Well, actually, SP1A addressed more than just that. Some of the issues with SP1 that SP1A addressed were programs crashing unexpectedly or locking up - including any Office XP application, problems in switching user identities, failure to install, disappearing screen icons, loss of both broadband and dial-up connectivity, invalid product key errors during install, messing up DX9a (which then reports it is incompatible with XP), "Access is Denied" errors after SP1 installation, various instances of trying to install Windows components that then request you insert your 'Service Pack 1' CD...
And that's the very abbreviated list. But thanks for pointing out the other reasons for SP1A. I did forget to mention them, which I should have to be fair.
Apple users expect Apple products to be mature immediately, which is impossible. There tends to be a much shorter memory about Apple's tribulations then there are with Windows, so it just becomes commonplace to expect maturity with betas and all.
Keep in mind there may "be a much shorter memory about Apple's tribulations" because there is a much shorter time to get them resolved... as their recent bunch of fixes and updates in 10.5.1 (in about a month) prove in comparison to SP1 (in over a year) and Vista.
That seems a pretty consistent trend. Yes, users may expect Apple products to be mature immediately, but two things happen because of the situation I just outlined...
(1) If their aren't "mature immediately" then they will be quickly - which means it will be pretty quickly (months) that the machines in the pipeline ARE "mature" - compared to years for a MS based PC. That means a lot less people will experience issues... (to spell that out for you... if v10.5.0 has problems, that are fixed in a month... then only a month's worth of consumers experienced it... while if Vista has problems that are taking a year to be properly addressed (hopefully), then it is a year of consumers who are buying un-fixed/immature Vista/XP/etc based solutions - factor in market share and that makes a bigger difference... on an even market share, 1/12 of the Apple customers (compared to the Windows ones) would experience issues... the other 11/12 would be purchasing machines with updated code - based off MS's one year cycle, and Apple's one month cycle... then factor in market share... ).
(2) When people have problems with something, which are they more likely to remember longer?
- (a) "I had problems, but they were fixed in a month."
- (b) "I had problems, but it took a year to fix."
(pretending XP SP1 was a "fix" and assuming Vista SP1 will be)
Personally, I think none of it is a big mystery... it's (a) whether we are talking about computers, cars, or almost any other consumer product. People want their technology to work. Barring that, their next expectation is if it doesnt, it will be fixed quickly... when neither of those expectations are met, then people tend to have a much longer memory of the issues.
I saw it all the time with laptops... comes in broken... "We'll have you up and running in a few hours..." "OK!" (sometimes even followed with a letter of thanks to our managers for the good service we performed)... or "Sorry, it will take a month... it has to go to the manufacturer for a new motherboard, which they are out of stock on" (Toshiba Qosimo, anyone?) "Gee, that's ok!" (unlikely... usually it's complaints about the service and problems for MONTHS to come).
So perhaps that expectation you speak of is more of a combination of two factors/expectations that are co-joined that almost every consumer has: (1) It should work perfectly... BUT (2) if it doesn't, I expect it to be fixed quickly. Most consumers realize any complex device/software/whatever has the possibility of having issues from either day one... or shortly after... they hope it doesnt... and expect (knowing that it is still possible it does) that it will be fixed in an Apple-like time frame.
...MS takes years to admit many major issues, months or over a year to release a questionable SP (SP1? c'mon... the SP needed an SP - namely SP1A)... and Apple admits to and attempts to fix the issues in a couple months...
In this statement, I was referring to the author's comments on SP1 for XP - as noted in the beginning of my paragraph. Of course, it may end up also applying to SP1 for Vista - but I will make no comment on that till it is released, contrary to what the beta testers have claimed for or against such a scenario.
Many of the author's points dont make any sense in comparison to MS and Vista. SP1 isn't due out (as of now) till Q1 2008... OSX's update is already out... don't see the similarity.
He also claims that MS "mostly" admitted to XP pre-SP1 crashing a lot - but that was after SP2 was released and they announced Vista... in my opinion, years later doesn't count as "admitting" anything (especially as their "admission" was more of an advertising tool touting how Vista would fix all the issues that XP had - as they do with every release). That's like the weatherman admitting they were wrong about it going to be sunny last Sunday - when instead it poured... gee thanks, we've known that for quite a while, and it's too little too late. So, I dont see the similarity between that and Apple's stance - which is to (far more quickly) release an update - AND admit to many of the issues, up front and quickly (see http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306907 and http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61798). So, where's the similarities? MS takes years to admit many major issues, months or over a year to release a questionable SP (SP1? c'mon... the SP needed an SP - namely SP1A)... and Apple admits to and attempts to fix the issues in a couple months...
Vista Similarity 2: Needless Graphics Glitz
Hmm... may be "needless" but people like them - when done right. Vista radically changed the interface in many areas, making things more confusing - while requiring most of a user's computing power to do so. OSX refined their user interface, and added to it in ways that didnt make doing simple things more confusing... and dont use nearly as much of the CPU/resources to do so... where is the similarities? And in the case of consistency between various parts of the OS or programs, neither is perfect, but OSX is light-years ahead.
Vista Similarity 3: Pointless User Interface "Fixes"
Then there's how Microsoft screwed up Vista's UI, reorganizing things that didn't need to be reorganized--like the networking screens... Under XP you can get to those with a single right-click on the desktop. Under Vista, it's three layers down for no good reason...
...Not to be left behind, Apple has messed up its own UI, too, but Apple did it with piles of senseless graphics enhancements.
So, MS totally messed up the Vista interface, made it more complex to interact with, and made it more confusing... Apple added graphics to make it prettier (which Vista is just as guilty of). How is there a similarity between trying to make an interface prettier by totally messing it up and making it more difficult and complex - or making an interface prettier?
Vista Similarity 4: Nuked Networking
Ummm... yeah... I see that similarity... with Vista users gotta wait till Q1-2008 (maybe) for a fix (maybe - doubtfully on some issues since it is due to components of the DRM).... compared to a sercurity/networking fix already being out for OSX Leopard.
Where is the similarity? That they both had networking issues? Neither were apparently secure out of the box - but Vista (for various reasons) dragged down network performance to boot - and made network operations more difficult... while Apple quickly dealt with (and admitted to) their networking issues.
Vista Similarity 5: Bundled Apps as New Features That Suck
Ummm... at least most of the apps that come with OSX are somewhat useful and will get used... unlike what comes on a Vista machine.
But in MS's defense, much of the crapware is installed by the computer OEM - not by MS.
Pointing out Leopard's deficiencies is one thing... yeah, it seems to have quite a few (though at least Apple admits to and
Not necessarily - most of the aftermarket batteries I have purchased or (we) ordered at a major retailer (some with labels, some without) have worked admirably well. None of them (after anything from a few years to a few months) have exhibitted issues.
Indeed... and not just should it be really simple... as do they have a PO Box in Flushing (as someone else mentioned), but they have a Queens Fax Number: 718-504-3790. Verizon says it's a land line. "(718) 504-3790 is a land line based in New York City Zone 6, NY. The registered service provider is Global Naps**."
That means there has to be someone somewhere in NY... and in NY, as mentioned in the article, making money through criminal activities is treble damages... (3X)...
In addition to that, someone indicated it would be difficult to sue the company if it was based in China. There is (1) obviously someone in the US involved in this (Shentec), and (2) IBM does business in China... but first step would be US, and (3) Shentec is also using Lenovo's trademarks... and they definitely have a major China presence (to initiate suit there).
