so proposing that they could do that but then that he won't have signal when he gets there is ludicrous.
Depending on the work crew to have the same repeater that you need is what is ludicrous. Roughly a 1 in 3 chance - and that's assuming that they'd even be bothered... I've never been asked to hang a repeater and I suspect it is not a very common practice. He's not supplying his crews with phones and he's sure as hell not giving them all $300+ repeaters just to save $30/month on a phone bill. Payback period of 30 months or so is not very cost-effective.
Further, work crews working in areas without electricity use air or electrical tools powered by a portable generator.
They often use batteries now. If they do have a generator, there isn't exactly a ton of surplus sockets, it's on-and-off, and a terrible source for sensitive electronics.
(work crews have comm, but Bob doesn't have comm when he visits work crews).
I never said his crews had communications, and if they do it's because they have Verizon or are stepping outside to make calls. He needs to be continuously reachable, not them.
You also still haven't addressed how repeaters would solve his rural/industrial coverage problem when he's on the road or between sites.
That was only half of the stated problem. The other was coverage in remote areas.
But I'll try again to help you understand why plugging in an adapter wouldn't be practical. For his work crews, sure, maybe one of the guys could bother the homeowner with a doo-dad. For his work crews, the guys frankly don't need to be using their phones very much - they are on the clock. But for "Bob", he's popping in to the various crews over the course of the day. He needs to be reachable by clients at all times, and he isn't going to set up hot spots at every little stop. He doesn't even have electricity available at every job site. Even if he never went to rural areas to pick up supplies, losing his phone signal would not be acceptable.
Why are you fixated on one relatively small part of the problem? Even if he were comfortable asking homeowners to let him plug in network devices in areas of the house he's not necessarily working in, it still wouldn't help the rural/industrial area coverage problems.
Yes, I've been using Airfoil for years to play music from any source to my small fleet of Airplay receivers (Airport Express) that I use for super-cheap whole-house audio. One of them recently died and so I added an even more super-cheap Chromecast Audio. Impressively, Airfoil treats it identically to Airplay and even keeps them all in perfect sync with one another. Very nice software.
Verizon has some frequencies that are lower and penetrate obstacles better. In urban areas and on highways everything is about equal, but if you end up even slightly out in the country (and in the Philly area that happens surprisingly fast... Amish in no time), Verizon ends up being much more dependable. I personally don't care, but I could not recommend T-Mobile to my contractor friend, who frequently ends up in basements and travels outside of urban areas to pick up supplies (quarries, reclaimed wood, etc). On Friday I was at a friend's house which is in one of the oldest and most densely populated suburbs in Philly - should have great service. But it's an old stone house and I had no service on T-Mobile. This happens frequently to me.
T-Mobile also sells pre-pay. I'm an anti-social nerd so I have the "Walmart" $30/month plan that includes 5GB of 4G data (unlimited 2G), unlimited texts, and only 100 minutes of talk. I typically spend an additional $5-$15/month on minutes for a total worst-case of $45/month + tax. My wife uses hardly any data, but does a lot of talking. We avoided smartphones and did the unlimited talk and text plan for $35, but last year her old flip phone died and I couldn't find a decent replacement so we got her a Moto G and upgraded to the unlimited talk and text with 3GB of 4G data (unlimited 2G) for $40.
I never heard of Mintsim, I'll have to check it out. I'm always on the lookout for deals.
In defense of people on Verizon with their sky-high prices, Verizon really does have a solid network and if I depended on my phone for business it would be money well spent.
If they limit you after 22GB then by any definition of the word it isn't unlimited.
Only if the context of the "unlimited" claim includes "unlimited bandwidth". Which, of course, is absurd because of technological constraints. Since bandwidth is inherently limited, some kind of rationing needs to be applied. "Unlimited" clearly refers to total bytes transferred, and the claim is completely true. We don't know how Verizon will market this, but T-Mobile is very transparent about how the bandwidth is rationed.
ISP's used to call there limited plans unlimited but customers rightly complained and because we have real competition in the market as soon as one ISP created an actually unlimited plan all other ISP's where forced to follow suit or be left behind.
