, but it rarely does. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages and there genuinely isn't any cost attached to it. You could be new, but comments like "I've said it before, I'll say it again" would indicate otherwise. So in the end you're not being intellectually honest, are you? Better put, you'd be honest in saying:
Being AC may simply mean that one has either avoided creating an account before now, or isn't using it for fear of accountability.
Point being, there's no shortage of accounts, so the poverty defense isn't going to fly here.
Since I could return my iPhone right now for a full refund and go back to using my old one, that kind of blows your "reinforcement dynamics" theory out of the water.
I believe you have me confused with a B. F. Skinner.
Slashdot Mirror
'All you can eat in one sitting', not 'all you can eat in a lifetime'.
It does take some really specific use-cases to reach the cap. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, to be sure, that they hadn't considered providing that much service to those select people when they wrote up their marketing materials.
ORLY?
Under which part of the Constitution?
Well, maybe, but probably not. Only very specific use-cases would attain those bandwidth caps.
Um, dude, you forgot to post as AC.
Again, in the buffet scenario you're totally comfortable with 'normal' but in the bandwidth area you're not. This is a classic double standard.
'Unlimited' is a loose word used to mean something similar to 'all you can eat'. You can believe that in one context words must be exact and in others it isn't required, but it simply isn't fair to do so.
In short, 'Limited in such a way that most people will be satisfied' is roughly the same as 'all you can eat in one sitting'.
That's understood from the context, but otherwise obvious from the line "could be construed as allegations of research misconduct, which would constitute a violation of Penn State policy".
Are you being serious?
Yeppers, I was 'on pause' there for a moment wondering how Penn State's policy impacted servers in England, etc. It all sounds a bit self-important to me.
But nowhere in the description does it say, 'all you can eat without bringing a dumptruck'.
I think you get my point.
Okay then, try this:
No government agency (city, county, state) who has entered into any exclusivity agreement for provenance of communications systems shall receive Federal funding of any kind.
Better?
,No they promised unlimited but meant 250GB/month.
So add liars to the list.
I'm still not sure how this is dishonest. Have you ever brought a dumptruck to an 'all you can eat' buffet and proceeded to fill the back of it?
You're labeling me a damned idiot, and even openly stated that you believe that I have a 'bug up my ass' about Apple. You said so a post or two over, remember?
Busted? I think so...
Anyway, I'm specifically replying to your statement that...
There's no way to make a phone that doesn't suffer from signal attenuation when you cover the antenna.
Did you even watch the video? Because it shows two phones, made by the same company, on the same network, in the same physical location, being held in the same manner, achieving different results. That's pretty scientific, in so far as a youtube video can be. He even deliberately covers where the old device's antenna is as well, without that same result.
You're flaming me. And honestly I think you should apologize, if not for the anti-social behavior then at least for not even watching the video you 'rebutted' so handily.
:)
And don't think this doesn't apply in reverse. You clearly have a bug up your ass over all things Apple, and you're latching on to this issue in a form of confirmation bias to bash Apple.
It's not like somehow those that defend Apple are irrational morons and only the Apple bashers are level-headed rationalists.
Clearly you are correct. Well, except the 'bug up my ass' over 'all things Apple'. In terms of hardware, I simply think that illustrating that Apple's crap is the same crap as everyone else's crap is, well, justice. They frequently deceive people and only rarely is it revealed. Now, when it comes to their 'store' and the implications of that monstrosity, that's another battle. But those are just coincidental evils. I have nothing against fruit-oriented companies, in general, Apple included.
I'm sure there's something that the company has done that I like, but no one wants to discuss those topics, so nothing comes immediately to mind.
Sleep deprivation? Seriously? That is something people routinely do to themselves, from working waaaay too much, to stupid teenagers trying to stay up for days at a time. Astronauts have to stay up for 72 hours straight as part of their training. Of course it impairs your judgment, even makes you hallucinate, but torture? By itself, not so much.
Anything can be torture, eventually. It's all a matter of degree.
Governments don't have ethics but they do have laws. If it's legal then it's ethical according to the government.
