Posts by SteveH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Solemnity of the Day, in reply to Russell Brown,
It’s a breach if you post a Facebook status that reads “Woo! Everybody vote for Winston today!” It’s publishing.
What exactly does count as publishing? Normally publishing implies a release to the public which a Facebook status update isn't, at least provided your wall is visible to friends only. Does an email with that sentence to your friends also count as publishing?
Anyway I guess it's irrelevant as the law says "publishes, or distributes, or broadcasts" and "distributes" covers pretty much everything...
-
Hard News: The Solemnity of the Day, in reply to SteveH,
It’s pretty easy to stop people commenting on your wall. go to Privacy Settings, How You Connect and set Who can post on your Wall? to Only Me.
But as far as I can tell there is no way to stop people commenting on your posts. So you'd have to hide all your old posts as well.
-
Does anyone even know how to "disable" comments on a Facebook page?
It's pretty easy to stop people commenting on your wall. go to Privacy Settings, How You Connect and set Who can post on your Wall? to Only Me.
-
Field Theory: Four Years Ago, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Using that model, you might have two teams, one of which always got beaten at the quarter-final stage, and another which always lost the final. And you’d rate them the same as they’d both lost the same number of knockouts.
Rating them the same may well be reasonable if they both lost to the same opponent(s).
-
Radio Sport’s Rugby World Cup 2011 anthem …
-
Field Theory: Four Years Ago, in reply to 3410,
Sorry, but the choke factor is also really pronounced.
The choke is pretty well impossible to quantify. Which games exactly constitute a choke? Which games count as a possible choke that was avoided? And even if we can agree on that how many games does that leave us in our sample?
The home ground advantage is based on a good sample size and it clearly statistically significant.
-
Field Theory: Four Years Ago, in reply to 3410,
No, we don't.
They say:
The quarter final match is very likely to be against Argentina or Scotland. Doesn't matter which because the probability that New Zealand wins is 0.96 in either case.
The semi final match is likely to be against South Africa and the probability of a win is 0.58.
The final match is likely to be against Australia and the probability of a win is 0.70.
The probability that the All Blacks win the Rugby World Cup is the product of these three probabilities i.e. 0.96 * 0.58 * 0.70 = 0.39
But they've used win percentages across all games. They should have used win percentages for NZ home games (and they acknowledge that later):
Argentina/Scotland: 1.00
SA: 0.71
Aus: 0.75
1 * 0.71 * 0.75 = 0.54
Their more detailed analysis is better but they've still based it on all games rather than just home games. They argue that it's countered by the "choke" factor, but the home ground advantage for the ABs is really pronounced: against "tier 1" teams we win 81.2% at home vs 67.3% away. -
Hard News: Three months after, in reply to Leopold,
I can only hope that the present google streetviews are archived before they are replaced by more up to date ones
Google being Google, I'm sure they keep everything. The question is whether we can access it. There is already historic imagery in Google Earth so they seem to have an interest.
-
OnPoint: Budget 2011: A Credible Path to…, in reply to bmk,
So you are completely confident that some new technology won’t emerge that will require fibre? In the same way that fax machines and the internet couldn’t even be conceived when laying the copper network.
No, but other places have fibre and that new technology hasn't been invented yet. And you're still comparing it to the rollout of something completely new (copper), when this is only a generational speed increase. The last generational speed increase didn't produce any unforeseen technology so why are you guys so certain that this one will?
By laying fibre out we will be ready to take advantage of future technologies which are bound to be developed at some point in the future.
So you're advocating spending $1B at a time when the government is in the biggest financial hole it's ever been in because you're sure that something will be developed eventually. Why not wait until it has been developed? Or at least thought of? And again, why is this speed increase so special that it will produce something we can't even imagine yet?
-
OnPoint: Budget 2011: A Credible Path to…, in reply to Robert Urquhart,
Much of the country can only dream of being able to connect at your ‘ridiculous’ 1Mbit. That’s the issue the broadband rollout is supposed to address.
The ridiculous comment refers to the allocation of 95% of ADSL2+ bandwidth to download, not to the speed itself. If it were 15Mbit/s down and 5Mbit/s up or even symmetric it'd be a more useful service. 20Mbit/s of download isn't that much more useful than 15Mbit/s but having 5 times faster upload would be a big improvement. Fibre isn't required to fix that issue. But fibre does solve the problem of distance to the cabinet/exchange which is ADSLs big weakness.
I'm just a bit perplexed by this idea that there is some application that we can't even dream of for Internet access that is only 5-10 times faster than what we have. Other people already have it. Local networks are up to 100 times faster yet.
Tell me, do you get paid the same (converted to $AU) as your counterparts across the ditch?
No, we do actually have a local office. I suspect if I had to be employed directly by the Australian company it would have just been too hard legally.