Not true. From the "3" website:
Are there any restrictions?
Data use can be capped at around 1000GB per month. This cap is used to identify inappropriate use of the service, such as commercial use, which isn’t permitted. However for non-commercial use it’s very unlikely that you’ll ever get anywhere close to the cap, even if you use your phone as your main or only internet device.
So your carriers are also selling "truly unlimited" service that is in fact capped.
I think it has to do with cash. Without enough money to run around the country with a trailer it would be a lot less fun. Vegging out in front of the TV isn't much of a hobby.
You obviously haven't met my dad. Took to retirement like a fish to water - moves his trailer from campground to campground and only comes back when the weather gets warmer. Rough life.
It's not arrogance at all to refuse to make suppositions without sufficient evidence. We find no refined aluminum or titanium when we dig, and yet we cover most of the planet. We find no evidence that fossil fuels were previously tapped, despite being obvious and cheap sources of energy. Nothing has been found orbiting the planet of artificial origin, despite mapping everything down to baseball size. There is no radiological evidence that would suggest any kind of nuclear testing prior to the 1940s. What possible reason would we have to suspect that we are not the most technologically advanced apes to ever inhabit the planet?
all our major cities will be viewed as giant mecca's of religion
First of all, until very recently a "major city" was about 50,000 people. There were a few standouts, like Rome which probably had a million. Second, look at the buildings in those cities. Almost everything was made of wood or - in some places - mud. Except for the fortifications, palaces, and cathedrals... which is, of course, my thesis.
Roleplay: 5000k+ years ago we had massive structures built for purely secular purposes using 'green' technology. What would those ruins look like?
I'm not sure what you are asking. What secular purpose was there for massive structures 5000 years ago? (presuming you didn't really mean 5000k:) ) 5000 years ago there were hardly any civilizations capable of building massive structures, and the ones that did exist seemed to do it for religious purposes or at the behest of the monarch, who was of course divine.
It could be, but people aren't simply assuming things here - they are deferring to experts who have exhaustively studied the sites. Contrarian views are very useful motivation in science, but mostly useless in amateur chat rooms. "Could" they be foundations or some other purpose? Sure, why not? Sounds like a good line of study. Without some evidence, however, it's just idle musings.
More on-topic, look at the massive amount of resources people pour into religion... historically it is perhaps only rivaled by defense. The vast majority of surviving impressive architecture is religious or defensive in nature - think pyramids and other tombs, cathedrals, great walls, and castles. The only other impressive ancient or medieval works I can think of are a few implements of state (Colosseum and Roman stone and concrete works (Parthenon, viaducts), Asian and European palaces, canals, harbors). Once you rule out defensive structures you are limited to religion or implements of state - and these are very often closely related, if not exactly the same. It's only very recently that we've regularly created massive structures for purely secular use.
I expect not one bit of clear information, and for a tough, political fight. Something like 12% of US men drive something for a living. There's going to be a ton of money and disinformation pouring into this area.
Once, and they retracted the story. That is not a pattern of behavior and they did the only thing that a responsible organization could after the fact. Other, well respected, new organizations have made mistakes or had bad eggs, too.
And now you are asking, why they should not be used as a source?
Two different purposes - Wikipedia is just collecting references to individual facts. For a lot of things, Rolling Stone would be a fine source of facts. For a totally different purpose - that is, individuals keeping abreast of the wide world - relying on Rolling Stone for more than music industry chatter would be a very biased, narrow source of news.
There may well be topics, where Daily Mail can be reliable too...
If you say so. Apparently not according to the Wikipedia community.
What if Tom Petty is accused of raping someone?..
I suppose the implication is that Rolling Stone can't print rape stories anymore? I'd say the incident damaged all of their reporting, not just rape narrowly, and I already said that it would be kind of a weird source to quote for events that are covered by more general media.
while Rolling Stones — only K times?
Well, yeah, a single incident hardly can be called a pattern.
applying different standards to different facts-inventing publications depending on the kinds of facts invented and the tilt thus displayed?