Im sure IBM's lawyers are smart enough to know what they are doing, and wouldnt be surprised that IBM lays the groundwork for them - or Lenovo - to continue in China.
As of now, Shentec is still selling "IBM" & "Lenovo" batteries...
I think IBM (and Lenovo) are gonna burn Shentec even faster than Shentec's batteries burned!!!
Oh, and please don't get me wrong... I love what you are doing and promoting... (so I hope you didn't misinterpret my post...)
My angst is entirely directed at those corporations who wish to ensure that what you are doing with your music soon becomes illegal unless you are paying them for the priviledge of being able to share it with the world.
You don't have to pay the iTunes Music Store to download music legally. Many musicians offer free downloads of their music as a way to promote themselves. I'm one such artist. You could really help me out if you shared my music over the Internet.
You can find many other such artists, and free, legal music hosting sites in my article Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads.
We can get your music for free now.
What about a few years down the road? Nothing personal... but you cannot say we will be able to download your music free then. That is why these lawsuits, and re-inventing this idiotic system - in a manner where it is NOT under the control of corporations - is so important.
You may entirely want to be able to release your music (or portion thereof) for free - now... and perhaps forever... but what laws impact that are no longer in any way based on the reality of your desires.
As a for instance, you can no longer set up an Internet Radio Station to broadcast your music for free... since you are stuck paying SoundExchange for that "right" - and stuck recouping only a fraction of that cost through royalties paid back to you by them.
The point is, anyone who has been following the RIAA shenanigans over the last few years may have noticed that the RIAA is trying to set up a law structure that ensures they are in total control over music downloads - whether or not the music is theirs.
For the short term, your solution is a good one, and I am happy to see artists such as you and others releasing some extent of their music for free online... for the long term, the RIAA needs to be beheaded and laws need to be changed (while new laws are not being created at the whim of what the RIAA wants)... otherwise your solution too will become illegal.
In the meantime, the RIAA, ASCAP and BMI are not against attempting (what amounts to) extortion to get artists to pay for broadcasting/making available their own music for free... I know... a few years back, it was "strongly suggested" to me that I pay membership to avoid them making a case out of me not doing anything at all... basically their "theory" was they weren't going to believe I wasnt doing anything wrong, so I either paid them, or they would use legal means to ensure I wasnt... (the claim was playing music in my office that customers may hear when they come in - which not just weren't we, but there werent customers who could hear it even if we were).
EMI does their US distribution... many other distributors handle their distribution elsewhere. Their label is "Phantom Music" - if you look at the RIAA-Radar site, it actually will correctly list (though incorrectly as their "label") numerous of the same album as RIAA safe under a different "label" (ie: Distribution).
Again though, my point is the info is innaccurate... and as mentioned elsewhere, until enough bands/fans/whatever come out with an alternative method of releasing CDs, there isnt an alternative for bands so large...
Again, the difference I was trying to point out is that other bands will have their music copyrighted, controlled and fans sued for sharing by an RIAA member because that RIAA member owns the sound recordings... unlike Iron Maiden who states they have no interest (and think it is wrong) to sue their fans - and own their music:
From a recent release: "(p) 2006 Iron Maiden Holdings Ltd under exclusive license to EMI Records Ltd (c) 2006 Iron Maiden Holdings Ltd..."
It may not be a big difference in your mind, but it is a difference. In the meantime, they are also offering (through numerous outlets) their music online - non-DRMd.
My points being other alternatives need to be available for such bands, such bands should still be supported by their fans because they retain control over their music and will NOT sue their fans - and have stated their fans CAN share their music; they are trying other release methods (such as online downloads), and have publicly stated in concert and in interviews, that the tactics and lawsuits against fans that the RIAA and Metallica use are wrong - and ensure their labels comply with that position.
Their attitude towards their fans - and against the RIAA and similar efforts have earned them my loyalty... for instance, at a 2003 concert, Bruce stopped to tell the fans:
"The album isn't out yet, but please pull out your digital recorders, MP3 players, cellphones or whatever you have. Put it on the Internet, spread it all over the world. But on one condition: when you hear the new album, if you like it, pay the equivalent of three beers to buy the record in the store. That's what keeps us alive. If you don't like the album, jost forget it... We are not like Metallica."
That's exactly what most anti-RIAA people have asked for... the ability to try before you buy. And they have publicly stated they are all for it... share it (with the world), buy it if you like it, dont buy it if you dont like it.
And it's just one step to make all bands less beholden on the RIAA members for anything.
I'm asking for the information to be correct. That's all... heck, a yellow tag with a disclaimer (like the ones elsewhere) "Iron Maiden's label is NOT an RIAA member, but this release is distributed through one" - as opposed to the highly innaccurate info that states that Iron Maiden's label IS an RIAA member.
And please, do tell me who Iron Maiden can become entirely RIAA free with the number of sales they do... please tell me what production company can handle that volume? If the most massive RIAA member production houses cant keep up with demands for a new release, please advise me which small, non-RIAA member could even come close?
Their attitude towards their fans - and against the RIAA and similar efforts have earned them my loyalty... for instance, at a 2003 concert, Bruce stopped to tell the fans:
"The album isn't out yet, but please pull out your digital recorders, MP3 players, cellphones or whatever you have. Put it on the Internet, spread it all over the world. But on one condition: when you hear the new album, if you like it, pay the equivalent of three beers to buy the record in the store. That's what keeps us alive. If you don't like the album, jost forget it... We are not like Metallica."
That's exactly what most anti-RIAA people have asked for... the ability to try before you buy. And they have publicly stated they are all for it... share it (with the world), buy it if you like it, dont buy it if you dont like it.
Dont get me wrong, I think it would be a wonderful thing if large bands didnt need to use the RIAA for anything.
And dont get me wrong on this one either... I'd rather not see any $$$ go to an RIAA member - even if it's just for production... but in their case, and the cases of at least a few other bands in a similar situation, I have no problems buying their CDs, since THEY own their sound recordings, and only THEY can dictate what can and cant be done with them... and THEY have publicly stated their angst at the RIAA-like situation here and abroad, and THEY have stated that they dont mind if their fans share their music, and stated they dont believe in nor will ever sue their fans for that... in their case, the RIAA has NO say in that matter.
Exactly the problem with the music industry. And yeah, for many bands that is an issue... for some, it's not (again, like Iron Maiden - but they are sort of in a class of their own... most bands do not retain rights to their sound recordings... theirs are all copyrighted by Iron Maiden Holdings - unlike most other bands, who the sound recordings are copyrighted by the publisher/label; while the music arrangements/lyrics are copyrighted by the bands).
So, we're in total agreement about that... hence my desire to see the RIAA-Radar site have more accurate or more thorough information. If Iron Maiden says "we dont mind if fans share our music" (which they have) that's pretty much the end of the situation, regardless of what Sony, BMG, etc want to see. Yeah, they are not the norm... but there are other bands out there in the same boat (yeah not many). But even if it is only a few, I don't like seeing those bands being penalized in such situations - especially when most of them take a big stand against the RIAA.
The publicity of such things, and proper attribution to how a band operates (with or without an RIAA member being part of their distribution efforts) is something I think important to allow other bands to realize that (even if they do need an RIAA member to do distribution) they can push harder to write their own ticket. Yeah, it would have to start at "the top" (the bigger bands in similar situations first), but eventually, that mentality would hopefully trickle down to the point where the RIAA could not impose such a stranglehold on other bands in similar situations.
The more bands who's situation is properly indicated there and elsewhere, the more other bands that have a chance at creating similar deals with the big labels... or the more bands that may consider creating their own.
All in all though, as you stated, it does bring up big issues with many bands stuck in a similar boat, who lose the rights to their own sound recordings (once they are large enough to require a big label to actually do their production because of volume needed).
First off, Amazon doesnt claim to support or not support the RIAA - unlike the site referenced...
Secondly, Iron Maiden doesnt use the label formerly known as Sanctuary... THEY formerly used Sanctuary - which was their label... and now is not (Someone else said it was sold to Universal? Dont know how true that is).
Third, Maiden, since they own their music, recordings, etc (unlike most bands), have a lot of say in what does and does not happen to their CDs. They would quite quickly drop a production company if they played games like that.
Believe what you want. I'm asking for honesty and accuracy in their listings...
their label is NOT an RIAA label.
Keep in mind, they would also be much more believable if they accurately portrayed the albums and artists they list... which is the aspect I complained about...
I know I am not supposed to feed trolls, but... what the heck...
They sold off interests in Sanctuary and created another label to concentrate on Maiden. Who Sanctuary is owned by now is irrelevant.
And you still missed the point... that site makes the RIAA money (and I never said it was an RIAA site). You cannot claim that it isnt a benefit to the RIAA...
And I can guarantee you I have a much better understanding of these things than you... regarless of not going into the rather boring details... I could name quite a few Indie bands I've worked with on various projects - who happen to be owned by friends, family or referred to me by them... and we've discussed these issues to death...
That's sorta the point of the RIAA radar. [riaaradar.com] Either the RIAA makes a buck, or they don't. I'm sorry if you find that misleading, but RIAA affiliated is RIAA affiliated. You can't be mostly RIAA-free. You are or you ain't. I don't want a single one of my dollars going to the RIAA members. Period.
If that's the case, then their site should correctly state the facts... They claim such bands to be RIAA members, or that their record labels are RIAA members... both are innaccurate. They should claim that production or distribution is done through an RIAA member instead. Their method is an outright lie... no matter how you want to spin it
In addition, by your logic, NO ONE concerned about such things should use the site. The site is more of a tool for them (RIAA Radar) to make money through their Amazon partnership via sales of the CDs they list. Thus, the RIAA is getting MANY dollars via anyone who uses the site and purchases from their mostly RIAA catalog (which is what their site really seems to be).
The RIAA makes faaaar less from production/distribution of such bands (like Iron Maiden) than they do from bands they actually have through a label contract.
So, which is worse? The site helping the RIAA to make more money off the bands that are actually RIAA signed bands? Or your thought that bands that detest the RIAA (but are stuck using a large production company due to the volume they do) should be treated the same as RIAA (member company) signed bands?
The site is more a glorified catalog for the site owners (and RIAA member companies) to make money off of.
Of course, disabling the "Buy from Amazon" links on CDs that they claim are from RIAA members, would mean not making much money.
The problem I have with the RIAARadar site is that it does not correctly attribute the appropriate record label and appropriate distribution company to many artists...
One such is Iron Maiden, who releases their music through one of their own labels (ie: formerly Sanctuary), but like most bands who are not RIAA members, and who (like them) are vehemently against the RIAA tactics, the CD production/distribution is done by a big label.
Thus, in their case (Iron Maiden's) and many other artists, the information is misleading, and people will be misinformed as to the band's actual status, feelings about the RIAA, and who their real record label is.
And yes (before someone asks) I did submit (multiple times) the correct info to them, including numerous links to support my claims, and they still have ignored it - after months since my last submission to them.
If they were more pro-active in correcting their listings (especially after being provided numerous supporting links, etc, making the job easy), their site would be quite useful... heck, if they did ANYTHING to correct their listings (other than send an automated confirmation saying "thanks for the info") it would be nice.
I'm curious about that too... if they are leaving the data in "node-like" structures, it should. But personally, I have no idea.
It is as easy as this though:
-Segment info currently defines house 2-100 even (followed by 100-200, etc)
-You correct your location info for house #68
-They revise the end node (100) to be 68, insert another dataset going from 68-100
-The result being 2-68 and 68-100 searches are more accurate.
The way the original data is set up though, that can alternatively be done by adding an exception entry for house #68 - which would only affect lookups for that house # (instead of using the above method)
So, I too am curious how they will implement it into the rest of the datasets...
I am not sure you responded to the correct person, but anyway:
announcement n. The act of making known publicly. Something announced. A broadcast message, especially a program note or commercial.
MS's email to the TAP people fits that definition in a few areas... the people (mostly) do not work for MS, so the announcement was made to people of the public, as well as fitting the second part of the definition. It was announced (if only to a small group of non-MS people... still an announcement). There isnt a criteria for the number of people that must be told for it to be an announcement...
Yes, that is part of the problem (as I mentioned elsewhere)... and that problem pertains to rural and urban areas both... your example fits both - for relatively the same reason. A building in NYC may have a much larger footprint than the one next to it, but since there is no specific coordinate for each building, the software has to interpret it in a linear fashion (unless another address exception was added by someone to redefine the address segments - which is relatively simple).
But part of it is because (supposedly intentionally) start addresses and end addresses on a street are not always accurate in the datasets... for instance, if (as in your example) the dataset lists a segment as 2100-2400, that doesnt always mean that the segment starts at 2100 - or ends at 2400. The first house may be 2112. Or, each sub block section may be different lengths (ie: physical addresses of 2100-2159, 2200-2278, 2300-2345 corresponding to the 2100-2400 dataset). The sub-range info is there - just in 1 or 2 different files (that many companies forget to even "look" at.
The reasons still, may indeed be a bit mundane... the *claims* in the Technical Document are not mundane - though also not entirely accurate in their reasoning behind the issue. Though the document does also describe reasons for other innaccuracies (with example datasets and pictures as well) that cover the other reasons you or I have described. Of course, it also goes into detail about where and how to find the exception and supplemental address data - though a lot of places seem to have never gotten that far in the tech document.:-)
The problem I see arising from such situations is that many companies do not properly implement the TIGER/Line data. There is an entire table with such address variations listed, as well as another one that (usually) breaks the segments into smaller ones with the addresses on the correct side of the road. The main files do not have that supplemental information, and many companies that base their data off the TIGER/Line data seem to only use the main files... which is a very innaccurate method for dealing with such things (address ranges that switch sides of the road, roads with curves, roads with lots of weird intersections (for instance John St hits Dave St on the west side at one location, but on the other side it leaves Dave St a block or two up)).
That seems to be a commonplace error in a lot of implementations... it took me a bit to find the rest of the info and chain it together to fix that error... the difference is using a 15-20GB data set or one over 70GBs... or... using a dataset with 2-6 points (on average) describing a road compared to using one with a few dozen describing it. If you look at it either way, it's faster and easier to (a) map the stuff using the lazy innaccurate way, as well as (b) faster and easier to find or calculate distances... (and other factors as well of course... but those are two examples).
There are even some mapping sites that use the data that will not show a road (or incorrectly include one that doesnt exist) till you zoom out because they are using only the main files, and there aren't any road endpoints for the road in the zoom-in area.
An example of that is if a road curves outside of a display box/area, and you are using an intersect calculation to find and draw roads in the display area, such a program will innaccurately include the road (as a straight line) through the display box - because the program didnt read the supplemental files that re-described that road as a curve. Or, there are the programs that grab all endpoints in a display box and draw a map based off that - without doing an intersect check of either the main data files, or the supplemental ones...
