-Customers who pay more for their phones report higher satisfaction. - This is likely because high-cost phones perform better. (Editor's note: no duh)
OR it could be that they spent more so they feel they must like it more. This is actually pretty common, especially in the higher end markets. Common and exploitable.
Bet these very same owners say the phones sound "warmer".
Let's play a game. Would you eat a dog turd for 20 bucks? If you're like most people, you just had a "are you fucking kidding me? That'd be disgusting!" moment. You saw the amount I threw out there, but it was so low that you didn't give it a second thought.
Now, what if I asked you if you'd eat a dog turd for 20,000? Bet you're considering it. 200,000? Even more so. 2,000,000...20,000,000... well, you get the idea.
Let's bring this back around to the samsung situation; they hoped to control the dialog, and in order to do that they need to control the news reports. If they could have gotten this guy on the payroll, it would have lessened the PR damage. They were already on the hook for the recall, they had to have known it, but perhaps they were looking to salvage the brand name.
The only fault I have with this behavior is that they misread the situation and lowballed the guy. Some dumbass manager probably pulled the "penny wise pound foolish" card.
So they tried to avoid bad PR. Maybe I've become jaded, but where's the problem with that?
The implication, I think, is that samsung had intended to cover it up in the hopes of preserving the Note line, but I think that'd be quite a stretch given everything else.
intransigent intransjnt,intranzjnt/ adjective 1. unwilling or refusing to change one's views or to agree about something. synonyms: uncompromising, inflexible, unbending, unyielding, diehard, unshakable, unwavering, resolute, rigid, unaccommodating, uncooperative, stubborn, obstinate, obdurate, pigheaded, single-minded, iron-willed, stiff-necked "the regime remained intransigent in its opposition to wider participation in the political process" noun
A valid point, absolutely. Power does corrupt, and any reaching for it should be met with the utmost suspicion ( trump, hillary...but that's another discussion entirely ). Cameras go a long way in addressing that, and I don't wish to be perceived as discouraging their use. I'm a huge advocate for 24/7 recording of any on duty public official, cops especially.
Likewise, I'm a fan of citizen education. I want citizens put through the same threat neutralizing course that officers are. I want them to understand the tactics of a situation, of how fast unstable can become violent. Have them go through file footage of past encounters in their community for reference.
Then, those very same citizens can sit down with officers and they all can decide on dept policy.
Cameras, while effective, are a bandaid solution. The tensions are still there, only now we have a measure to prevent abuse.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be used, mind you. Absolutely should cameras and other recording devices be used. I'm even an advocate of private citizens having the right to film any officer while they're on duty.
However, a longer term fix is for cops and their detractors to come together and determine how best to handle the threats their communities face. Start with the goals, then move on towards addressing those goals. All parties must be willing to participate in the process, but with egos being fueled by the politicians, no one wants to budge.
It's a possibility. However, it goes against everything we know about how people work. Implied habitual behaviors, shared by a dept, radically changing virtually overnight is unlikely. In the extreme.
Even if you had one or two statistical outliers who did modify their behaviors in such a way, you'd have far more who get tripped up and shit would get on camera.
Too many folks are treating this problem as though it were binary; it's all the cops fault, or it's all the suspect's faults.
The problem is more nuanced than that. In part it's an ignorant and entitled public who think they can act like little shits and endanger others because of feelings. On the other, you have officers trained in what seem to be brutal methods but are, in fact are designed to minimize harm by controlling the situation. This works out mostly in the public's favor, although they'll never realize it.
You do have a few bad eggs, as with any profession. The untrained, the illsuited or the downright malicious. However, I'd suggest that these folks account for a small percentage of officers.
If it were just the first two factors, the problem could be relatively simply solved. The problem is that politicians get involved, folks who have a vested interest in making sure that the problem never gets solved. Thus, we end up where we are.
While I'll grant you that the data can be explained by competing theories, in this case only half the officers had cameras on. That certainly suggests that it's not limited to officer behavior.
Why not have a support demarc/mpoe, where regardless of the hardware involved, you choose to operate under the assumption that the asker is using "offical hardware" and proceed from there?
Of course, this assumes we're discussing free support. Paid support? No. You want paid support for an open source hardware project, you buy and authenticate yourself correctly ( using "official" hardware ).
The C*O types would have lined up to throw money at BB had they made any serious software/hardware security collaborations. C*O types don't really care much about governmental meddling. Hell, as we can see from earlier stories, they don't really care about security in general; as long as lip service is paid to security, they're thrilled to write those checks.
...probably because it's precisely what I've been saying they should do since the first android hit the shelves. They were outclassed, but they had a great corporate security reputation. They should have ditched the hardware and partnered up with an android maker to provide a corporate secure device, complete with the software backend.
Instead, they sat around pretending their market position could never be threatened, and consequently got left in the dust.
No, it is actually VERY VERY SIMPLE. Yet, later.... Now: to observe the actual effects on the world, is not so easy.
