Re: Everyone uses statistics to prove their point.
If there were 40 million people online, then 16.3% is 6.5 million people. If there were 33.9 million people online, and the surveyed number of 11.6% is used, then that is 3.9 million people.
So we show that out of the extrapolated number of 7 million people who share files, 3.1 million were invented by the surveyors without any reason.
So the argument is not about how statistics are used or misused, the argument is that these surveyors are liars.
Don B: We are waiting on their request to do so.
Mike M: Well why not allow us to actually call in while you wait? Why piss off so many customers?
If I read Don Barslow's posting correctly, the company that hosts your free conference calls bills the company that tries to connect to them. So Don won't make that connection because it'll cost him money which he won't be able to get back from you, because the price of his service is so darn low.
By inviting the "free" conferencing companies to connect to him for "free", he's trying to change the Telco's business models where they like to be paid for everything.
This DNA thing got me thinking about filing my DNA with the patent office. If someone wants to get a sample of it, we can then negotiate a licensing deal.
As an added benefit, I can then sue my children later on in life for using this patented material.
You know... just in case they end up making a lot of money. I should get some of that.
I hope that the lines for the make-believe security at the airports take longer and longer and longer until finally somebody says "well, these checks serve no actual purpose, and they waste valuable time for thousands upon thousands of people, so let's get rid of them".
Of course, that presumes that fear mongering goes out of style with our elected officials, and I don't see that happening in a hurry.
I just dug my old 35mm out of the basement and have been bringing it back up to speed. Been buying film (negative, black-and-white and slide film) and getting re-acquainted with my camera. I've also started to look critically at the digital pics I've been taken the last nine years. Digital looks fine on the screen, and often looks like crap when put on paper.
I have pictures of family, going back 80 years now, and I'm wondering how many of my digital snap shots will survive even one generation.
There's still a lot of room for improvement, that's for sure.
Go online, purchase the rights to watch something, say "Spiderman VI" for $30 (or so...). You get mailed a physical copy, DRM-ed to the hilt.
If you want another copy, you go online again, authenticate, and because you have the rights to watch some specific contents, you can get a replacement physical copy for $5, including shipping, again mailed to your physical address. Put a cap on how many replacement copies you can order to, say, 3 per year, or as many as you like, as long as you send the original (broken, or damaged) media back.
There's a small profit margin for the additional copies, and it makes it interesting to buy a physical replacement copy (from one of your friends) instead of doing a torrent download.
By increasing the cap on replacement copies without returned damaged media, you can now compete with (free) torrents, because it'll be a service worth paying for.
Then you can have shaped *AND* capped *AND* metered internet service.
All encrypted traffic is downgraded. That includes such activities as encrypted (reliable) email and VPN access.
I'm thinking that Rogers is planning to become the ISP of choice for the Chinese government. Their philosophies on what constitutes "desirable internet access" are closely aligned.
On the post: How The UK Gov't Extrapolated 136 Self-Reported File Sharers Into 7 Million
Re: Everyone uses statistics to prove their point.
So we show that out of the extrapolated number of 7 million people who share files, 3.1 million were invented by the surveyors without any reason.
So the argument is not about how statistics are used or misused, the argument is that these surveyors are liars.
--GJ--
On the post: Can A Phone Service Provider Block Calls To Numbers It Doesn't Like?
Re: Re: Conference calling
Mike M: Well why not allow us to actually call in while you wait? Why piss off so many customers?
If I read Don Barslow's posting correctly, the company that hosts your free conference calls bills the company that tries to connect to them. So Don won't make that connection because it'll cost him money which he won't be able to get back from you, because the price of his service is so darn low.
By inviting the "free" conferencing companies to connect to him for "free", he's trying to change the Telco's business models where they like to be paid for everything.
A worthwhile goal, don't you think?
On the post: UK IP Minister Defends Kicking People Off The Internet, As Rockstars Come Out Against It
Re: Bogus Statistics
As an added benefit, I can then sue my children later on in life for using this patented material.
You know... just in case they end up making a lot of money. I should get some of that.
--GJ--
On the post: Airport FastPass 'Clear' Shutting Down
Airport make-work projects
Of course, that presumes that fear mongering goes out of style with our elected officials, and I don't see that happening in a hurry.
On the post: Kodak Kills Off Kodachrome; Entertainment Industry Take Note
Two loose thoughts
I just dug my old 35mm out of the basement and have been bringing it back up to speed. Been buying film (negative, black-and-white and slide film) and getting re-acquainted with my camera. I've also started to look critically at the digital pics I've been taken the last nine years. Digital looks fine on the screen, and often looks like crap when put on paper.
I have pictures of family, going back 80 years now, and I'm wondering how many of my digital snap shots will survive even one generation.
There's still a lot of room for improvement, that's for sure.
--GJ--
On the post: Blu-Ray To Allow Users To Make 'Copies' -- With Lots Of Strings Attached
business model that includes DRM
If you want another copy, you go online again, authenticate, and because you have the rights to watch some specific contents, you can get a replacement physical copy for $5, including shipping, again mailed to your physical address. Put a cap on how many replacement copies you can order to, say, 3 per year, or as many as you like, as long as you send the original (broken, or damaged) media back.
There's a small profit margin for the additional copies, and it makes it interesting to buy a physical replacement copy (from one of your friends) instead of doing a torrent download.
By increasing the cap on replacement copies without returned damaged media, you can now compete with (free) torrents, because it'll be a service worth paying for.
Where do I file a patent for this idea?
--GJ--
On the post: BT Throttling Online Video For Competitive, Not Congestion, Reasons
Re: Re: come to canada
Rogers charges extra money when you go over their (arbitrary) limit of bandwidth usage per month, which triggers extra rows to appear on your invoice.
--GJ--
On the post: BT Throttling Online Video For Competitive, Not Congestion, Reasons
come to canada
Then you can have shaped *AND* capped *AND* metered internet service.
All encrypted traffic is downgraded. That includes such activities as encrypted (reliable) email and VPN access.
I'm thinking that Rogers is planning to become the ISP of choice for the Chinese government. Their philosophies on what constitutes "desirable internet access" are closely aligned.
--GJ--
Next >>