Yeah, well, all humans are biased and I assume the editors are human. With that said, "consensus" is a pretty good filter of bias. I'm not British so my exposure to the Daily Mail is very limited, but it seems a lot like US supermarket Tabloids, where the truth is a lot less important than an impulse purchase at the checkout line.
Ya got me. Still, even in 2007, 100GB/week is feasible. And the amount he could bring home grew exponentially with the capacity of flash memory, so he could have been doing 1TB/week no problem the last year or so (hell, 1TB/day is feasible to a single stick if he's sitting in the server room doing drive images and such as a routine part of his job).
Assume 50 TB over 50 working weeks a year and that's 1TB a week, divided over 20 years gives you an average of 5GB a week. That's well within the realm of feasibility, even if the bulk of his data collection came within the last 10 years and he was relying on thumb drives, SD cards, or the like.
I'm not arguing that what CNN did is ethical - that's outside the scope of this discussion, really. All I'm asserting is that, as a source of dry facts for a Wikipedia entry, CNN is just fine. It's up to the Wikipedia community to make sure that the encyclopedia is as bias-free as possible, but that in no way excludes extracting a fact from even the most biased source. A source that is unreliably factual is another kettle of fish.
No, I don't watch MSNBC/Fox News very often specifically because they wear their bias on their sleeve. As a source of news, both options are terrible because of the bias. You will not exit your bubble. As a source of facts, they both make perfectly fine references on Wikipedia.
Example? I know they have a lot of "entertainment" opinion shows on their news-branded channel, but their actual news reporting tends to be liberal-biased and factual.
I'd argue that while this may indicate bias, it is at least factual that Buzzfeed published this report and that this report did in fact contain a unverified report of a peeing incident. Maybe CNN should have higher standards for what they report on as "news", but what they did report was factual.
Slashdot Mirror
Going from 16 to 4 would be a light version of the chip, and everyone knows that Cores Light is garbage.
You must be the world's shittiest engineer; didn't you ever learn to solve problems instead of giving up and taking the path of least resistance?
Well, this stopped being a fun discussion.
so proposing that they could do that but then that he won't have signal when he gets there is ludicrous.
Depending on the work crew to have the same repeater that you need is what is ludicrous. Roughly a 1 in 3 chance - and that's assuming that they'd even be bothered... I've never been asked to hang a repeater and I suspect it is not a very common practice. He's not supplying his crews with phones and he's sure as hell not giving them all $300+ repeaters just to save $30/month on a phone bill. Payback period of 30 months or so is not very cost-effective.
Further, work crews working in areas without electricity use air or electrical tools powered by a portable generator.
They often use batteries now. If they do have a generator, there isn't exactly a ton of surplus sockets, it's on-and-off, and a terrible source for sensitive electronics.
(work crews have comm, but Bob doesn't have comm when he visits work crews).
I never said his crews had communications, and if they do it's because they have Verizon or are stepping outside to make calls. He needs to be continuously reachable, not them.
You also still haven't addressed how repeaters would solve his rural/industrial coverage problem when he's on the road or between sites.
The stated problem
That was only half of the stated problem. The other was coverage in remote areas.
But I'll try again to help you understand why plugging in an adapter wouldn't be practical. For his work crews, sure, maybe one of the guys could bother the homeowner with a doo-dad. For his work crews, the guys frankly don't need to be using their phones very much - they are on the clock. But for "Bob", he's popping in to the various crews over the course of the day. He needs to be reachable by clients at all times, and he isn't going to set up hot spots at every little stop. He doesn't even have electricity available at every job site. Even if he never went to rural areas to pick up supplies, losing his phone signal would not be acceptable.
Why are you fixated on one relatively small part of the problem? Even if he were comfortable asking homeowners to let him plug in network devices in areas of the house he's not necessarily working in, it still wouldn't help the rural/industrial area coverage problems.
"Hi I'm Bob your contractor, can I just plug this contraption in upstairs since I'm too cheap to have a phone that works?"
Yeah... I don't think that would work for him. He writes it all off anyway.
