Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #461350 > unrolled thread

OT. My household was randomly selected.

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  OT. My household was randomly selected. amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-23 09:21 -0500
    Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-23 16:32 +0200
    Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-23 07:45 -0700
      Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. hondgm@yahoo.com - 2017-05-23 08:55 -0700
        Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-23 09:23 -0700
          Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. hondgm@yahoo.com - 2017-05-23 09:50 -0700
            Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-23 10:09 -0700
              Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-24 15:08 +0200
                Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-24 06:14 -0700
                  Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-24 16:40 +0200
                    Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-24 08:12 -0700
                  Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 11:53 -0400
                    Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-25 12:09 -0700
                Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-24 19:09 -0400
              Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 13:57 -0700
                Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-25 16:00 -0700
                  Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-25 18:06 -0500
                    Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 21:23 -0400
                      Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-25 21:25 -0500
                        Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 00:29 -0400
                          Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-26 17:32 -0400
                  Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 02:28 -0700
                    Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-05-26 02:34 -0700
                      Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-26 05:01 -0700
                        Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 15:44 -0700
                          Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-26 18:51 -0400
                          Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-26 17:17 -0700
                    Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-26 04:59 -0700
                      Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-05-26 16:31 +0100
                        Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-26 13:11 -0700
                          Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-26 17:34 -0400
            Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 15:55 -0400
        Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 20:22 -0400
    Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 11:21 -0400
      Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-05-23 09:35 -0700
      Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-23 12:37 -0500
        Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 15:57 -0400
          Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 20:24 -0400
    Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-05-23 09:27 -0700
      Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-23 13:08 -0500
        Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-23 11:28 -0700
          Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-05-23 14:38 -0400
      Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-23 11:19 -0700
        Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 16:31 -0400
          Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-23 13:57 -0700
            Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 20:29 -0400
          Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2017-05-23 15:10 -0700
            Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-23 15:52 -0700
            Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 19:07 -0400
        Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-24 08:37 +0100
          Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-24 01:18 -0700
          Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-24 07:10 -0500
            Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-24 08:29 -0700
              Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Taxed and Spent <nospamplease@nonospam.com> - 2017-05-24 08:38 -0700
                Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 11:52 -0400
                  Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Taxed and Spent <nospamplease@nonospam.com> - 2017-05-24 08:55 -0700
                  Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-24 12:58 -0500
                Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-24 11:07 -0700
                Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-24 19:18 -0400
          Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-24 19:14 -0400
      Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 20:26 -0400
    Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-05-23 17:32 +0000
      Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-23 13:14 -0500
        Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-23 11:22 -0700
    Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-24 09:01 +1000
    Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-05-23 23:01 -0700
      Re: OT. My household was randomly selected. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 02:21 -0400

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#461877

On Fri, 26 May 2017 00:29:24 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>amdx wrote on 5/25/2017 10:25 PM:
>> On 5/25/2017 8:23 PM, rickman wrote:
>>> amdx wrote on 5/25/2017 7:06 PM:
>>>> On 5/25/2017 6:00 PM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 25 May 2017 21:57:54 UTC+1, whit3rd  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lacking  census data, one cannot authoritatively cry 'waste'.
>>>>>
>>>>> One sure can.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> NT
>>>>>
>>>>  I went into my local SS office today, there were 23 people in the
>>>> waiting room, 18 were people in their 20s and 30s, one a very obese
>>>> lady was probably in her 40s.
>>>>  4 people looked old enough to collect SS.
>>>>  Have we expanded that benefit program enough yet?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Why were they there?
>>
>> I don't know. I just looked to verify, Medicaid is paid through the
>> Social Security Administration. So I suspect they were there about
>> Medicaid. The obese woman, probably for disability. Is that profiling?
>> Ya, but I'm probably right. If want, you can assume they were checking
>> something for grandma. But please don't feel they were starving, the
>> women all had smart phones jewelry and a big purse.
>>   One guy probably had it rough, odd looking, probably hard for him to
>> get a job, Baggy low hanging shorts, had the George Jefferson walk.
>> 5ft tall with a black dew rag hiding his hair.
>
>Is that the criteria for getting assistance, malnourishment?

Self-inflicted maladies aren't a disqualification for SSDI.  In fact,
it seems to be the preferred means.  It usually requires a lawyer,
several years, and a pile of money if it's really deserved.