The problem is usually not the data - but instead is usually either (a) innaccurate use of it (not properly checking for intersects for endpoints out of the display box, etc), or (b) not using the FULL data set (and thus incorrectly drawing roads in the wrong shape) - or as in your case, showing addresses on the wrong side of the street. Your problem seems to be an easy mistake to make... your address probably shows up twice (or more)... once in the main address set, and once in the supplemental exceptions data set (and possibly elsewhere).
As usual, slashdot posters don't read. The discussion was about finding ADDRESSES using such tools. And hate to break it to you, but neither NavTeq or TeleAtlas are much more accurate than the TIGER/Line data that they are based off of.
For instance, my road, with the houses built over 50 years ago, with NO changes in at least the last 35 years (that I can personally confirm from living there) still shows a house 1-9 through those services... they dont exist, never did.
If you think that Tiger data is just as good as what you can get from TeleAtlas and NavTeq-- then you obviously haven't seen these datasets. I have. No commercial GPS unit vendor, or map web service uses Tiger data because it sucks.
That's where you are wrong... or maybe it's just coincidental that the info for tons of locations is identical?
Tiger doesn't contain sign data. It doesn't describe one-way roads or turn restrictions. It doesn't include form-of-way information. It doesn't tell you how large roads are. It doesn't offer a fully conneted road network. And on, and on... The address inaccuracy is just icing on the cake. If you think the inaccuracy in Tiger is for national security, I have a bridge to sell you... or is that a tunnel? With Tiger, you'll never know.
All irrelevant to the discussion at hand - which was finding ADDRESS positions... not stop signs. As for whether it's for a matter of National Security... I think I made two things quite clear in my earlier posts (1) that was the GOVERNMENT's claim (not mine), and (2) my sarcasm in the post should have clearly indicated to anyone with even 1/4 of a brain that I thought it a dubious claim.
The sign data issue alone is a killer because you cannot give good guidance without signs and highway exit numbers. Of course, because of the way Tiger butchers ramps, you can forget about highways anyway.
Again, irrelevant to the discussion at hand... perhaps if the discussion was about getting routing info, then you would be right (well, not really, as my answer would have been different since it would have been about a different topic).
As for on and off ramps, the TIGER/Line data is more accurate than you seem to be aware of. It's small odd-shaped cloverleafs that may or may not be 100% accurate... on and off ramps are actually listed in segments with the correct information. Perhaps you are looking at an old version of the TIGER/Line data? I'm not.
Map vendor data comes from a lot of different sourcse. Some of it is released into the public domain by local, state, or federal governments. Much of it is from employees hired just to drive around. Some comes from feedback from customers. Some of it comes from satellite or aerial photographs that have been processed with algorithms. And yes, map vendor data has more accurate address information.
And no, they dont have more accurate address information... my example above is just one of many (and I live in a major county with over 3 million people, in the NYC Metro area)... so is NYC (Manhattan), which is still innaccurate in the same fashion as the TIGER/Line data... perhaps you should ACTUALLY compare the stuff before you make such claims.
NavTeq is being acquired for 8.1 billion dollars. Do you think the Finns would pay that kind of money for crummy US census data? TeleAtlas is also being acquired for megabucks-- in fact, it was the subject of a bidding war between TomTom and Garmin.
Because of a lot of factors... yes, for MAPPING AND ROUTING I would buy one or the other... they do have features that TIGER/Line doesnt (such as somewhat accurate stop sign info, road direction info, etc). But the discussion wasnt about ROUTING. In addition to that, the advertising revenue alone would be a reason to buy one of the two (ie: restaurants, hotels, attrac
Let me re-quote what I wrote so you can re-read it...
The THEORY (ie: not mine, and dont know or care how valid it is)...
There... I even bolded the appropriate section. It Isnt MY claim, it's what our very own government wrote in the TIGER/Line Manual.... not me.... as I said, I dont care either way whether their claim/theory/lie is accurate or not.
Sitting too close to the TV is not a myth... it just doesnt apply in the same way in this day and age.
And LCDs are a totally different beast and totally unrelated to the non-myth about sitting too close to a TV.
Back when I was a kid, (insert walking 10 miles, up hill, snow, etc, jokes here), TVs did not have nearly as low radiation emissions... we have improved greatly in that area since then. So, back in the day, not just was the radiation harmful in other ways, but it could also cause damage to the delicate portions of your eye responsible for sight. In addition, sitting further away helped prevent eye strain.
Really? More up to date? Sorry, but it isn't more up to date... the government doesn't give them a special release of it.
More accurate? In some instances - due to the already mentioned online correction tools that their customers can use to update incorrect info...
And from testing against that data I can tell you, those "corrections" (assuming they are accurate) make up a very small percent of the data. As of this day, my road, (and houses on it) built in 1940, in a county with 3 million people, still is not accurate, and still matches the Tiger/LINE data 100% in those innaccuracies. So do numerous addresses in NYC that I have tested.
But they DO add neat other features like the locations of many motels/hotels, restaurants, etc... no sarcasm intended... I'm working on filling in that data in our database as well...
OTOH, I can provide a more accurate vector map, including into coastal waters (with depths)... I'm sure they could, but they choose not to... as for the imagery stuff... well, that can be obtained free and/or very cheap from the government as well in qualities that equal or rival theirs...
So, the added accuracy, which is mostly supplied by their customers (and thus suspect in my mind - as in, "Who knows? Some kid borrowing the family car screwing with their data, or was the correction accurate?"), to me, especially with the very small percent of "adjustments", really doesnt mean much to me...
Some of the data is missing and gets interpolated from the rest... for instance, my house range isnt in the MAIN data. What I mean by that is, the even house numbers for my road segment arent in the dataset (the odd ones are). Figuring out where my house "is" (as accurately as any of the data will allow) simply requires using the odd numbered data to calculate it - or looking through the secondary data sets (where my house range IS located). Many sites, (and even some of the large companies that use it for their GPS's) also using the Tiger-Line Data, haven't figured that out... or have accidentally dropped records, or are using older Tiger-Line Data.
I have a feeling that when it decides on an address location, the software (due to a programming error) is placing the marker on the incorrect side because the interpolated location was taken from the other side of the street's info.
Inotherwords, lets say the street data has 101-121 Odd Left, 102-122 Even Right, 123-161 Odd Left, 163-171 Odd Left and 164-170 Even Right... and your house number is 150. There is no address block for it, so it finds it in the odd numbered block, which says it's on the left side... they forgot to reverse the direction since they are interpolating the location based off the odd instead of the even data.
Here's one such site (my house doesnt return any data - which means of the three required data sets to find it, they are using only 1 of them):
(Thought better than to name them here... last thing I need is a war against them... search if ya are bored, you'll find them)
They are using the Tiger-Line Data (an older set), and aren't using anything but the main file - that makes their data very innaccurate for any street with a curve or other intermediary points, as well as for the "supplemental address range" data (which constitutes probably MOST of the actual address data)...
It's funny that after years of doing it, they havent realized they cant just dump 50GB of the data and expect it to work...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, actually, SP1A addressed more than just that. Some of the issues with SP1 that SP1A addressed were programs crashing unexpectedly or locking up - including any Office XP application, problems in switching user identities, failure to install, disappearing screen icons, loss of both broadband and dial-up connectivity, invalid product key errors during install, messing up DX9a (which then reports it is incompatible with XP), "Access is Denied" errors after SP1 installation, various instances of trying to install Windows components that then request you insert your 'Service Pack 1' CD...