The fact of the matter is that your examples aren't a direct cause/effect. If they were, we could see immediate results yet we don't. Plus the planet is large enough to have large "micro-climates", resulting in even more obfuscation of the data.
Of course, it doesn't help that climate change doomsayers have been at it for 40+ years now, the doomsaying itself a product of how difficult climate science is. Weren't we all supposed to be under 20 feet of water by now? The ice at the poles gone, the poles themselves being the only habitable parts of the world left? And so on, and so on...
Face it; climate science is *hard*. So difficult, in fact, that the weather forecasters still get it wrong. Understanding the science is restricted to the few who have made it their lives to understand it, and of course who knows how biased they are. You'll never sell the general public that way.
No. You have to make the issues smaller and localized. Personable.
The problem with climate science is that it's so difficult. The average person the street has little hope of understanding all the data and how it interacts. They can never, therefore, have confidence in the results being reported to them. I'm largely in the same boat, btw; despite on and off studying over the past several years, I still don't really have a grasp on how all the data ties together and consequently I don't have a high degree of confidence in the reported conclusions of others.
Given this, attacking on the basis of "CLIMATE CHANGE" is the absolutely worst approach. The ignorance of your target audience will prompt them to respond contrary to your goals. Instead focus should be placed on the specifics; clean air emissions, water discharge standards, ect... Why? Because these are things people can understand, and they are immediately relevant to them. I don't want to live next to a factory dumping shit into the air/water, and neither does anyone else. That should be how climate change is addressed; not on the large scale, but rather the personalized one.
Does it make it sound warmer? Is it warmer than these wooden standoffs ( 600.00 each ) I got to hold my oxygen-free digital cables off the floor ( a steal at 900 for 6ft )?
The whole net-neutrality issue is moot; near as I can tell, there is more than enough bandwidth bandwidth to go around, when normal packet prioritization is utilized.
The real issue is the con-artist ISPs trying to double-sell the same service, charging a premium to both sides.
Slashdot Mirror
-Customers who pay more for their phones report higher satisfaction.
- This is likely because high-cost phones perform better. (Editor's note: no duh)
OR it could be that they spent more so they feel they must like it more. This is actually pretty common, especially in the higher end markets. Common and exploitable.
Bet these very same owners say the phones sound "warmer".
Bingo. I'd applaud them, too, if I this weren't an "oh shit, we got caught" maneuver.
Everyone has their price.
Let's play a game. Would you eat a dog turd for 20 bucks? If you're like most people, you just had a "are you fucking kidding me? That'd be disgusting!" moment. You saw the amount I threw out there, but it was so low that you didn't give it a second thought.
Now, what if I asked you if you'd eat a dog turd for 20,000? Bet you're considering it. 200,000? Even more so. 2,000,000...20,000,000... well, you get the idea.
Let's bring this back around to the samsung situation; they hoped to control the dialog, and in order to do that they need to control the news reports. If they could have gotten this guy on the payroll, it would have lessened the PR damage. They were already on the hook for the recall, they had to have known it, but perhaps they were looking to salvage the brand name.
The only fault I have with this behavior is that they misread the situation and lowballed the guy. Some dumbass manager probably pulled the "penny wise pound foolish" card.
English your second language? Try reading my post again, see if you can figure it out.
Ask for help if there are any words you don't understand.
So they tried to avoid bad PR. Maybe I've become jaded, but where's the problem with that?
The implication, I think, is that samsung had intended to cover it up in the hopes of preserving the Note line, but I think that'd be quite a stretch given everything else.
intransigent
intransjnt,intranzjnt/
adjective
1.
unwilling or refusing to change one's views or to agree about something.
synonyms: uncompromising, inflexible, unbending, unyielding, diehard, unshakable, unwavering, resolute, rigid, unaccommodating, uncooperative, stubborn, obstinate, obdurate, pigheaded, single-minded, iron-willed, stiff-necked
"the regime remained intransigent in its opposition to wider participation in the political process"
noun
I mean, they were literally spying FOR big brother and everything.
I guess maybe the awards were decided prior to recent email scanning revelations?
While I would love fiber, I'll choose satellite internet over anything from AT&T.
A valid point, absolutely. Power does corrupt, and any reaching for it should be met with the utmost suspicion ( trump, hillary...but that's another discussion entirely ). Cameras go a long way in addressing that, and I don't wish to be perceived as discouraging their use. I'm a huge advocate for 24/7 recording of any on duty public official, cops especially.
Likewise, I'm a fan of citizen education. I want citizens put through the same threat neutralizing course that officers are. I want them to understand the tactics of a situation, of how fast unstable can become violent. Have them go through file footage of past encounters in their community for reference.
Then, those very same citizens can sit down with officers and they all can decide on dept policy.