>>> Did you find out any details?
>>
>> Nothing about the young people. I did talk to one 75 year old man in the
>> parking lot that was mad because he thought he was supposed to get a SS
>> raise every time he got an increase in his Medicare bill. Also mad
>> because his 65 year old lady friend only got $265 a month. He was happy
>> about something Kennedy did to SS and mad about something Clinton and
>> Bush did.
>> It was and interesting conversation :-/
>>
>>  I was there trying to learn how to maximize our take out of the
>> lockbox.:-)  Still have at least 4 years before I collect.
>
>A few years back I would talk to people where I had to go to get 
>Internet, a country store with a deli counter and a couple of booths. 
>All sorts came in there.  I recall one gal who worked there at $8 an 
>hour I think.  She had a husband who couldn't work because of epilepsy 
>and a 3 year old who had a diagnosed behavioral problem I don't recall. 
>She had a hard time getting doctors to take the kid's problems seriously 
>because they just brushed aside her claims of the "demon seed". 
>Eventually he was diagnosed with significant medical issues and so she 
>got social security financial aid to give the kid professional help.

As I said...

>Seems the husband couldn't collect "SSI" which is what they call social 
>security disability.  He had applied three times and was turned down 
>each time.  So he started driving to work... until he had a seizure on 
>the highway and drove into the median just before a overpass.  He did a 
>Dukes of Hazzard and few the car a ways.  He survived with some facial 
>lacerations that required plastic surgery just to get everything in the 
>right place.
>
>He got a lawyer and eventually got his SSI payments.

See above.

>I'm not saying any of these people are the cream of the crop, but they 
>don't deserve to be left to die along the side of the road.  These are 
>the people I know who you might find in the SS office waiting room.

One of my wife's friends has MS and has finally been "approved" for
SSDI after fighting in court for three years.  Notice that I said
"approved", not "paid".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461782

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 4:00:15 PM UTC-7, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 May 2017 21:57:54 UTC+1, whit3rd  wrote:
> 
> > Lacking  census data, one cannot authoritatively cry 'waste'.
> 
> One sure can. 

But, a responsible government "of the people, by the people, for the people" 
cannot be effective without knowledge of the  people.

Neither can you, or anyone, know what is effective without data
such as the census provides.   Ideas about 'waste' without data are ... worthless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461783

>"Ideas about 'waste' without data are ... worthless. "

First of all, they are worthless no matter how much data they have. 

Second of all, they do not need to know what time I leave for work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461792

On Friday, 26 May 2017 10:34:17 UTC+1, jurb...@gmail.com  wrote:
> >"Ideas about 'waste' without data are ... worthless. "
> 
> First of all, they are worthless no matter how much data they have. 
> 
> Second of all, they do not need to know what time I leave for work.

If such collected data were to be of value it would need to include why people do things the way they do, and whether they saw any upsides, downsides & problems in the proposed new way. It normally doesn't.


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461903

On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 5:01:27 AM UTC-7, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 26 May 2017 10:34:17 UTC+1, jurb...@gmail.com  wrote:
> > >"Ideas about 'waste' without data are ... worthless. "
> > 
> > First of all, they are worthless no matter how much data they have. 
> > 
> > Second of all, they do not need to know what time I leave for work.
> 
> If such collected data were to be of value it would need to include why people do things the way they do, and whether they saw any upsides, downsides & problems in the proposed new way. It normally doesn't.

Not true, of course.   A question about leave-for-work time relates to commute
loading of public roads, and contributes to analysis of multiple 'solutions' implemented
all around the nation.

There's a way to see upsides in traffic congestion without asking questions.  There's a void,
though, in finding out which subpopulations make what decisions, which tells a different
story for each region and each stretch of road.

Around here, we have HOV-2, HOV-3, transit only, and reversible, lanes.   If some
of that is worthless, I'm personally glad to know it'll be found out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461904

On Fri, 26 May 2017 15:44:07 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 5:01:27 AM UTC-7, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, 26 May 2017 10:34:17 UTC+1, jurb...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> > >"Ideas about 'waste' without data are ... worthless. "
>> > 
>> > First of all, they are worthless no matter how much data they have. 
>> > 
>> > Second of all, they do not need to know what time I leave for work.
>> 
>> If such collected data were to be of value it would need to include why people do things the way they do, and whether they saw any upsides, downsides & problems in the proposed new way. It normally doesn't.
>
>Not true, of course.   A question about leave-for-work time relates to commute
>loading of public roads, and contributes to analysis of multiple 'solutions' implemented
>all around the nation.

