Don't survey a subset of the users and then generalize that to all users. It's inherently unfair
Not at all. Unless you are surveying ALL users of a product, then by definition you are surveying a subset and generalizing to the entire population. The trick is picking a representative subset.
The problem is one of methodology. Do you pick a subset with specific, known characteristics, and then generalize that? If so, you've introduced bias.
Other than the fact that I'm stuck with AT&T, I really like it.
A bittersweet phenomenon. Much as I dislike Apple Computer, the iPad is a cool product, and it's unfortunate the Jobs went with AT&T. Then again, what are the options for a nationwide network provider? Verizon? Please. Sprint? I don't think so. I'm currently on T-Mobile (and I'm very happy with their services, both voice and data) but I doubt they could handle the load of millions of crazed iPad/iPhone users all crying out for their streaming this and streaming that.
Corporations defraud customers and/or workers. I see no reason why we can't reverse that direction once in a while.
That's not the question. Is it right to commit fraud against one corporation in order to cause grief for another (the one you really have a beef with?)
There are checkmarks in both the Android and iphone columns of your spreadsheet for the row "email" but there are significant differences in their implementations.
While it's true that wireless is not affected by the microwave radiation
What? 802.11x and microwaves operate in the 2.4 Ghz range, so of course they can interfere (well, a 40 milliwatt router isn't going to have any effect upon a 1200 watt oven, but the converse is a different story.) I know that because my old oven would kill all wireless access within fifty feet. I also happen to know that the oven and the router were on different phases, and furthermore the router was on a continuous-duty UPS. So it was the oven, it was leaky, and it interfered with (jammed, really) my access point. Used to piss me off when I was trying to use my laptop online when somebody was cooking in the kitchen.
So using my home brew 5 watt FM transmitter to loop Slayer's "God Hates Us All" on the same band as a local Christian station for days on end... that might be a problem?
You find me ONE news story of ACTUAL ham assistance from a REPUTABLE news source in the last year. Just try it!
(Oh, and getting chased off Haiti by the locals doesn't count!)
Put that in your hippie HAM-hating pipe and smoke it!
There was a time when HAMs were known as the "High And Mighty" and CB'ers were known as "Chicken Banders" (because they were too lazy or afraid to get an amateur license.) The GP is apparently in the latter category.
Say what you will, but your argument doesn't hold water against verifiable facts.
I was going to say something myself, but I'd say you covered it pretty well.
I wasn't aware that the number of HAM licenses was on the rise: that's good news. What has concerned me for a number of years now (and I grew up in the sixties, when electronics and other technical hobbies were common, and Allied Radio Shack was actually a parts store) is that there's very little to attract young people into technical pursuits nowadays. HAM radio was a big one: if you really got into it, you could build your own transmitter, and learn a lot about electronics and RF techniques. I've known a number of good engineers over the years who got into engineering because of an early start in amateur radio. For any nation that would like to maintain technological leadership, having organized hobbies to interest the younger generations in technology is a good thing. Another example is amateur rocketry, although I understand the DHS has made that a bit more difficult in recent years.
Go from house to house, both sides of your street, pounding on doors, yelling "I'm gunna start kicking some ass if you don't stop interfering with my WiFi Signal! Pussy! C'mon!".
Well, another possible solution that might involve fewer bruises would be to go out back of your neighbor's homes and disconnect them, one by one, from the power line. When your interference stops... there's the culprit. Now, it's possible that one or more of them might have their access point running on a UPS, so it would be best to wait a half an hour or so between each test for the battery to run down.
Since when is it considered illegal for me to give away my own content, if I chose to do so?
It isn't. ASCAP's position is that it should be.
That's very true. ASCAP (and the RIAA, and all other such abominations) feel that they are entitled to a piece of every sale or performance of every copyrighted work. Doesn't matter if they have no rights to such works. Doesn't even matter if the work is under an expired copyright, is public domain, or was released under some other terms. So far as they're concerned, we owe them for the right to "consume" creative material, whatever the source because, well, we just do that's all. Bloodsuckers, all of them.
And they call Public Knowledge and the EFF "extreme"?
Their level of hypocrisy is just stunning, really, it is.
Wasn't Obama who asked for it, so not really his. And that's pretending such kill switch is not plain impossible.
Not really impossible... just expensive. The Internet is not as distributed as most people think it is: just break the peering points and you'd have a good start on shutting everything down.
In fact, you are supporting the opposite argument: that consumers feel entitled to free content with ads.
No, we feel entitled to free content with no-ads. We already went through this with the VCR. All that's happened nowadays is that the VCR has been superseded by more efficient technologies for doing the same thing: recording programming and skipping ads.
It's a terrible joke to make, but when Al Qaeda toppled the Twin Towers we only lost one station; it took the FCC to destroy all of them.
No kidding. I never had a problem with analog TV: it wasn't high-definition but that wasn't the point. The only reason I pay for TV now is because that's the only way I can get it. And you know what? Now that I'm paying for it again I'm rediscovering the fact that it isn't worth all that much.
No, you get flamebait when you post controversially
That too. Not that my comment about flamebait mods was particularly controversial, just an observation. Probably the astro-modders trying to teach me a lesson.
Exactly. The cat is out of the bag and even they realize it now. It's not going to be banned anytime soon, if they were even thinking about it we would have been moving towards it by now, not away from it.
Well, they can't ban encryption outright... every major corporation and every major government in the world depends upon it. On the otherhand, I could imagine governments limiting the use of encryption by private citizens to certain officially sanctioned activities: online banking, for example. They could do that while simultaneously outlawing it for protection of personal data.
So wait, does this mean Magic Eye pictures (remember those?) can make you go blind too?
And while we're at it, is it really such a great idea that almost all the kids movies these days are pushed in 3D?
I don't know. Young children probably don't care that much about 3D, I suspect, but the parents are more likely to spend the bucks if they get to see something in 3D.
Are you sure? The human brain also uses visual cues to determine relative object size and distance, which is why you can close one eye and still know how far away the door is, still navigate around a room and still drive a car.
I don't like the idea of smacking kids, but you can't just tell people not to smack their kids without teaching them how to replace it with something else at least as effective, otherwise you'll end up with a generation of self centered teens with no respect for anyone.
Small electric shocks, administered by a radio-controlled neck ring. Adjust the voltage to suit the degree of infraction. Maybe even put in voice recognition so every time the little bastard swears he gets zapped.
Simple. If you expect a corporation to do anything else, you are very naive.
Shareholder effect. You might have an ethical CEO or Board of Directors, but let those scruples reduce dividends by too much and upper management will be replaced. The corporate system currently selects for sociopathy (or at least, for people capable of behaving that way when paid enough) because that's what investors want. Corporate culture is, in a very real way, a reflection of the general population.
I've known people to get involved in the politics of companies in which they have investments who can't be bothered to get out and vote in a Presidential election. It's all about money, and not all the problems we have can be laid at corporate management's feet. They do what we want them to do, which is make us as much money per unit time as possible, and to hell with the consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't survey a subset of the users and then generalize that to all users. It's inherently unfair
Not at all. Unless you are surveying ALL users of a product, then by definition you are surveying a subset and generalizing to the entire population. The trick is picking a representative subset.
The problem is one of methodology. Do you pick a subset with specific, known characteristics, and then generalize that? If so, you've introduced bias.
Other than the fact that I'm stuck with AT&T, I really like it.
A bittersweet phenomenon. Much as I dislike Apple Computer, the iPad is a cool product, and it's unfortunate the Jobs went with AT&T. Then again, what are the options for a nationwide network provider? Verizon? Please. Sprint? I don't think so. I'm currently on T-Mobile (and I'm very happy with their services, both voice and data) but I doubt they could handle the load of millions of crazed iPad/iPhone users all crying out for their streaming this and streaming that.
... neither can AT&T.
Of course
That's too much an obvious and simple solution, i.e. a clear wear resistant coating.
You don't need a $200K/year PhD, MBA or BS degree to come up with that...
Might not be sufficient. You'll get detuning effects by just being in close proximity.
Corporations defraud customers and/or workers. I see no reason why we can't reverse that direction once in a while.
That's not the question. Is it right to commit fraud against one corporation in order to cause grief for another (the one you really have a beef with?)
There are checkmarks in both the Android and iphone columns of your spreadsheet for the row "email" but there are significant differences in their implementations.
What spreadsheet? Who were you replying to?
While it's true that wireless is not affected by the microwave radiation
What? 802.11x and microwaves operate in the 2.4 Ghz range, so of course they can interfere (well, a 40 milliwatt router isn't going to have any effect upon a 1200 watt oven, but the converse is a different story.) I know that because my old oven would kill all wireless access within fifty feet. I also happen to know that the oven and the router were on different phases, and furthermore the router was on a continuous-duty UPS. So it was the oven, it was leaky, and it interfered with (jammed, really) my access point. Used to piss me off when I was trying to use my laptop online when somebody was cooking in the kitchen.
So using my home brew 5 watt FM transmitter to loop Slayer's "God Hates Us All" on the same band as a local Christian station for days on end... that might be a problem?
We'll write you in jail.
You find me ONE news story of ACTUAL ham assistance from a REPUTABLE news source in the last year. Just try it! (Oh, and getting chased off Haiti by the locals doesn't count!)
Hams help with emergency service coordination during major Windstream 911 outage. http://journalstar.com/news/local/article_84aba07a-3d9b-11df-8d7a-001cc4c03286.html
Put that in your hippie HAM-hating pipe and smoke it!
There was a time when HAMs were known as the "High And Mighty" and CB'ers were known as "Chicken Banders" (because they were too lazy or afraid to get an amateur license.) The GP is apparently in the latter category.
Say what you will, but your argument doesn't hold water against verifiable facts.
I was going to say something myself, but I'd say you covered it pretty well.
