Samsung's warning: Our Smart TVs record your living room chatter - CNET

[Rob Seastrom]

kf4hcw <kf4hcw at lifeatwarp9.com> writes:

> On 2015-02-11 20:11, Robert Seastrom wrote:
>> Ah yes, the "only one side pays" canard.
>
> You know,... I knew that myopic rebuttal was coming and almost didn't bite.
>
> I've been in the Internet since before there was an Internet. I know a
> lot of BS goes on - I've seen it and had to fight my way through it
> first hand.

Me too.  Email in '82, ARPAnet in '84.  You could at least respond to
my points as I did for yours rather than calling what I wrote a
"myopic rebuttal" and trying an argument from authority.  Most of us
here took debate in high school, college, or both and find that tactic
unbecoming.

> ... and there's all sorts of "takes" on this -- seems everybody that
> thinks they're right is certain everybody else is clueless.

Actually not, I think you missed my comment about not toeing the party
line at work.  I'm a huge fan of muni fiber, but you need a home run
architecture to enable repatching and competition.  The marginal costs
of doing home run vs. distributed splitter for PON type networks are
minimal.  I'm also happy to be shown to be wrong on something, but it
has to involve original sources and logic, not invective and innuendo.

Fully 80% of the cost of a fiber build is in engineering, planning,
and permitting.  I can't say I'm quite against that since I sit at a
desk for a living and like making money, but this is one of the things
that's helping Google Fiber along.  If the cost of permitting and
engineering can be cut by 25%, that's huge.

> Debunk whatever you want. I'm out.

You always have the option to not respond to others' valid points and
nobody's forcing you to present counterarguments.

-r