Oh, good grief. A lot more reliable data is already available.  Just
count the bloody cars.
>
>There's a way to see upsides in traffic congestion without asking questions.  There's a void,
>though, in finding out which subpopulations make what decisions, which tells a different
>story for each region and each stretch of road.


>Around here, we have HOV-2, HOV-3, transit only, and reversible, lanes.   If some
>of that is worthless, I'm personally glad to know it'll be found out.

It's not going to be found by asking people.  Just count the damned
vehicles to find out if its working.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461917

On Friday, 26 May 2017 23:44:12 UTC+1, whit3rd  wrote:
> On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 5:01:27 AM UTC-7, tabby wrote:
> > On Friday, 26 May 2017 10:34:17 UTC+1, jurb...@gmail.com  wrote:
> > > >"Ideas about 'waste' without data are ... worthless. "
> > > 
> > > First of all, they are worthless no matter how much data they have. 
> > > 
> > > Second of all, they do not need to know what time I leave for work.
> > 
> > If such collected data were to be of value it would need to include why people do things the way they do, and whether they saw any upsides, downsides & problems in the proposed new way. It normally doesn't.
> 
> Not true, of course.   A question about leave-for-work time relates to commute
> loading of public roads, and contributes to analysis of multiple 'solutions' implemented
> all around the nation.
> 
> There's a way to see upsides in traffic congestion without asking questions.  There's a void,
> though, in finding out which subpopulations make what decisions, which tells a different
> story for each region and each stretch of road.
> 
> Around here, we have HOV-2, HOV-3, transit only, and reversible, lanes.   If some
> of that is worthless, I'm personally glad to know it'll be found out.

Clearly you and I are thinking about very different things.


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461791

On Friday, 26 May 2017 10:28:13 UTC+1, whit3rd  wrote:
> On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 4:00:15 PM UTC-7, tabby wrote:
> > On Thursday, 25 May 2017 21:57:54 UTC+1, whit3rd  wrote:

> > > Lacking  census data, one cannot authoritatively cry 'waste'.
> > 
> > One sure can. 
> 
> But, a responsible government "of the people, by the people, for the people" 
> cannot be effective without knowledge of the  people.

true

> Neither can you, or anyone, know what is effective without data
> such as the census provides. 

that is patently not true. When I see government funds misused routinely to replace things that there's simply nothing wrong with, I do know that behaviour is ineffective and grossly wasteful. It goes on all the time here.


> Ideas about 'waste' without data are ... worthless.

I and many like me have enough data to know they're real. You don't need surveys and polls and analyses to know that a library full of 3 year old desks in almost as new condition being replaced by much the same thing is a total waste. 

Census data has nothing to do with it.


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461812

tabbypurr@gmail.com writes:

> On Friday, 26 May 2017 10:28:13 UTC+1, whit3rd  wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 4:00:15 PM UTC-7, tabby wrote:
>> > On Thursday, 25 May 2017 21:57:54 UTC+1, whit3rd  wrote:
>
>> > > Lacking  census data, one cannot authoritatively cry 'waste'.
>> > 
>> > One sure can. 
>> 
>> But, a responsible government "of the people, by the people, for the people" 
>> cannot be effective without knowledge of the  people.
>
> true
>
>> Neither can you, or anyone, know what is effective without data
>> such as the census provides. 
>
> that is patently not true. When I see government funds misused
> routinely to replace things that there's simply nothing wrong with, I
> do know that behaviour is ineffective and grossly wasteful. It goes on
> all the time here.

The question is how does one find what *is* effective.

Otherwise known as evidence based policy. It is a quaint idea that is
out of fashion at the moment (as if it was ever in).


>
>> Ideas about 'waste' without data are ... worthless.
>
> I and many like me have enough data to know they're real. You don't
> need surveys and polls and analyses to know that a library full of 3
> year old desks in almost as new condition being replaced by much the
> same thing is a total waste.

sounds like "the government" unthinking acted without evidence of need
there, doesn't it?



>
> Census data has nothing to do with it.
>
>
> NT

-- 

John Devereux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461864

On Friday, 26 May 2017 16:31:31 UTC+1, John Devereux  wrote:
> tabbypurr writes:
> > On Friday, 26 May 2017 10:28:13 UTC+1, whit3rd  wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 4:00:15 PM UTC-7, tabby wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, 25 May 2017 21:57:54 UTC+1, whit3rd  wrote:
> >
> >> > > Lacking  census data, one cannot authoritatively cry 'waste'.
> >> > 
> >> > One sure can. 
> >> 
> >> But, a responsible government "of the people, by the people, for the people" 
> >> cannot be effective without knowledge of the  people.
> >
> > true
> >
> >> Neither can you, or anyone, know what is effective without data
> >> such as the census provides. 
> >
> > that is patently not true. When I see government funds misused
> > routinely to replace things that there's simply nothing wrong with, I
> > do know that behaviour is ineffective and grossly wasteful. It goes on
> > all the time here.
> 
> The question is how does one find what *is* effective.

_a_ question :)

> Otherwise known as evidence based policy. It is a quaint idea that is
> out of fashion at the moment (as if it was ever in).
> 
> 
> >
> >> Ideas about 'waste' without data are ... worthless.
> >
> > I and many like me have enough data to know they're real. You don't
> > need surveys and polls and analyses to know that a library full of 3
> > year old desks in almost as new condition being replaced by much the
> > same thing is a total waste.
> 
> sounds like "the government" unthinking acted without evidence of need
> there, doesn't it?

No. It sounds like the library wasting money so that next year their allotted budget stays as high.


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461879

On Fri, 26 May 2017 13:11:03 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, 26 May 2017 16:31:31 UTC+1, John Devereux  wrote:
>> tabbypurr writes:
>> > On Friday, 26 May 2017 10:28:13 UTC+1, whit3rd  wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 4:00:15 PM UTC-7, tabby wrote:
>> >> > On Thursday, 25 May 2017 21:57:54 UTC+1, whit3rd  wrote:
>> >
>> >> > > Lacking  census data, one cannot authoritatively cry 'waste'.
>> >> > 
>> >> > One sure can. 
>> >> 
>> >> But, a responsible government "of the people, by the people, for the people" 
>> >> cannot be effective without knowledge of the  people.
>> >
>> > true
>> >
>> >> Neither can you, or anyone, know what is effective without data
>> >> such as the census provides. 
>> >
>> > that is patently not true. When I see government funds misused
>> > routinely to replace things that there's simply nothing wrong with, I
>> > do know that behaviour is ineffective and grossly wasteful. It goes on
>> > all the time here.
>> 
>> The question is how does one find what *is* effective.
>
>_a_ question :)
>
>> Otherwise known as evidence based policy. It is a quaint idea that is
>> out of fashion at the moment (as if it was ever in).
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> >> Ideas about 'waste' without data are ... worthless.
>> >
>> > I and many like me have enough data to know they're real. You don't
>> > need surveys and polls and analyses to know that a library full of 3
>> > year old desks in almost as new condition being replaced by much the
>> > same thing is a total waste.
>> 
>> sounds like "the government" unthinking acted without evidence of need
>> there, doesn't it?
>
>No. It sounds like the library wasting money so that next year their allotted budget stays as high.
>

Bingo!  See also:  "Base Line Budgeting".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461420

hondgm@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 11:23:42 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Geeeez!  Another competitor for SED group horse's ass >:-}
>>
> Not trying to take the crown from you or anything like that....
>
>> Assuming you're ignorant... a fairly good bet...
> In that case I hope you don't play the stock market.
>
>> the questionnaire is
>> a government nosey poke into my personal life... NONE of the
>> government's business.
>> 		
>
> I have been subjected to a visit from a census taker, in 2000, and I understand why it's done.  However, following your posts you're clearly one of those who thinks the government is out to get them, so of course you'd fight answering even innocent questions.

Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're *not* out to get 
you...

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461474

On Tue, 23 May 2017 08:55:15 -0700 (PDT), hondgm@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 9:45:51 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> 
>> I got "selected" once... had a ball being snarky >:-}
>> 		
>>                                         ...Jim Thompson
>
>Gee, imagine that.  I bet you really showed that person-who-was-just-being-paid-to-do-their-job.