Cameras, while effective, are a bandaid solution. The tensions are still there, only now we have a measure to prevent abuse.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be used, mind you. Absolutely should cameras and other recording devices be used. I'm even an advocate of private citizens having the right to film any officer while they're on duty.
However, a longer term fix is for cops and their detractors to come together and determine how best to handle the threats their communities face. Start with the goals, then move on towards addressing those goals. All parties must be willing to participate in the process, but with egos being fueled by the politicians, no one wants to budge.
That's the real problem.
I've now migrated away from that and sent them all to gmail, which I was using for something else.
It's cool, just say "porn".
A valid point.
It's a possibility. However, it goes against everything we know about how people work. Implied habitual behaviors, shared by a dept, radically changing virtually overnight is unlikely. In the extreme.
Even if you had one or two statistical outliers who did modify their behaviors in such a way, you'd have far more who get tripped up and shit would get on camera.
Too many folks are treating this problem as though it were binary; it's all the cops fault, or it's all the suspect's faults.
The problem is more nuanced than that. In part it's an ignorant and entitled public who think they can act like little shits and endanger others because of feelings. On the other, you have officers trained in what seem to be brutal methods but are, in fact are designed to minimize harm by controlling the situation. This works out mostly in the public's favor, although they'll never realize it.
You do have a few bad eggs, as with any profession. The untrained, the illsuited or the downright malicious. However, I'd suggest that these folks account for a small percentage of officers.
If it were just the first two factors, the problem could be relatively simply solved. The problem is that politicians get involved, folks who have a vested interest in making sure that the problem never gets solved. Thus, we end up where we are.
While I'll grant you that the data can be explained by competing theories, in this case only half the officers had cameras on. That certainly suggests that it's not limited to officer behavior.
Why not have a support demarc/mpoe, where regardless of the hardware involved, you choose to operate under the assumption that the asker is using "offical hardware" and proceed from there?
Of course, this assumes we're discussing free support. Paid support? No. You want paid support for an open source hardware project, you buy and authenticate yourself correctly ( using "official" hardware ).
Wrong reputation.
The C*O types would have lined up to throw money at BB had they made any serious software/hardware security collaborations. C*O types don't really care much about governmental meddling. Hell, as we can see from earlier stories, they don't really care about security in general; as long as lip service is paid to security, they're thrilled to write those checks.
...probably because it's precisely what I've been saying they should do since the first android hit the shelves. They were outclassed, but they had a great corporate security reputation. They should have ditched the hardware and partnered up with an android maker to provide a corporate secure device, complete with the software backend.
Instead, they sat around pretending their market position could never be threatened, and consequently got left in the dust.
No, it is actually VERY VERY SIMPLE.
Yet, later....
Now: to observe the actual effects on the world, is not so easy.
The fact of the matter is that your examples aren't a direct cause/effect. If they were, we could see immediate results yet we don't. Plus the planet is large enough to have large "micro-climates", resulting in even more obfuscation of the data.
Of course, it doesn't help that climate change doomsayers have been at it for 40+ years now, the doomsaying itself a product of how difficult climate science is. Weren't we all supposed to be under 20 feet of water by now? The ice at the poles gone, the poles themselves being the only habitable parts of the world left? And so on, and so on...
Face it; climate science is *hard*. So difficult, in fact, that the weather forecasters still get it wrong. Understanding the science is restricted to the few who have made it their lives to understand it, and of course who knows how biased they are. You'll never sell the general public that way.
No. You have to make the issues smaller and localized. Personable.
The problem with climate science is that it's so difficult. The average person the street has little hope of understanding all the data and how it interacts. They can never, therefore, have confidence in the results being reported to them. I'm largely in the same boat, btw; despite on and off studying over the past several years, I still don't really have a grasp on how all the data ties together and consequently I don't have a high degree of confidence in the reported conclusions of others.
Given this, attacking on the basis of "CLIMATE CHANGE" is the absolutely worst approach. The ignorance of your target audience will prompt them to respond contrary to your goals. Instead focus should be placed on the specifics; clean air emissions, water discharge standards, ect... Why? Because these are things people can understand, and they are immediately relevant to them. I don't want to live next to a factory dumping shit into the air/water, and neither does anyone else. That should be how climate change is addressed; not on the large scale, but rather the personalized one.
Does it make it sound warmer? Is it warmer than these wooden standoffs ( 600.00 each ) I got to hold my oxygen-free digital cables off the floor ( a steal at 900 for 6ft )?
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle"
The whole net-neutrality issue is moot; near as I can tell, there is more than enough bandwidth bandwidth to go around, when normal packet prioritization is utilized.
The real issue is the con-artist ISPs trying to double-sell the same service, charging a premium to both sides.
All the security "best practices" in the world won't help if you can convince someone at the ISP to let you in.
I can't help but feel as though you're missing the joke, hence I quoted the relevant part.
Yes, we need a bloated political system to fix a...bloated political system.
Seriously, "Unions" are never the answer. It would only make things worse.