For your own house, sure. But plugging it in at clients' houses is not really practical. Plus it doesn't fill in the dead spots on the road.
Yes, I've been using Airfoil for years to play music from any source to my small fleet of Airplay receivers (Airport Express) that I use for super-cheap whole-house audio. One of them recently died and so I added an even more super-cheap Chromecast Audio. Impressively, Airfoil treats it identically to Airplay and even keeps them all in perfect sync with one another. Very nice software.
Verizon has some frequencies that are lower and penetrate obstacles better. In urban areas and on highways everything is about equal, but if you end up even slightly out in the country (and in the Philly area that happens surprisingly fast... Amish in no time), Verizon ends up being much more dependable. I personally don't care, but I could not recommend T-Mobile to my contractor friend, who frequently ends up in basements and travels outside of urban areas to pick up supplies (quarries, reclaimed wood, etc). On Friday I was at a friend's house which is in one of the oldest and most densely populated suburbs in Philly - should have great service. But it's an old stone house and I had no service on T-Mobile. This happens frequently to me.
T-Mobile also sells pre-pay. I'm an anti-social nerd so I have the "Walmart" $30/month plan that includes 5GB of 4G data (unlimited 2G), unlimited texts, and only 100 minutes of talk. I typically spend an additional $5-$15/month on minutes for a total worst-case of $45/month + tax. My wife uses hardly any data, but does a lot of talking. We avoided smartphones and did the unlimited talk and text plan for $35, but last year her old flip phone died and I couldn't find a decent replacement so we got her a Moto G and upgraded to the unlimited talk and text with 3GB of 4G data (unlimited 2G) for $40.
I never heard of Mintsim, I'll have to check it out. I'm always on the lookout for deals.
In defense of people on Verizon with their sky-high prices, Verizon really does have a solid network and if I depended on my phone for business it would be money well spent.
If they limit you after 22GB then by any definition of the word it isn't unlimited.
Only if the context of the "unlimited" claim includes "unlimited bandwidth". Which, of course, is absurd because of technological constraints. Since bandwidth is inherently limited, some kind of rationing needs to be applied. "Unlimited" clearly refers to total bytes transferred, and the claim is completely true. We don't know how Verizon will market this, but T-Mobile is very transparent about how the bandwidth is rationed.
ISP's used to call there limited plans unlimited but customers rightly complained and because we have real competition in the market as soon as one ISP created an actually unlimited plan all other ISP's where forced to follow suit or be left behind.
Not true. From the "3" website:
So your carriers are also selling "truly unlimited" service that is in fact capped.
It's unlimited, but once you hit the threshold of 22GB, they throttle your speeds. Same as T-Mobile, and a huge improvement over the overage charges.
I think it has to do with cash. Without enough money to run around the country with a trailer it would be a lot less fun. Vegging out in front of the TV isn't much of a hobby.
You obviously haven't met my dad. Took to retirement like a fish to water - moves his trailer from campground to campground and only comes back when the weather gets warmer. Rough life.
It's not arrogance at all to refuse to make suppositions without sufficient evidence. We find no refined aluminum or titanium when we dig, and yet we cover most of the planet. We find no evidence that fossil fuels were previously tapped, despite being obvious and cheap sources of energy. Nothing has been found orbiting the planet of artificial origin, despite mapping everything down to baseball size. There is no radiological evidence that would suggest any kind of nuclear testing prior to the 1940s. What possible reason would we have to suspect that we are not the most technologically advanced apes to ever inhabit the planet?
all our major cities will be viewed as giant mecca's of religion
First of all, until very recently a "major city" was about 50,000 people. There were a few standouts, like Rome which probably had a million. Second, look at the buildings in those cities. Almost everything was made of wood or - in some places - mud. Except for the fortifications, palaces, and cathedrals... which is, of course, my thesis.
Roleplay:
5000k+ years ago we had massive structures built for purely secular purposes using 'green' technology. What would those ruins look like?
I'm not sure what you are asking. What secular purpose was there for massive structures 5000 years ago? (presuming you didn't really mean 5000k :) ) 5000 years ago there were hardly any civilizations capable of building massive structures, and the ones that did exist seemed to do it for religious purposes or at the behest of the monarch, who was of course divine.
It could be, but people aren't simply assuming things here - they are deferring to experts who have exhaustively studied the sites. Contrarian views are very useful motivation in science, but mostly useless in amateur chat rooms. "Could" they be foundations or some other purpose? Sure, why not? Sounds like a good line of study. Without some evidence, however, it's just idle musings.
More on-topic, look at the massive amount of resources people pour into religion... historically it is perhaps only rivaled by defense. The vast majority of surviving impressive architecture is religious or defensive in nature - think pyramids and other tombs, cathedrals, great walls, and castles. The only other impressive ancient or medieval works I can think of are a few implements of state (Colosseum and Roman stone and concrete works (Parthenon, viaducts), Asian and European palaces, canals, harbors). Once you rule out defensive structures you are limited to religion or implements of state - and these are very often closely related, if not exactly the same. It's only very recently that we've regularly created massive structures for purely secular use.
I expect not one bit of clear information, and for a tough, political fight. Something like 12% of US men drive something for a living. There's going to be a ton of money and disinformation pouring into this area.
Because they invented facts
Once, and they retracted the story. That is not a pattern of behavior and they did the only thing that a responsible organization could after the fact. Other, well respected, new organizations have made mistakes or had bad eggs, too.
And now you are asking, why they should not be used as a source?
Two different purposes - Wikipedia is just collecting references to individual facts. For a lot of things, Rolling Stone would be a fine source of facts. For a totally different purpose - that is, individuals keeping abreast of the wide world - relying on Rolling Stone for more than music industry chatter would be a very biased, narrow source of news.
There may well be topics, where Daily Mail can be reliable too...
If you say so. Apparently not according to the Wikipedia community.
What if Tom Petty is accused of raping someone?..
I suppose the implication is that Rolling Stone can't print rape stories anymore? I'd say the incident damaged all of their reporting, not just rape narrowly, and I already said that it would be kind of a weird source to quote for events that are covered by more general media.
while Rolling Stones — only K times?
Well, yeah, a single incident hardly can be called a pattern.
applying different standards to different facts-inventing publications depending on the kinds of facts invented and the tilt thus displayed?
Yeah, well, all humans are biased and I assume the editors are human. With that said, "consensus" is a pretty good filter of bias. I'm not British so my exposure to the Daily Mail is very limited, but it seems a lot like US supermarket Tabloids, where the truth is a lot less important than an impulse purchase at the checkout line.
Ya got me. Still, even in 2007, 100GB/week is feasible. And the amount he could bring home grew exponentially with the capacity of flash memory, so he could have been doing 1TB/week no problem the last year or so (hell, 1TB/day is feasible to a single stick if he's sitting in the server room doing drive images and such as a routine part of his job).
Assume 50 TB over 50 working weeks a year and that's 1TB a week, divided over 20 years gives you an average of 5GB a week. That's well within the realm of feasibility, even if the bulk of his data collection came within the last 10 years and he was relying on thumb drives, SD cards, or the like.
I'm not arguing that what CNN did is ethical - that's outside the scope of this discussion, really. All I'm asserting is that, as a source of dry facts for a Wikipedia entry, CNN is just fine. It's up to the Wikipedia community to make sure that the encyclopedia is as bias-free as possible, but that in no way excludes extracting a fact from even the most biased source. A source that is unreliably factual is another kettle of fish.
No, I don't watch MSNBC/Fox News very often specifically because they wear their bias on their sleeve. As a source of news, both options are terrible because of the bias. You will not exit your bubble. As a source of facts, they both make perfectly fine references on Wikipedia.
Example? I know they have a lot of "entertainment" opinion shows on their news-branded channel, but their actual news reporting tends to be liberal-biased and factual.
Change all the dates of your co-worker's drivers. Set them to the future.
I'd argue that while this may indicate bias, it is at least factual that Buzzfeed published this report and that this report did in fact contain a unverified report of a peeing incident. Maybe CNN should have higher standards for what they report on as "news", but what they did report was factual.