If they're taking my time, sure.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461361

amdx wrote:
> My household was randomly selected for the Census Bureaus "American
> Community Survey".
>
>   I'm sure I will skew my community results.
>  I'm not on welfare, I earn money, I earn interest, I'm not on
> disability, I own my home, I don't have a mortgage, I'm not divorced,
> I married only once, I don't get any type of government check, I don't
> have anyone else pay my heat bill, I pay for my own health insurance,
> I have internet, I pay for it myself.
>  And the final way I shewed the result for my county, I don't have a
> smartphone.
> Even the homeless here have smartphones.
>  29 minutes to fill out the survey, and I don't get paid.

All the above sounds to me like you have very little to complain 
about... and so, here you are complaining about very little.

That is the thing that I don't get.  There are a few vocal posters here 
who talk like the world is coming to an end because of tiny little 
things that don't actually impact much if anything in their personal 
lives.  Why do they spend so much time worrying about things that have 
little impact in their lives?

Is this the male equivalent of old women gossiping at the back yard fence?

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461380

rickman wrote...
>
> Is this the male equivalent of old women gossiping at the back yard fence?

 gossiping over the ethernet cable.


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461393

On 5/23/2017 10:21 AM, rickman wrote:
> amdx wrote:
>> My household was randomly selected for the Census Bureaus "American
>> Community Survey".
>>
>>   I'm sure I will skew my community results.
>>  I'm not on welfare, I earn money, I earn interest, I'm not on
>> disability, I own my home, I don't have a mortgage, I'm not divorced,
>> I married only once, I don't get any type of government check, I don't
>> have anyone else pay my heat bill, I pay for my own health insurance,
>> I have internet, I pay for it myself.
>>  And the final way I shewed the result for my county, I don't have a
>> smartphone.
>> Even the homeless here have smartphones.
>>  29 minutes to fill out the survey, and I don't get paid.
> 
> All the above sounds to me like you have very little to complain 
> about...

  Absolutely correct!

  and so, here you are complaining about very little.


  The purpose of the Survey is to figure out how and where to divvy up 
the hardworking taxpayers money.

> 
> That is the thing that I don't get.  There are a few vocal posters here 
> who talk like the world is coming to an end because of tiny little 
> things that don't actually impact much if anything in their personal 
> lives.  Why do they spend so much time worrying about things that have 
> little impact in their lives?
> 
> Is this the male equivalent of old women gossiping at the back yard fence?
> 
  You're a bit slow if you are just figuring that out.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461421

amdx wrote:
> On 5/23/2017 10:21 AM, rickman wrote:
>> amdx wrote:
>>> My household was randomly selected for the Census Bureaus "American
>>> Community Survey".
>>>
>>>   I'm sure I will skew my community results.
>>>  I'm not on welfare, I earn money, I earn interest, I'm not on
>>> disability, I own my home, I don't have a mortgage, I'm not divorced,
>>> I married only once, I don't get any type of government check, I don't
>>> have anyone else pay my heat bill, I pay for my own health insurance,
>>> I have internet, I pay for it myself.
>>>  And the final way I shewed the result for my county, I don't have a
>>> smartphone.
>>> Even the homeless here have smartphones.
>>>  29 minutes to fill out the survey, and I don't get paid.
>>
>> All the above sounds to me like you have very little to complain about...
>
>  Absolutely correct!
>
>  and so, here you are complaining about very little.
>
>
>  The purpose of the Survey is to figure out how and where to divvy up
> the hardworking taxpayers money.
>
>>
>> That is the thing that I don't get.  There are a few vocal posters
>> here who talk like the world is coming to an end because of tiny
>> little things that don't actually impact much if anything in their
>> personal lives.  Why do they spend so much time worrying about things
>> that have little impact in their lives?
>>
>> Is this the male equivalent of old women gossiping at the back yard
>> fence?
>>
>  You're a bit slow if you are just figuring that out.

I must say I like your new shawl!

