Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sadly for capitalism there\'s no money in people virtually flinging dung
at each other, see e.g. Usenet.
A moderator could delete the gross flame wars.
Do you think the group would be better off without these?
They are recognizable at a glance and easy to ignore.
However they act as a heartbeat signal for the group, if they stop
we\'ll know something is not right.
And if it is a censored (aka moderated) group most if not all of
us here would have left a long time ago, not many people find fun
in pleasing a censor - and we all sometimes post things which would
be censored.
The best ways to keep the most drama-prone users out of any venue is to charge
even a nominal cover fee for participation, on online forums just $10/year
might be adequate.
Melon disabled registration via email.On 10/31/2022 12:34 PM, bitrex wrote:
The best ways to keep the most drama-prone users out of any venue is to charge
even a nominal cover fee for participation, on online forums just $10/year
might be adequate.
\"Payment\" often has the opposite effect; folks rationalize that they have PAID
for the privilege (to break the rules).
https://medium.com/fact-of-the-day-1/the-israeli-childcare-experiment-11d05ae83650
There are moderated electronics sites with far more participants. The
creeps have mostly killed SED.
On 2022-11-01, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
There are moderated electronics sites with far more participants. The
creeps have mostly killed SED.
I think it\'s too soon for you to proclaim victory.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 00:50:00 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts <use...@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2022-11-01, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
There are moderated electronics sites with far more participants. The creeps have mostly killed SED.
I think it\'s too soon for you to proclaim victory.
See? Snark.
John Larkin does strike me as a creep, and his contributions to s.e.d. don\'t strike me as positive. I\'d see Jason\'s statement as factual, rather than snarky.
On 2022-11-01 1:23 a.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
John Larkin does strike me as a creep, and his contributions to s.e.d. don\'t strike me as positive. I\'d see Jason\'s statement as factual, rather than snarky.
This might be off-topic for a forum on electronics design but does
anyone find comments with prejudicial personal criticism of any value.
since GSM operators sell tower base registration data to operators of GPS navigation in cars, on GPS enabled tablets, laptops
to generate Live Traffic service data
On Monday, 31 October 2022 at 21:37:41 UTC, a a wrote:
since GSM operators sell tower base registration data to operators of GPS navigation in cars, on GPS enabled tablets, laptops
to generate Live Traffic service data
Why would they need cell site registration data to generate traffic data? After all, the devices
they are interested in all have GPS receivers that give much more accurate data than what is
available from the cellular network operators.
I use the Google maps traffic service a lot, but I have always recognised that the tradeoff
is that my GPS data goes into the pool of vehicle tracking information that allows
reliable traffic info to be generated.
GPS in smartphone is not enabled by default
On 2022-11-01 1:23 a.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
John Larkin does strike me as a creep, and his contributions to s.e.d. don\'t strike me as positive. I\'d see Jason\'s statement as factual, rather than snarky.
This might be off-topic for a forum on electronics design but does
anyone find comments with prejudicial personal criticism of any value.
It seems excessive and toxic to me. I could be wrong and some may find
these low-level personal shivs, somewhat entertaining. I do not.
On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 4:08:20 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Who owns the truth?
Nobody. It stands on it\'s own, which is to say on the evidence supporting it,
not all of which you can understand. Gnatguy is even more challenged.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 02:04:12 -0400, Tony Stewart
tony.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-11-01 1:23 a.m., Anthony William Sloman wrote:
John Larkin does strike me as a creep, and his contributions to s.e.d. don\'t strike me as positive. I\'d see Jason\'s statement as factual, rather than snarky.
This might be off-topic for a forum on electronics design but does
anyone find comments with prejudicial personal criticism of any value.
It seems excessive and toxic to me. I could be wrong and some may find
these low-level personal shivs, somewhat entertaining. I do not.
There is a basically -1 correlation between the flamers and electronic
design skill.
Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 4:08:20 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Who owns the truth?
Nobody. It stands on it\'s own, which is to say on the evidence supporting it,
not all of which you can understand. Gnatguy is even more challenged.
\"Truth\" only makes sense in a context where information about that truth and
--more importantly-- the supported evidence is communicated. Thus, whoever owns
means of communication owns the truth.
Two single individuals (Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk) now personally own a
very large part of the worldwide truth. They are beholden only to their own
personal values and to their advertisement customers.
Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 4:08:20 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Who owns the truth?
Nobody. It stands on it\'s own, which is to say on the evidence supporting it,
not all of which you can understand. Gnatguy is even more challenged.
\"Truth\" only makes sense in a context where information about that truth and --more importantly-- the supported evidence is communicated. Thus, whoever owns means of communication owns the truth.
On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 11:27:03 PM UTC+11, Robert Latest wrote:
Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 4:08:20 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Who owns the truth?
Nobody. It stands on it\'s own, which is to say on the evidence supporting
it, not all of which you can understand. Gnatguy is even more challenged.
\"Truth\" only makes sense in a context where information about that truth and
--more importantly-- the supported evidence is communicated. Thus, whoever
owns means of communication owns the truth.
The peer-reviewed scientific literature is more complicate case.
Two single individuals (Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk) now personally own a
very large part of the worldwide truth. They are beholden only to their own
personal values and to their advertisement customers.
But nobody imagines that social media publishes stuff that is actually true.
Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 4:08:20 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Who owns the truth?
Nobody. It stands on it\'s own, which is to say on the evidence supporting it,
not all of which you can understand. Gnatguy is even more challenged.
\"Truth\" only makes sense in a context where information about that truth and
--more importantly-- the supported evidence is communicated. Thus, whoever owns
means of communication owns the truth.
Two single individuals (Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk) now personally own a
very large part of the worldwide truth. They are beholden only to their own
personal values and to their advertisement customers.
On 11/1/2022 8:26 AM, Robert Latest wrote:
Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 4:08:20 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Who owns the truth?
Nobody. It stands on it\'s own, which is to say on the evidence supporting it,
not all of which you can understand. Gnatguy is even more challenged.
\"Truth\" only makes sense in a context where information about that truth and
--more importantly-- the supported evidence is communicated. Thus, whoever owns
means of communication owns the truth.
Two single individuals (Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk) now personally own a
very large part of the worldwide truth. They are beholden only to their own
personal values and to their advertisement customers.
Musk plans to make Twitter \"successful\" the way almost all his ventures
became \"successful\" - a lot of money from da government.