And that's the very abbreviated list. But thanks for pointing out the other reasons for SP1A. I did forget to mention them, which I should have to be fair.
Keep in mind there may "be a much shorter memory about Apple's tribulations" because there is a much shorter time to get them resolved... as their recent bunch of fixes and updates in 10.5.1 (in about a month) prove in comparison to SP1 (in over a year) and Vista.
That seems a pretty consistent trend. Yes, users may expect Apple products to be mature immediately, but two things happen because of the situation I just outlined...
(1) If their aren't "mature immediately" then they will be quickly - which means it will be pretty quickly (months) that the machines in the pipeline ARE "mature" - compared to years for a MS based PC. That means a lot less people will experience issues... (to spell that out for you... if v10.5.0 has problems, that are fixed in a month... then only a month's worth of consumers experienced it... while if Vista has problems that are taking a year to be properly addressed (hopefully), then it is a year of consumers who are buying un-fixed/immature Vista/XP/etc based solutions - factor in market share and that makes a bigger difference... on an even market share, 1/12 of the Apple customers (compared to the Windows ones) would experience issues... the other 11/12 would be purchasing machines with updated code - based off MS's one year cycle, and Apple's one month cycle... then factor in market share... ).
(2) When people have problems with something, which are they more likely to remember longer?
- (a) "I had problems, but they were fixed in a month."
- (b) "I had problems, but it took a year to fix."
(pretending XP SP1 was a "fix" and assuming Vista SP1 will be)
Personally, I think none of it is a big mystery... it's (a) whether we are talking about computers, cars, or almost any other consumer product. People want their technology to work. Barring that, their next expectation is if it doesnt, it will be fixed quickly... when neither of those expectations are met, then people tend to have a much longer memory of the issues.
I saw it all the time with laptops... comes in broken... "We'll have you up and running in a few hours..." "OK!" (sometimes even followed with a letter of thanks to our managers for the good service we performed)... or "Sorry, it will take a month... it has to go to the manufacturer for a new motherboard, which they are out of stock on" (Toshiba Qosimo, anyone?) "Gee, that's ok!" (unlikely... usually it's complaints about the service and problems for MONTHS to come).
So perhaps that expectation you speak of is more of a combination of two factors/expectations that are co-joined that almost every consumer has: (1) It should work perfectly... BUT (2) if it doesn't, I expect it to be fixed quickly. Most consumers realize any complex device/software/whatever has the possibility of having issues from either day one... or shortly after... they hope it doesnt... and expect (knowing that it is still possible it does) that it will be fixed in an Apple-like time frame.
In my above post I said:
...MS takes years to admit many major issues, months or over a year to release a questionable SP (SP1? c'mon... the SP needed an SP - namely SP1A)... and Apple admits to and attempts to fix the issues in a couple months...In this statement, I was referring to the author's comments on SP1 for XP - as noted in the beginning of my paragraph. Of course, it may end up also applying to SP1 for Vista - but I will make no comment on that till it is released, contrary to what the beta testers have claimed for or against such a scenario.
Well, to edify you...
10.5.1 is already released.
And my opinion on the author's rant...
Many of the author's points dont make any sense in comparison to MS and Vista. SP1 isn't due out (as of now) till Q1 2008... OSX's update is already out... don't see the similarity.
He also claims that MS "mostly" admitted to XP pre-SP1 crashing a lot - but that was after SP2 was released and they announced Vista... in my opinion, years later doesn't count as "admitting" anything (especially as their "admission" was more of an advertising tool touting how Vista would fix all the issues that XP had - as they do with every release). That's like the weatherman admitting they were wrong about it going to be sunny last Sunday - when instead it poured... gee thanks, we've known that for quite a while, and it's too little too late. So, I dont see the similarity between that and Apple's stance - which is to (far more quickly) release an update - AND admit to many of the issues, up front and quickly (see http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306907 and http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61798). So, where's the similarities? MS takes years to admit many major issues, months or over a year to release a questionable SP (SP1? c'mon... the SP needed an SP - namely SP1A)... and Apple admits to and attempts to fix the issues in a couple months...
Vista Similarity 2: Needless Graphics Glitz
Hmm... may be "needless" but people like them - when done right. Vista radically changed the interface in many areas, making things more confusing - while requiring most of a user's computing power to do so. OSX refined their user interface, and added to it in ways that didnt make doing simple things more confusing... and dont use nearly as much of the CPU/resources to do so... where is the similarities? And in the case of consistency between various parts of the OS or programs, neither is perfect, but OSX is light-years ahead.
Vista Similarity 3: Pointless User Interface "Fixes"
Then there's how Microsoft screwed up Vista's UI, reorganizing things that didn't need to be reorganized--like the networking screens... Under XP you can get to those with a single right-click on the desktop. Under Vista, it's three layers down for no good reason...
...Not to be left behind, Apple has messed up its own UI, too, but Apple did it with piles of senseless graphics enhancements.
So, MS totally messed up the Vista interface, made it more complex to interact with, and made it more confusing... Apple added graphics to make it prettier (which Vista is just as guilty of). How is there a similarity between trying to make an interface prettier by totally messing it up and making it more difficult and complex - or making an interface prettier?
Vista Similarity 4: Nuked Networking
Ummm... yeah... I see that similarity... with Vista users gotta wait till Q1-2008 (maybe) for a fix (maybe - doubtfully on some issues since it is due to components of the DRM).... compared to a sercurity/networking fix already being out for OSX Leopard.
Where is the similarity? That they both had networking issues? Neither were apparently secure out of the box - but Vista (for various reasons) dragged down network performance to boot - and made network operations more difficult... while Apple quickly dealt with (and admitted to) their networking issues.
Vista Similarity 5: Bundled Apps as New Features That Suck
Ummm... at least most of the apps that come with OSX are somewhat useful and will get used... unlike what comes on a Vista machine.
But in MS's defense, much of the crapware is installed by the computer OEM - not by MS.
Pointing out Leopard's deficiencies is one thing... yeah, it seems to have quite a few (though at least Apple admits to and
Not necessarily - most of the aftermarket batteries I have purchased or (we) ordered at a major retailer (some with labels, some without) have worked admirably well. None of them (after anything from a few years to a few months) have exhibitted issues.
Indeed... and not just should it be really simple... as do they have a PO Box in Flushing (as someone else mentioned), but they have a Queens Fax Number: 718-504-3790. Verizon says it's a land line. "(718) 504-3790 is a land line based in New York City Zone 6, NY. The registered service provider is Global Naps**."
That means there has to be someone somewhere in NY... and in NY, as mentioned in the article, making money through criminal activities is treble damages... (3X)...
In addition to that, someone indicated it would be difficult to sue the company if it was based in China. There is (1) obviously someone in the US involved in this (Shentec), and (2) IBM does business in China... but first step would be US, and (3) Shentec is also using Lenovo's trademarks... and they definitely have a major China presence (to initiate suit there).
Im sure IBM's lawyers are smart enough to know what they are doing, and wouldnt be surprised that IBM lays the groundwork for them - or Lenovo - to continue in China.
As of now, Shentec is still selling "IBM" & "Lenovo" batteries...
I think IBM (and Lenovo) are gonna burn Shentec even faster than Shentec's batteries burned!!!
Oh, and please don't get me wrong... I love what you are doing and promoting... (so I hope you didn't misinterpret my post...)