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461475

On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:57:31 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>amdx wrote:
>> On 5/23/2017 10:21 AM, rickman wrote:
>>> amdx wrote:
>>>> My household was randomly selected for the Census Bureaus "American
>>>> Community Survey".
>>>>
>>>>   I'm sure I will skew my community results.
>>>>  I'm not on welfare, I earn money, I earn interest, I'm not on
>>>> disability, I own my home, I don't have a mortgage, I'm not divorced,
>>>> I married only once, I don't get any type of government check, I don't
>>>> have anyone else pay my heat bill, I pay for my own health insurance,
>>>> I have internet, I pay for it myself.
>>>>  And the final way I shewed the result for my county, I don't have a
>>>> smartphone.
>>>> Even the homeless here have smartphones.
>>>>  29 minutes to fill out the survey, and I don't get paid.
>>>
>>> All the above sounds to me like you have very little to complain about...
>>
>>  Absolutely correct!
>>
>>  and so, here you are complaining about very little.
>>
>>
>>  The purpose of the Survey is to figure out how and where to divvy up
>> the hardworking taxpayers money.
>>
>>>
>>> That is the thing that I don't get.  There are a few vocal posters
>>> here who talk like the world is coming to an end because of tiny
>>> little things that don't actually impact much if anything in their
>>> personal lives.  Why do they spend so much time worrying about things
>>> that have little impact in their lives?
>>>
>>> Is this the male equivalent of old women gossiping at the back yard
>>> fence?
>>>
>>  You're a bit slow if you are just figuring that out.
>
>I must say I like your new shawl!

Put your knickers back on, Maude!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461377

On Tue, 23 May 2017 09:21:55 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

>My household was randomly selected for the Census Bureaus "American 
>Community Survey".

Apparently, you are required by law to answer the questions or face a
$100 fine:
<http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/jan/09/us-census-bureau/americans-must-answer-us-census-bureau-survey-law-/>
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/13/221>
I didn't realize that when I refused to be involved about 15 years
ago.  

This might help to see how "average" you are:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_Joe>

>And the final way I shewed the result for my county, I don't have a 
>smartphone.
>Even the homeless here have smartphones.

I would have a problem here.  I use a smartphone, but not as a phone.
For a phone, I use an old CDMA LG VX8300 with little intelligence
beyond an address book.  My smartphone has the cellular section turned
off and is acting as a PDA (personal digital assistant).  The census
form probably doesn't have a checkbox for such a configuration.

>29 minutes to fill out the survey, and I don't get paid.

There have been experiments run over the years on whether including a
suitable bribe with a survey produces a larger percentage of
respondents.  I was involved in running one of those experiments in
college.  While more people do respond to a minimally paid survey
(dollar bill enclosed or coupons), the increase is negligible.  So,
most surveys don't bother offering any added inducements.

>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Umm...  Fire up Avast and select "Settings" on the lower left. Uncheck
the box "Enable Avast email signature" and the above advertisement
will go away.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461399

On 5/23/2017 11:27 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> 
>> 29 minutes to fill out the survey, and I don't get paid.

> 
> There have been experiments run over the years on whether including a
> suitable bribe with a survey produces a larger percentage of
> respondents. 

Hey, I just wanted to complain. Life is so good I just need these little 
things, :-)

  I was involved in running one of those experiments in
> college.  While more people do respond to a minimally paid survey
> (dollar bill enclosed or coupons), the increase is negligible.  So,
> most surveys don't bother offering any added inducements.
> 

  Five or six years ago I did an Arbitron (?) survey of my radio 
listening habits. Every envelope and notice had several dollar bills in 
it. I happily filled out the form, mostly as a perk to keep my programs 
alive. I listen to a lot of radio and radio over the internet. The next 
year I was lucky enough:-/ to get the survey again, no money at all!
  I still filled out the survey.
  I gave IMUS in the morning a listen 5 days that week. If I had it to 
do again, I wouldn't list his program. I haven't timed it, but I doubt 
he is on air 10 minutes an hour. Then, when he is on the air he is 
either complaining about his health or yelling at one of his employees 
for some infraction. The program is full of commercials and stories you 
don't know are a commercial until the very end. I'm tired of 'My Pillow' 
and NJ Diet (NUVO). He only works four days a week and every holiday is 
a 4 day week end. Plus his vacations. Replace him with Connell McShane Now!
  My life is tough, just so tough s/
I loved Rodney Dangerfield, then I saw a biography of his life, it made 
me sad. He really did have a tough life.

>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> Umm...  Fire up Avast and select "Settings" on the lower left. Uncheck
> the box "Enable Avast email signature" and the above advertisement
> will go away.


  Done.

                        Mikek


  This email was made possible by Vanguard and MrMoneyMustache.
> https://investor.vanguard.com/home/?WT.srch=1&cmpgn=PS:RE
> http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/all-the-posts-since-the-beginning-of-time/

  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web