To the contrary! This is New York, where it's perfectly legal for a woman to be topless anywhere a man can be. So open your shop on private property and have at it.
Even if women are allowed to be topless there, the fact that you are paying them to be might constitute a problem.
Unfortunately, I have the opposite problem. I need caffeine to stay awake when watching TV at night, so by the time the show is over, I'm so wired I can't sleep.
Then I watch the first 10 minutes of another show, get hooked... and the cycle repeats until it's time to get ready for work.
What most people don't understand is that the normal, in and of itself, is not really very representative of the population. In fact, in almost all cases, there are no individuals in the entire population who's value agrees with the normal or mean. Best example, families have on average 1.69 children, but there is no one family with 1 and 69 hundredths children. Normal height could be, say, 6ft, but if you went around measuring people's height with a laser, you would likely never find someone who was precisely 6ft. They'd be ~5.999ft or ~6.0001ft.
The probability of finding an individual conforming to the mean, or indeed any value, is statistically zero. (Specifically, the normal is a point on a probability distribution of Lebesgue measure zero, but I digress.)
Your last assertion is problematic when you look at data whose posible values are a discrete set of numbers (e.g. number of children is a whole number). If the mean value of number of children a member of the set of posible values (e.g. 2 children), then the probability of finding an individual conforming to the mean is non-zero. If the mean value of number of children is not a member of the set (e.g. 1.69 children), then the probability of finding an individual conforming to the mean is exactly zero. Your assertion does not hold for all data sets; therefore, it is false.
If the University of Wisconsin is happy with him, why should he care what you think?
Re:"Email is bankrupt" != "Wilson's email bankrupt
on
Is Email 'Bankrupt'?
·
· Score: 1
Slippery slope question to spark flamewars?
Geez, doesn't Editor read these things before he posts them?! This isn't even a complete sentence!
If you'd RTFA, you'd see that it has absolutely nothing to do with misleading titles, it's just about regular titles... of course, you can't see that because it's been slashdotted already! See the Google cache
And... in Soviet Russia, editors mock you!
"Email is bankrupt" != "Wilson's email bankruptcy"
on
Is Email 'Bankrupt'?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Am I the only one who noticed that the headline doesn't match the summary?
"Is Email 'Bankrupt'?" implies that there is a major problem with e-mail itself, while the summary talks about "blogger, Fred Wilson, who recently declared 'e-mail bankruptcy', wiping out his inbox and starting over because he couldn't keep up." It sounds like Mr. Wilson's e-mail got out of hand. This is like posting the headline "Is money 'bankrupt'?" with an article about someone's poor financial planning causing them to file (financial) bankruptcy.
There are really two separate issues that are getting "smooshed" together into one:
What are the problems (and solutions) to an individual's e-mail reaching an unmanageable state?
Is there a major problem with e-mail that is leading people to look elsewhere for their communications needs?
The two questions are certainly related, but they are not the same thing!
It wasn't just an unsecured access point, it was deliberately unsecured to provide free wi-fi, and even the store owner didn't think the guy had comitted a crime.
If the store owner believed anyone within range of the store could legally access free wi-fi, then the act of setting up free wi-fi consituted an open invitation. If Peterson knew the store owner's position, then he believed he was accessing a network with authorization. Unfortunately, his statements to the police probably killed this defense.
the Chicago Tribune, which owns the Cubs, has tried for years to get the city to force their neighbors to take down the seats on their roofs. No success yet.
I don't think the Cubs (or the Tribune) is arguing that people should not watch Cubs games which are in plain view from their own property (or if they are, that is a foolish argument). What they are trying to stop is the property owners from charging to watch the Cubs game from their roof. In a MAFIAA-style argument, these people are "stealing the Tribune's Intellectual Property and reselling it". They would that the people paying to sit on the roof might be lost ticket sales for the Cubs (assuming the game is not sold out).
Even if this argument holds water, you've got a couple big problems enforcing it:
I doubt there is any paper trail to show that money changed hands (all cash, no receipts), so it's likely that the only proof would be testimony from the seller and the buyer.
The property owner can charge $50 / person "cover charge" for their "party" which just happens to be adjacent to the roof where there happen to be some seats set up...
The point at which you can say "humans understand the physics of X" is a debatable point. One person might say we met that standard for visible light with Euclid's study of optics, while others (including you?) might say we did not reach that standard until we understood light as EM radiation. One might even make an argument that we don't truly understand visible light now since we do not have a complete explanation of how it can behave as a wave or a particle.
The problem is that it is hard to define an objective milestone for scientific understanding since there is always more to learn and understand, and it is not always clear when and if current models will be completely replaced by something completely new.
ISP customers pay a fixed rate for "unlimited" usage at a specified speed. The fact that ISPs can not provide what they market has no relevance to the customers who, quite literally, are doing nothing more than making use of a service they pay for.
Um... no. The service is marketed as "Up To X Mbps". The fact that customers don't notice the "Up To" does not magically turn this into a guarantee of speed.