My angst is entirely directed at those corporations who wish to ensure that what you are doing with your music soon becomes illegal unless you are paying them for the priviledge of being able to share it with the world.
And thanks for sharing your music with us!
You don't have to pay the iTunes Music Store to download music legally. Many musicians offer free downloads of their music as a way to promote themselves. I'm one such artist. You could really help me out if you shared my music over the Internet.
You can find many other such artists, and free, legal music hosting sites in my article Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads.
We can get your music for free now.
What about a few years down the road? Nothing personal... but you cannot say we will be able to download your music free then. That is why these lawsuits, and re-inventing this idiotic system - in a manner where it is NOT under the control of corporations - is so important.
You may entirely want to be able to release your music (or portion thereof) for free - now... and perhaps forever... but what laws impact that are no longer in any way based on the reality of your desires.
As a for instance, you can no longer set up an Internet Radio Station to broadcast your music for free... since you are stuck paying SoundExchange for that "right" - and stuck recouping only a fraction of that cost through royalties paid back to you by them.
The point is, anyone who has been following the RIAA shenanigans over the last few years may have noticed that the RIAA is trying to set up a law structure that ensures they are in total control over music downloads - whether or not the music is theirs.
For the short term, your solution is a good one, and I am happy to see artists such as you and others releasing some extent of their music for free online... for the long term, the RIAA needs to be beheaded and laws need to be changed (while new laws are not being created at the whim of what the RIAA wants)... otherwise your solution too will become illegal.
In the meantime, the RIAA, ASCAP and BMI are not against attempting (what amounts to) extortion to get artists to pay for broadcasting/making available their own music for free... I know... a few years back, it was "strongly suggested" to me that I pay membership to avoid them making a case out of me not doing anything at all... basically their "theory" was they weren't going to believe I wasnt doing anything wrong, so I either paid them, or they would use legal means to ensure I wasnt... (the claim was playing music in my office that customers may hear when they come in - which not just weren't we, but there werent customers who could hear it even if we were).
EMI does their US distribution... many other distributors handle their distribution elsewhere. Their label is "Phantom Music" - if you look at the RIAA-Radar site, it actually will correctly list (though incorrectly as their "label") numerous of the same album as RIAA safe under a different "label" (ie: Distribution).
Again though, my point is the info is innaccurate... and as mentioned elsewhere, until enough bands/fans/whatever come out with an alternative method of releasing CDs, there isnt an alternative for bands so large...
Again, the difference I was trying to point out is that other bands will have their music copyrighted, controlled and fans sued for sharing by an RIAA member because that RIAA member owns the sound recordings... unlike Iron Maiden who states they have no interest (and think it is wrong) to sue their fans - and own their music:
From a recent release: "(p) 2006 Iron Maiden Holdings Ltd under exclusive license to EMI Records Ltd (c) 2006 Iron Maiden Holdings Ltd ..."
It may not be a big difference in your mind, but it is a difference. In the meantime, they are also offering (through numerous outlets) their music online - non-DRMd.
My points being other alternatives need to be available for such bands, such bands should still be supported by their fans because they retain control over their music and will NOT sue their fans - and have stated their fans CAN share their music; they are trying other release methods (such as online downloads), and have publicly stated in concert and in interviews, that the tactics and lawsuits against fans that the RIAA and Metallica use are wrong - and ensure their labels comply with that position.
Their attitude towards their fans - and against the RIAA and similar efforts have earned them my loyalty... for instance, at a 2003 concert, Bruce stopped to tell the fans:
"The album isn't out yet, but please pull out your digital recorders, MP3 players, cellphones or whatever you have. Put it on the Internet, spread it all over the world. But on one condition: when you hear the new album, if you like it, pay the equivalent of three beers to buy the record in the store. That's what keeps us alive. If you don't like the album, jost forget it... We are not like Metallica."
That's exactly what most anti-RIAA people have asked for... the ability to try before you buy. And they have publicly stated they are all for it... share it (with the world), buy it if you like it, dont buy it if you dont like it.
And it's just one step to make all bands less beholden on the RIAA members for anything.
I'm asking for the information to be correct. That's all... heck, a yellow tag with a disclaimer (like the ones elsewhere) "Iron Maiden's label is NOT an RIAA member, but this release is distributed through one" - as opposed to the highly innaccurate info that states that Iron Maiden's label IS an RIAA member.
And please, do tell me who Iron Maiden can become entirely RIAA free with the number of sales they do... please tell me what production company can handle that volume? If the most massive RIAA member production houses cant keep up with demands for a new release, please advise me which small, non-RIAA member could even come close?
Their attitude towards their fans - and against the RIAA and similar efforts have earned them my loyalty... for instance, at a 2003 concert, Bruce stopped to tell the fans:
"The album isn't out yet, but please pull out your digital recorders, MP3 players, cellphones or whatever you have. Put it on the Internet, spread it all over the world. But on one condition: when you hear the new album, if you like it, pay the equivalent of three beers to buy the record in the store. That's what keeps us alive. If you don't like the album, jost forget it... We are not like Metallica."
That's exactly what most anti-RIAA people have asked for... the ability to try before you buy. And they have publicly stated they are all for it... share it (with the world), buy it if you like it, dont buy it if you dont like it.
Dont get me wrong, I think it would be a wonderful thing if large bands didnt need to use the RIAA for anything.
And dont get me wrong on this one either... I'd rather not see any $$$ go to an RIAA member - even if it's just for production... but in their case, and the cases of at least a few other bands in a similar situation, I have no problems buying their CDs, since THEY own their sound recordings, and only THEY can dictate what can and cant be done with them... and THEY have publicly stated their angst at the RIAA-like situation here and abroad, and THEY have stated that they dont mind if their fans share their music, and stated they dont believe in nor will ever sue their fans for that... in their case, the RIAA has NO say in that matter.
And while you may think Iron Maiden is a dinosaur, their growing popularity and sold out shows (to this date) prove otherwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Maiden_discography
Here's where they placed in the charts worldwide for their latest album:
#1 (FIN), #1 (GER), #1 (ITA), #1 (GRC), #1 (SWE), #1 (CZE), #1 (CRO), #1 (SLO), #1 (POL), #1 (BRA), #2 (CAN), #2 (NOR), #2 (CHE), #2 (HUN), #2 (COL), #3 (CHI), #4 (GBR), #4 (SPA), #4 (AUT),#2(IND)(debut #4), #5 (FRA), #5 (IRE), #5(ARA), #6 (ICE), #6 (BEL), #7 (HOL), #8 (DEN), #9 (USA), #10 (MEX), #11 (JPN),#11 (POR), #12 (AUS), #15 (HKG), #16 (NZL) / #1 European-wide chart, #4 worldwide chart, #3 inthitlists World chart.
Not too shabby for a dinosaur... guess they are still quite relevant, huh?
Exactly the problem with the music industry. And yeah, for many bands that is an issue... for some, it's not (again, like Iron Maiden - but they are sort of in a class of their own... most bands do not retain rights to their sound recordings... theirs are all copyrighted by Iron Maiden Holdings - unlike most other bands, who the sound recordings are copyrighted by the publisher/label; while the music arrangements/lyrics are copyrighted by the bands).
So, we're in total agreement about that... hence my desire to see the RIAA-Radar site have more accurate or more thorough information. If Iron Maiden says "we dont mind if fans share our music" (which they have) that's pretty much the end of the situation, regardless of what Sony, BMG, etc want to see. Yeah, they are not the norm... but there are other bands out there in the same boat (yeah not many). But even if it is only a few, I don't like seeing those bands being penalized in such situations - especially when most of them take a big stand against the RIAA.