I wasn't aware that the number of HAM licenses was on the rise: that's good news. What has concerned me for a number of years now (and I grew up in the sixties, when electronics and other technical hobbies were common, and Allied Radio Shack was actually a parts store) is that there's very little to attract young people into technical pursuits nowadays. HAM radio was a big one: if you really got into it, you could build your own transmitter, and learn a lot about electronics and RF techniques. I've known a number of good engineers over the years who got into engineering because of an early start in amateur radio. For any nation that would like to maintain technological leadership, having organized hobbies to interest the younger generations in technology is a good thing. Another example is amateur rocketry, although I understand the DHS has made that a bit more difficult in recent years.
Wifi is 2.4GHz. Microwave ovens are also 2.4GHz. She has a leaky oven.
Yes. That happened to me. The microwave would instantly kill all wireless access in the vicinity. A new oven solved that problem.
Go from house to house, both sides of your street, pounding on doors, yelling "I'm gunna start kicking some ass if you don't stop interfering with my WiFi Signal! Pussy! C'mon!".
Well, another possible solution that might involve fewer bruises would be to go out back of your neighbor's homes and disconnect them, one by one, from the power line. When your interference stops ... there's the culprit. Now, it's possible that one or more of them might have their access point running on a UPS, so it would be best to wait a half an hour or so between each test for the battery to run down.
Since when is it considered illegal for me to give away my own content, if I chose to do so?
It isn't. ASCAP's position is that it should be.
That's very true. ASCAP (and the RIAA, and all other such abominations) feel that they are entitled to a piece of every sale or performance of every copyrighted work. Doesn't matter if they have no rights to such works. Doesn't even matter if the work is under an expired copyright, is public domain, or was released under some other terms. So far as they're concerned, we owe them for the right to "consume" creative material, whatever the source because, well, we just do that's all. Bloodsuckers, all of them.
And they call Public Knowledge and the EFF "extreme"?
Their level of hypocrisy is just stunning, really, it is.
Great life you have ahead of you...
He probably does, if ignorance truly is bliss.
Wasn't Obama who asked for it, so not really his. And that's pretending such kill switch is not plain impossible.
Not really impossible ... just expensive. The Internet is not as distributed as most people think it is: just break the peering points and you'd have a good start on shutting everything down.
In fact, you are supporting the opposite argument: that consumers feel entitled to free content with ads.
No, we feel entitled to free content with no-ads. We already went through this with the VCR. All that's happened nowadays is that the VCR has been superseded by more efficient technologies for doing the same thing: recording programming and skipping ads.
It's a terrible joke to make, but when Al Qaeda toppled the Twin Towers we only lost one station; it took the FCC to destroy all of them.
No kidding. I never had a problem with analog TV: it wasn't high-definition but that wasn't the point. The only reason I pay for TV now is because that's the only way I can get it. And you know what? Now that I'm paying for it again I'm rediscovering the fact that it isn't worth all that much.
How many politicians up in arms about Google Wi-Fi sniffing will want to know more about this?
Answer: none. Nobody knows Washington better than AT&T.
No, you get flamebait when you post controversially
That too. Not that my comment about flamebait mods was particularly controversial, just an observation. Probably the astro-modders trying to teach me a lesson.
Exactly. The cat is out of the bag and even they realize it now. It's not going to be banned anytime soon, if they were even thinking about it we would have been moving towards it by now, not away from it.
Well, they can't ban encryption outright ... every major corporation and every major government in the world depends upon it. On the otherhand, I could imagine governments limiting the use of encryption by private citizens to certain officially sanctioned activities: online banking, for example. They could do that while simultaneously outlawing it for protection of personal data.
Seriously, i've been having trouble gauging distances and focusing on objects...
Try it again, only do it sober this time.
So wait, does this mean Magic Eye pictures (remember those?) can make you go blind too?
And while we're at it, is it really such a great idea that almost all the kids movies these days are pushed in 3D?
I don't know. Young children probably don't care that much about 3D, I suspect, but the parents are more likely to spend the bucks if they get to see something in 3D.
That said, I know I can see depth.
Are you sure? The human brain also uses visual cues to determine relative object size and distance, which is why you can close one eye and still know how far away the door is, still navigate around a room and still drive a car.
Don't hit your kids.
I don't like the idea of smacking kids, but you can't just tell people not to smack their kids without teaching them how to replace it with something else at least as effective, otherwise you'll end up with a generation of self centered teens with no respect for anyone.
Small electric shocks, administered by a radio-controlled neck ring. Adjust the voltage to suit the degree of infraction. Maybe even put in voice recognition so every time the little bastard swears he gets zapped.
..yes. basically.
You're obviously not familiar with how American parents react.
Or our political system when someone invokes the magic "save the children" spell.
Cost of Recall > Cost of settlements/fines
Simple. If you expect a corporation to do anything else, you are very naive.
Shareholder effect. You might have an ethical CEO or Board of Directors, but let those scruples reduce dividends by too much and upper management will be replaced. The corporate system currently selects for sociopathy (or at least, for people capable of behaving that way when paid enough) because that's what investors want. Corporate culture is, in a very real way, a reflection of the general population.
I've known people to get involved in the politics of companies in which they have investments who can't be bothered to get out and vote in a Presidential election. It's all about money, and not all the problems we have can be laid at corporate management's feet. They do what we want them to do, which is make us as much money per unit time as possible, and to hell with the consequences.