As for your mythical wise customers... they make up, what would you guess, some small fraction of a percent of the total pool of consumers?
If a person gets in trouble with their credit card because they don't read the terms, everyone says it is their fault. If a person buys Internet service that isn't what they expect because they didn't read the terms, everyone says it is the ISP's fault. That sounds like a double standard to me.
OK, I agree that that for most people, it is easier to track their own phone usage that to track their own bandwidth usage. (They can look at their watch while on the phone, and after a month or two, they fall into a pattern of usage that does not vary too much.)
However, the post I was responding to asserts that people don't like doing those things at all. If the two situations are so similar, then why are virtually all cell phone plans not "unlimited" and virtually all broadband plans are "unlimited"? I don't think there is that much of a difference in "ease of self-moderation".
You got me there. I think the only thing we can safely say is that on the basis of "years of study", radio falls far short of visual light, IR, and UV.
Yes, but radio waves are not an emerging technology. After about 120 years of study, I think we can safely say that radio waves are the best-understood part of the EM spectrum, in terms of the physics of their interactions.
After about 200,000 years of study, I think we can safely say that visible light waves are the best-understood part of the EM spectrum, in terms of the physics of their interactions.
Because people don't like surprises on their bill, don't want to estimate how much they've used, don't want to be calculating the cost of everything they want to do, and don't like to screw around with a complicated connection when simpler ones are available.
If people don't like those things, why don't you see "Unlimited Calls 24/7" cell phone plans?
Basically the whole "charge for use" thing seems to be something that greedy american ISPs do to maximize profits..
What thread are you reading? We were just talking about how American ISPs sell "unlimited" connections. It's the "overselling bandwidth" thing that greedy American ISPs do to maximize profits...
The fact that in the background the infrastructure can't actually handle every subscriber using the pipes to the amount advertised is not the fault of consumers expecting too much, it's wholesale bait and switch!
When the advertisment says "Up To 5 Mbps" and you get 2 Mbps, they are providing what is advertised. In reality, they are guaranteeing you won't get more than 5 Mbps. They count on the fact that consumers either ignore the "Up To" or read it to mean "very close to". It is certainly misleading, but not misleading enough to be illegal.
Look, if you sell someone a car and tell them it gets 1000 mpg, but in reality this is only achievable when the car is pushed, don't be surprised when they call you out for fraud when it doesn't perform as advertised.
The problem with your car analogy is that fuel economy is measured / estimated by the EPA. In your scenario either the EPA reported a wrong number (and you "innocently" reported what you thought was accurate information), or you misreported the EPA's information (which is a subtly different kind of fraud).
But along that line of thought... Perhaps broadband needs regulations to ensure that providers supply realistic numbers or make some minimum guarantee. If my mortgage company is required to tell me the "worst case" of how much I will be paying over the next 30 years, why shouldn't my ISP be required to tell me that "due to limited capacity, your 'Up To 5 Mbps' service may provide only 500 kbps at times." Or maybe there should be a law that says they may not advertise an "Up to X Mbps" connection unless they are willing to guarantee at least a tenth of that speed 99% of the time.
I think you mean "customers trying to get what they think they are paying for". I agree that this is mainly the ISP's fault for making misleading claims, but a wise customer will realize there is a difference between guaranteed service and "best effort" service. Guaranteed service costs more.
I guess I understand the perspective, given that President Horehay is planning to reward the US's Mexican marine population (10 million, or so) with an amnesty.
What are you talking about? Mexicans who are part of the U.S. Marine Corps? Fish and other sea creatures from the Gulf of Mexico that now reside is U.S. aquariums?
Slashdot Mirror
Even if women are allowed to be topless there, the fact that you are paying them to be might constitute a problem.
Well, with digital cable and DVR I'm lucky that I ever get to sleep!
I was a little worried when I read this...
Uh-oh...
Whew! Saliva... ok then...
Well, that was not the case twenty years ago.
Didn't Donald Duck learn that when he went to Mathmagic Land?
Unfortunately, I have the opposite problem. I need caffeine to stay awake when watching TV at night, so by the time the show is over, I'm so wired I can't sleep.
Then I watch the first 10 minutes of another show, get hooked... and the cycle repeats until it's time to get ready for work.
And then there's the weekends...
Your last assertion is problematic when you look at data whose posible values are a discrete set of numbers (e.g. number of children is a whole number). If the mean value of number of children a member of the set of posible values (e.g. 2 children), then the probability of finding an individual conforming to the mean is non-zero. If the mean value of number of children is not a member of the set (e.g. 1.69 children), then the probability of finding an individual conforming to the mean is exactly zero. Your assertion does not hold for all data sets; therefore, it is false.
If the University of Wisconsin is happy with him, why should he care what you think?
Geez, doesn't Editor read these things before he posts them?! This isn't even a complete sentence!
If you'd RTFA, you'd see that it has absolutely nothing to do with misleading titles, it's just about regular titles... of course, you can't see that because it's been slashdotted already! See the Google cache
And... in Soviet Russia, editors mock you!