The publicity of such things, and proper attribution to how a band operates (with or without an RIAA member being part of their distribution efforts) is something I think important to allow other bands to realize that (even if they do need an RIAA member to do distribution) they can push harder to write their own ticket. Yeah, it would have to start at "the top" (the bigger bands in similar situations first), but eventually, that mentality would hopefully trickle down to the point where the RIAA could not impose such a stranglehold on other bands in similar situations.
The more bands who's situation is properly indicated there and elsewhere, the more other bands that have a chance at creating similar deals with the big labels... or the more bands that may consider creating their own.
All in all though, as you stated, it does bring up big issues with many bands stuck in a similar boat, who lose the rights to their own sound recordings (once they are large enough to require a big label to actually do their production because of volume needed).
First off, Amazon doesnt claim to support or not support the RIAA - unlike the site referenced...
Secondly, Iron Maiden doesnt use the label formerly known as Sanctuary... THEY formerly used Sanctuary - which was their label... and now is not (Someone else said it was sold to Universal? Dont know how true that is).
Third, Maiden, since they own their music, recordings, etc (unlike most bands), have a lot of say in what does and does not happen to their CDs. They would quite quickly drop a production company if they played games like that.
Believe what you want. I'm asking for honesty and accuracy in their listings... their label is NOT an RIAA label.
Keep in mind, they would also be much more believable if they accurately portrayed the albums and artists they list... which is the aspect I complained about...
I know I am not supposed to feed trolls, but... what the heck...
They sold off interests in Sanctuary and created another label to concentrate on Maiden. Who Sanctuary is owned by now is irrelevant.
And you still missed the point... that site makes the RIAA money (and I never said it was an RIAA site). You cannot claim that it isnt a benefit to the RIAA...
And I can guarantee you I have a much better understanding of these things than you... regarless of not going into the rather boring details... I could name quite a few Indie bands I've worked with on various projects - who happen to be owned by friends, family or referred to me by them... and we've discussed these issues to death...
If that's the case, then their site should correctly state the facts... They claim such bands to be RIAA members, or that their record labels are RIAA members... both are innaccurate. They should claim that production or distribution is done through an RIAA member instead. Their method is an outright lie... no matter how you want to spin it
In addition, by your logic, NO ONE concerned about such things should use the site. The site is more of a tool for them (RIAA Radar) to make money through their Amazon partnership via sales of the CDs they list. Thus, the RIAA is getting MANY dollars via anyone who uses the site and purchases from their mostly RIAA catalog (which is what their site really seems to be).
The RIAA makes faaaar less from production/distribution of such bands (like Iron Maiden) than they do from bands they actually have through a label contract.
So, which is worse? The site helping the RIAA to make more money off the bands that are actually RIAA signed bands? Or your thought that bands that detest the RIAA (but are stuck using a large production company due to the volume they do) should be treated the same as RIAA (member company) signed bands?
The site is more a glorified catalog for the site owners (and RIAA member companies) to make money off of.
Of course, disabling the "Buy from Amazon" links on CDs that they claim are from RIAA members, would mean not making much money.
So again, tell me why the site is ok?
The problem I have with the RIAARadar site is that it does not correctly attribute the appropriate record label and appropriate distribution company to many artists...
One such is Iron Maiden, who releases their music through one of their own labels (ie: formerly Sanctuary), but like most bands who are not RIAA members, and who (like them) are vehemently against the RIAA tactics, the CD production/distribution is done by a big label.
Thus, in their case (Iron Maiden's) and many other artists, the information is misleading, and people will be misinformed as to the band's actual status, feelings about the RIAA, and who their real record label is.
And yes (before someone asks) I did submit (multiple times) the correct info to them, including numerous links to support my claims, and they still have ignored it - after months since my last submission to them.
If they were more pro-active in correcting their listings (especially after being provided numerous supporting links, etc, making the job easy), their site would be quite useful... heck, if they did ANYTHING to correct their listings (other than send an automated confirmation saying "thanks for the info") it would be nice.
I'm curious about that too... if they are leaving the data in "node-like" structures, it should. But personally, I have no idea.
It is as easy as this though:
-Segment info currently defines house 2-100 even (followed by 100-200, etc)
-You correct your location info for house #68
-They revise the end node (100) to be 68, insert another dataset going from 68-100
-The result being 2-68 and 68-100 searches are more accurate.
The way the original data is set up though, that can alternatively be done by adding an exception entry for house #68 - which would only affect lookups for that house # (instead of using the above method)
So, I too am curious how they will implement it into the rest of the datasets...
I am not sure you responded to the correct person, but anyway:
announcement n. The act of making known publicly. Something announced. A broadcast message, especially a program note or commercial.MS's email to the TAP people fits that definition in a few areas... the people (mostly) do not work for MS, so the announcement was made to people of the public, as well as fitting the second part of the definition. It was announced (if only to a small group of non-MS people... still an announcement). There isnt a criteria for the number of people that must be told for it to be an announcement...
Yes, that is part of the problem (as I mentioned elsewhere)... and that problem pertains to rural and urban areas both... your example fits both - for relatively the same reason. A building in NYC may have a much larger footprint than the one next to it, but since there is no specific coordinate for each building, the software has to interpret it in a linear fashion (unless another address exception was added by someone to redefine the address segments - which is relatively simple).
But part of it is because (supposedly intentionally) start addresses and end addresses on a street are not always accurate in the datasets... for instance, if (as in your example) the dataset lists a segment as 2100-2400, that doesnt always mean that the segment starts at 2100 - or ends at 2400. The first house may be 2112. Or, each sub block section may be different lengths (ie: physical addresses of 2100-2159, 2200-2278, 2300-2345 corresponding to the 2100-2400 dataset). The sub-range info is there - just in 1 or 2 different files (that many companies forget to even "look" at.
The reasons still, may indeed be a bit mundane... the *claims* in the Technical Document are not mundane - though also not entirely accurate in their reasoning behind the issue. Though the document does also describe reasons for other innaccuracies (with example datasets and pictures as well) that cover the other reasons you or I have described. Of course, it also goes into detail about where and how to find the exception and supplemental address data - though a lot of places seem to have never gotten that far in the tech document. :-)
The problem I see arising from such situations is that many companies do not properly implement the TIGER/Line data. There is an entire table with such address variations listed, as well as another one that (usually) breaks the segments into smaller ones with the addresses on the correct side of the road. The main files do not have that supplemental information, and many companies that base their data off the TIGER/Line data seem to only use the main files... which is a very innaccurate method for dealing with such things (address ranges that switch sides of the road, roads with curves, roads with lots of weird intersections (for instance John St hits Dave St on the west side at one location, but on the other side it leaves Dave St a block or two up)).
That seems to be a commonplace error in a lot of implementations... it took me a bit to find the rest of the info and chain it together to fix that error... the difference is using a 15-20GB data set or one over 70GBs... or... using a dataset with 2-6 points (on average) describing a road compared to using one with a few dozen describing it. If you look at it either way, it's faster and easier to (a) map the stuff using the lazy innaccurate way, as well as (b) faster and easier to find or calculate distances... (and other factors as well of course... but those are two examples).
There are even some mapping sites that use the data that will not show a road (or incorrectly include one that doesnt exist) till you zoom out because they are using only the main files, and there aren't any road endpoints for the road in the zoom-in area.