Interesting point, however, all governments on earth are constructed entirely of human beings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03PQyWp0mWE
But please do continue the ad hominem attacks.
Crap, wrong clip. Sorry about that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03PQyWp0mWE
In the correct video it happens at roughly 1:30.
That makes sense, and would be fine, if it were true.
But it isn't just about fewer bars on the screen, it is about dropped calls. Look it up.
I get the trolls part, but "helping after neonatal death"?
You realize that you just lost your original argument ("man up" etc) by your own admission ("irrelevant")? Well, congratulations! Not many people are man enough to be able to do that.
Cute. The pseudonym isn't relevant. The identity is. But you knew that I meant that anyway, didn't you?
Accounts have these things called 'passwords' on them... you know what, nevermind.
You mean just as Apple haters are looking for ways to spread FUD and exaggerate an issue that isn't an issue for most?
I think some of us are amazed that this is an issue for anyone, period. This isn't aftermarket crap, remember? You pay more for Apple stuff for a reason, but apparently 'testing' and/or 'quality' is not that reason. If you see nothing to discuss there, then I don't know what to tell you.
And to me, the writer, it'd mean that I end up creating a role that I subconsciously follow and so no more disruptive posts that don't fit to my posting history. No thanks. There's enough groupthink already.
While it's handy to be able to filter out singleminded fanboys and shills, it isn't purely a good thing. What if one of them actually made sense one day? The "foes" wouldn't read it, the "friends" would frown, and he'd go back into posting same old shit because that's what's expected of him.
You're correct in that I didn't explicitly state that you would also have to use your account to express your own thoughts, without regard to deviating away from your self just for the purpose of scoring points.
I kind of thought it was obvious. If I wanted to interact with yesmen I'd use Facebook. This is a place for discussion...
So posting with a pseudonym is somehow more brave?
Irrelevant. Sign your work so it can be traced back to you.
From the PDF...
On and about November 22, 2009, The Pennsylvania State University began to receive
numerous communications (emails, phone calls and letters) accusing Dr. Michael E,
Mann of having engaged in acts, beginning in approximately 1998, that included
manipulating data, destroying records and colluding to hamper the progress of scientific
discourse around the issue of anthropogenic global warming, These accusations were
based on perceptions of the content of the emails stolen from a server at the Climatic
Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain as widely reported,
Given the sheer volume of the communications to Penn State, the similarity of their
content and the variety of sources, which included University alumni, federal and state
politicians, and others, many of whom had had no relationship with Pel1l1 State, Dr. Eva J.
Pell, then Senior Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, was
asked to examine the matter. The reason for having Dr. Pell examine the matter was that
the accusations, when placed in an academic context, could be construed as allegations of
research misconduct, which would constitute a violation of Penn State policy,
Scientific hijinks!?!?! Somebody get me Penn State on the phone, NOW!!
You'd think they might have mentioned that he worked there. But maybe that only amuses me...
(Different AC)
Sez you. Care to prove it?
Not everyone who reads slashdot has an account.
A poverty defense? Really?
I don't expect my comments to stand on my merits and reputation, I expect my comments to stand on their own merits.
Then you're doing it wrong. Posting as an AC automatically lumps you in with trolls, shills, sock puppets, and liars. Sign your comments, at the very least, and stand behind what you say. Otherwise, why say it at all? Maybe just shoot yourself an email so you can see the text on the page? I dunno...
Being AC may simply mean that one hasn't bothered to create an account before now.
It could logically mean that, but it rarely does. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages and there genuinely isn't any cost attached to it. You could be new, but comments like "I've said it before, I'll say it again" would indicate otherwise. So in the end you're not being intellectually honest, are you? Better put, you'd be honest in saying:
Being AC may simply mean that one has either avoided creating an account before now, or isn't using it for fear of accountability.
Point being, there's no shortage of accounts, so the poverty defense isn't going to fly here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmDtOao36Mc
Two phones, both Apple, same network, same physical location, held in the same way. Check it out...
Since I could return my iPhone right now for a full refund and go back to using my old one, that kind of blows your "reinforcement dynamics" theory out of the water.
I believe you have me confused with a B. F. Skinner.