Am I the only one who noticed that the headline doesn't match the summary?
"Is Email 'Bankrupt'?" implies that there is a major problem with e-mail itself, while the summary talks about "blogger, Fred Wilson, who recently declared 'e-mail bankruptcy', wiping out his inbox and starting over because he couldn't keep up." It sounds like Mr. Wilson's e-mail got out of hand. This is like posting the headline "Is money 'bankrupt'?" with an article about someone's poor financial planning causing them to file (financial) bankruptcy.
There are really two separate issues that are getting "smooshed" together into one:
The two questions are certainly related, but they are not the same thing!
I'm sorry, I prefer my physics Newtonian or perhaps Einsteinian. None of that new fangled Quantum Physics for me!
If the store owner believed anyone within range of the store could legally access free wi-fi, then the act of setting up free wi-fi consituted an open invitation. If Peterson knew the store owner's position, then he believed he was accessing a network with authorization. Unfortunately, his statements to the police probably killed this defense.
I don't think the Cubs (or the Tribune) is arguing that people should not watch Cubs games which are in plain view from their own property (or if they are, that is a foolish argument). What they are trying to stop is the property owners from charging to watch the Cubs game from their roof. In a MAFIAA-style argument, these people are "stealing the Tribune's Intellectual Property and reselling it". They would that the people paying to sit on the roof might be lost ticket sales for the Cubs (assuming the game is not sold out).
Even if this argument holds water, you've got a couple big problems enforcing it:The point at which you can say "humans understand the physics of X" is a debatable point. One person might say we met that standard for visible light with Euclid's study of optics, while others (including you?) might say we did not reach that standard until we understood light as EM radiation. One might even make an argument that we don't truly understand visible light now since we do not have a complete explanation of how it can behave as a wave or a particle.
The problem is that it is hard to define an objective milestone for scientific understanding since there is always more to learn and understand, and it is not always clear when and if current models will be completely replaced by something completely new.
Um... no. The service is marketed as "Up To X Mbps". The fact that customers don't notice the "Up To" does not magically turn this into a guarantee of speed.
If a person gets in trouble with their credit card because they don't read the terms, everyone says it is their fault. If a person buys Internet service that isn't what they expect because they didn't read the terms, everyone says it is the ISP's fault. That sounds like a double standard to me.
OK, I agree that that for most people, it is easier to track their own phone usage that to track their own bandwidth usage. (They can look at their watch while on the phone, and after a month or two, they fall into a pattern of usage that does not vary too much.)
However, the post I was responding to asserts that people don't like doing those things at all. If the two situations are so similar, then why are virtually all cell phone plans not "unlimited" and virtually all broadband plans are "unlimited"? I don't think there is that much of a difference in "ease of self-moderation".
You got me there. I think the only thing we can safely say is that on the basis of "years of study", radio falls far short of visual light, IR, and UV.
After about 200,000 years of study, I think we can safely say that visible light waves are the best-understood part of the EM spectrum, in terms of the physics of their interactions.
But I'm sure radio waves come in second!
If people don't like those things, why don't you see "Unlimited Calls 24/7" cell phone plans?
What thread are you reading? We were just talking about how American ISPs sell "unlimited" connections. It's the "overselling bandwidth" thing that greedy American ISPs do to maximize profits...
When the advertisment says "Up To 5 Mbps" and you get 2 Mbps, they are providing what is advertised. In reality, they are guaranteeing you won't get more than 5 Mbps. They count on the fact that consumers either ignore the "Up To" or read it to mean "very close to". It is certainly misleading, but not misleading enough to be illegal.
The problem with your car analogy is that fuel economy is measured / estimated by the EPA. In your scenario either the EPA reported a wrong number (and you "innocently" reported what you thought was accurate information), or you misreported the EPA's information (which is a subtly different kind of fraud).
But along that line of thought... Perhaps broadband needs regulations to ensure that providers supply realistic numbers or make some minimum guarantee. If my mortgage company is required to tell me the "worst case" of how much I will be paying over the next 30 years, why shouldn't my ISP be required to tell me that "due to limited capacity, your 'Up To 5 Mbps' service may provide only 500 kbps at times." Or maybe there should be a law that says they may not advertise an "Up to X Mbps" connection unless they are willing to guarantee at least a tenth of that speed 99% of the time.
I think you mean "customers trying to get what they think they are paying for". I agree that this is mainly the ISP's fault for making misleading claims, but a wise customer will realize there is a difference between guaranteed service and "best effort" service. Guaranteed service costs more.
The question is, why would you think that someone who has paid to avoid telemarketing calls would want to buy what you're telemarketing?
You think sys admins just turn on their servers and open them up to the internet without configuring them first?
And I don't think the Apache project would be very cooperative in this, anyway.
How do you use an ID if you do not have it on your person (e.g. because the police / courts take if from you)?
What are you talking about? Mexicans who are part of the U.S. Marine Corps? Fish and other sea creatures from the Gulf of Mexico that now reside is U.S. aquariums?