An example of that is if a road curves outside of a display box/area, and you are using an intersect calculation to find and draw roads in the display area, such a program will innaccurately include the road (as a straight line) through the display box - because the program didnt read the supplemental files that re-described that road as a curve. Or, there are the programs that grab all endpoints in a display box and draw a map based off that - without doing an intersect check of either the main data files, or the supplemental ones...
The problem is usually not the data - but instead is usually either (a) innaccurate use of it (not properly checking for intersects for endpoints out of the display box, etc), or (b) not using the FULL data set (and thus incorrectly drawing roads in the wrong shape) - or as in your case, showing addresses on the wrong side of the street. Your problem seems to be an easy mistake to make... your address probably shows up twice (or more)... once in the main address set, and once in the supplemental exceptions data set (and possibly elsewhere).
As usual, slashdot posters get it wrong.
As usual, slashdot posters don't read. The discussion was about finding ADDRESSES using such tools. And hate to break it to you, but neither NavTeq or TeleAtlas are much more accurate than the TIGER/Line data that they are based off of.
For instance, my road, with the houses built over 50 years ago, with NO changes in at least the last 35 years (that I can personally confirm from living there) still shows a house 1-9 through those services... they dont exist, never did.
If you think that Tiger data is just as good as what you can get from TeleAtlas and NavTeq-- then you obviously haven't seen these datasets. I have. No commercial GPS unit vendor, or map web service uses Tiger data because it sucks.
That's where you are wrong... or maybe it's just coincidental that the info for tons of locations is identical?
Tiger doesn't contain sign data. It doesn't describe one-way roads or turn restrictions. It doesn't include form-of-way information. It doesn't tell you how large roads are. It doesn't offer a fully conneted road network. And on, and on... The address inaccuracy is just icing on the cake. If you think the inaccuracy in Tiger is for national security, I have a bridge to sell you... or is that a tunnel? With Tiger, you'll never know.
All irrelevant to the discussion at hand - which was finding ADDRESS positions... not stop signs. As for whether it's for a matter of National Security... I think I made two things quite clear in my earlier posts (1) that was the GOVERNMENT's claim (not mine), and (2) my sarcasm in the post should have clearly indicated to anyone with even 1/4 of a brain that I thought it a dubious claim.
The sign data issue alone is a killer because you cannot give good guidance without signs and highway exit numbers. Of course, because of the way Tiger butchers ramps, you can forget about highways anyway.
Again, irrelevant to the discussion at hand... perhaps if the discussion was about getting routing info, then you would be right (well, not really, as my answer would have been different since it would have been about a different topic).
As for on and off ramps, the TIGER/Line data is more accurate than you seem to be aware of. It's small odd-shaped cloverleafs that may or may not be 100% accurate... on and off ramps are actually listed in segments with the correct information. Perhaps you are looking at an old version of the TIGER/Line data? I'm not.
Map vendor data comes from a lot of different sourcse. Some of it is released into the public domain by local, state, or federal governments. Much of it is from employees hired just to drive around. Some comes from feedback from customers. Some of it comes from satellite or aerial photographs that have been processed with algorithms. And yes, map vendor data has more accurate address information.
And no, they dont have more accurate address information... my example above is just one of many (and I live in a major county with over 3 million people, in the NYC Metro area)... so is NYC (Manhattan), which is still innaccurate in the same fashion as the TIGER/Line data... perhaps you should ACTUALLY compare the stuff before you make such claims.
NavTeq is being acquired for 8.1 billion dollars. Do you think the Finns would pay that kind of money for crummy US census data? TeleAtlas is also being acquired for megabucks-- in fact, it was the subject of a bidding war between TomTom and Garmin.
Because of a lot of factors... yes, for MAPPING AND ROUTING I would buy one or the other... they do have features that TIGER/Line doesnt (such as somewhat accurate stop sign info, road direction info, etc). But the discussion wasnt about ROUTING. In addition to that, the advertising revenue alone would be a reason to buy one of the two (ie: restaurants, hotels, attrac
Why are you asking me?
Let me re-quote what I wrote so you can re-read it...
The THEORY (ie: not mine, and dont know or care how valid it is)...
There... I even bolded the appropriate section. It Isnt MY claim, it's what our very own government wrote in the TIGER/Line Manual.... not me.... as I said, I dont care either way whether their claim/theory/lie is accurate or not.
Sitting too close to the TV is not a myth... it just doesnt apply in the same way in this day and age.
And LCDs are a totally different beast and totally unrelated to the non-myth about sitting too close to a TV.
Back when I was a kid, (insert walking 10 miles, up hill, snow, etc, jokes here), TVs did not have nearly as low radiation emissions... we have improved greatly in that area since then. So, back in the day, not just was the radiation harmful in other ways, but it could also cause damage to the delicate portions of your eye responsible for sight. In addition, sitting further away helped prevent eye strain.
Guess I am getting old... :-)
Really? More up to date? Sorry, but it isn't more up to date... the government doesn't give them a special release of it.
More accurate? In some instances - due to the already mentioned online correction tools that their customers can use to update incorrect info...
And from testing against that data I can tell you, those "corrections" (assuming they are accurate) make up a very small percent of the data. As of this day, my road, (and houses on it) built in 1940, in a county with 3 million people, still is not accurate, and still matches the Tiger/LINE data 100% in those innaccuracies. So do numerous addresses in NYC that I have tested.
But they DO add neat other features like the locations of many motels/hotels, restaurants, etc... no sarcasm intended... I'm working on filling in that data in our database as well...
OTOH, I can provide a more accurate vector map, including into coastal waters (with depths)... I'm sure they could, but they choose not to... as for the imagery stuff... well, that can be obtained free and/or very cheap from the government as well in qualities that equal or rival theirs...
So, the added accuracy, which is mostly supplied by their customers (and thus suspect in my mind - as in, "Who knows? Some kid borrowing the family car screwing with their data, or was the correction accurate?"), to me, especially with the very small percent of "adjustments", really doesnt mean much to me...
Some of the data is missing and gets interpolated from the rest... for instance, my house range isnt in the MAIN data. What I mean by that is, the even house numbers for my road segment arent in the dataset (the odd ones are). Figuring out where my house "is" (as accurately as any of the data will allow) simply requires using the odd numbered data to calculate it - or looking through the secondary data sets (where my house range IS located). Many sites, (and even some of the large companies that use it for their GPS's) also using the Tiger-Line Data, haven't figured that out... or have accidentally dropped records, or are using older Tiger-Line Data.
I have a feeling that when it decides on an address location, the software (due to a programming error) is placing the marker on the incorrect side because the interpolated location was taken from the other side of the street's info.
Inotherwords, lets say the street data has 101-121 Odd Left, 102-122 Even Right, 123-161 Odd Left, 163-171 Odd Left and 164-170 Even Right... and your house number is 150. There is no address block for it, so it finds it in the odd numbered block, which says it's on the left side... they forgot to reverse the direction since they are interpolating the location based off the odd instead of the even data.
Here's one such site (my house doesnt return any data - which means of the three required data sets to find it, they are using only 1 of them):
(Thought better than to name them here... last thing I need is a war against them... search if ya are bored, you'll find them)
They are using the Tiger-Line Data (an older set), and aren't using anything but the main file - that makes their data very innaccurate for any street with a curve or other intermediary points, as well as for the "supplemental address range" data (which constitutes probably MOST of the actual address data)...
It's funny that after years of doing it, they havent realized they cant just dump 50GB of the data and expect it to work...