Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | wac's comments login

So this blogger has pointed out 2 problems with a single Guardian quote. The first point doesn't make sense to me as it seems to argue that the Guardian's "be as satisfied with" means the same thing as "increase satisfaction".

The second point seems to me to be almost as poor. The blogger claims that the 40% more money claim from the Guardian is bogus since the footnote clearly shows that their calculation is in absolute Euro terms not percentages. However if you read the next sentence of the footnote:

"Full compensation for commuting one hour (one way), compared with no commuting, is estimated to require an additional monthly income of approximately 515 Euro or 40 percent of the average monthly wage. This valuation implies that the time spent commuting is worth 1.6 times the hourly wage or the average compensation for working. [...]" (Page 17, Footnote 14)

It seems that the research authors themselves argue that their research implies commuting is worth a multiple of hourly wage. Thus we easily verify that the weighted commuting hours (1.6*2) is 40% of the normal (8 hour) working day.

The Guardian could have been more accurate by adding a "average" to their quote, but I think that this is implied by the context anyway.

-----


It's also a common assumption in economics that as your income increases, the amount that you value your time (in monetary terms) will also increase (thus in a lot of urban areas, living close to your work is very expensive, and outer areas are cheaper). It would be nice to see get empirical confirmation by seeing how the "cost" of the commute is different for people with higher incomes, but it's not like this is a strange claim.

-----


>...on a campus of 3,000, only eight people actually asked for a meeting with me to discuss the reasons I banned the book

I think this is really the most interesting part of the story- people are willing to complain but not take reasonable actions to remedy the situation. I think this is a symptom of a deeper problem in our society.

-----


YES! +1k.

> Some used Facebook as a forum to make rude comments from the relatively safe distance social media provides. This is the sole purpose of facebook, as far as I can tell. Give a loudmouth a microphone and then try to ignore them as they shout as loudly as possible.

... and I reference the "Facebook experiment" article a while back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5811564

-----


That comment was terribly meta. Yet I strain my brain trying to come up with something to do about THAT that isn't 'post a comment on HN' and I can't come up with anything.

-----


I've wanted to join the London Hackspace for a while now so should probably look into freeing up a Tuesday to attend an open evening. You're even closer to where I live now!

-----


There was an episode of _Frasier_ where they did this. I think it was near the end of season 6.

-----


I always that thought that the only language that made logical sense for philosophers to use was prolog.

-----


Or SQL. After teaching a couple of classes in logic, it's quite easy to get the gist of. In fact, as I was wrapping up grad school (in philosophy, as it happens), I suggested that if people weren't going to go on and teach philosophy, they should become DBAs (rather than law school, for instance).

-----


I was expecting someone saying lisp instead of prolog.

-----


Lisp and prolog are old languages that have had their day and largely been marginalized by more practical ones. Prolog was intended for AI and NLP but overtime the rigid grammar approaches have been obsoleted by statistical ones with far greater success. These days AI and NLP are more commonly found in java or python. Watson, for example, is written in java. Lisp is great for things like genetic algorithms because there's no distinction between code and data, it's a homoiconic language.

-----


I'll second Gandi. Moved to them a few years ago during another GoDaddy scandal and have been very happy with my decision.

-----


I believe that you could probably extend Godel's theorems to argue that this isn't feasible.

-----


Can I just point out that the BMJ's Christmas issue always includes 'humourous' pieces of research:

In 2011:

"Is 27 really a dangerous age for famous musicians? Retrospective cohort study"

http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7799

or

"Orthopaedic surgeons: as strong as an ox and almost twice as clever? Multicentre prospective comparative study"

http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7506

-----


I felt like this for years- annoyed at the insistence that I pay the fee even though I don't own a TV. Then, in a moment of inspiration, I took 2 minutes to fill out the online form and haven't been bothered since.

However, the BBC offers quality TV without the even greater annoyance of incessant commercials. Take the Olympics: NBC was criticised for their delayed and edited broadcast while the BBC broadcast nearly all events live (some 20+ channels) and without any commercial breaks.

Unfortunately, we can't have commercial free TV without the fee.

-----


And even without paying the fee, we get the BBC website, podcasts, the last week of programmes on demand (iPlayer), several national and many local radio stations.

No doubt the enforcement system could be tweaked a bit to improve it, but the results are more than worth the inconvenience.

-----


My question would be, how would they know you don't have a TV if you don't tell them? Calling it hate mail and taking the time to return to sender like the OP is just making life hateful for yourself.

-----


> My question would be, how would they know you don't have a TV if you don't tell them?

You may find this hard to believe, but they drive around in a high-tech van and monitor the kinds of signals that emanate from a TV set. If they detect the electronic signature of a TV set emanating from a house paying no license fee, or if they see an off-air antenna, they begin legal proceedings.

What I said above was easier in the old days of television, where a vacuum picture tube require 50 watts of power just to sweep an electronic beam across the face of the tube (and produced its own telltale electromagnetic field). But it's still quite feasible from a technical standpoint -- a picture and explanation of one of the vans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Uni...

-----


The principle behind their operation is reasonable, basically just regular old Van Eck phreaking.

However I thought the general consensus is that they do not actually do this, and that it is simply a rather useful myth.

-----


> However I thought the general consensus is that they do not actually do this, and that it is simply a rather useful myth.

Agreed. I would guess the most economical thing to do is publish pictures of the van online and describe its features. Actually driving it around is probably not nearly as cost-effective.

-----


Which is unfortunate if you have a TV but don't pay the fee because you don't have to.

You only have to pay if you watch "live TV." (Any live TV at all that is, streaming content as it is aired from the us still requires a TV license.) However, owning a TV in itself does not require a license. Games consoles, Netflix and DVDs do not mean that you require a license because none of these are you watching TV as it is broadcast.

Edit: As a note, I have a TV, I do watch live TV and I do have a license. However, when I first moved into my own place I did get some of the letters demanding payment unless I wanted legal proceedings to begin. But they stopped once I phoned up and told them I didn't have a TV, didn't intend to get one soon and wouldn't be paying.

-----


How did you watch the Olympics?

-----


Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: