Wireless. Old technology. Crap usage.

Phones. Been around a long time. Basically the first idea of it was in 1844, (Innocenzo Manzetti). Invented around 1860, (Antonio Meucci). The first successful bi-directional transmission of clear speech by Alexander Graham Belll and Thomas A. Watson was made on 10 March 1876, when Bell spoke into his device, “Mr. Watson, come here, I want to see you.” and Watson answered.

Radios. Ahhhh. Wireless transmission of information. n 1893, Nikola Tesla, in America, first demonstrated the feasibility of wireless communications.

Television. Once again. Wireless transmission of information. Commercially available since the late 1930s, the television set has become a common communications receiver in homes, businesses and institutions, particularly as a source of entertainment and news.

My point? Well, the internet was first used in the 1950s but has been commmonly available to the public for about 15 years. In technology terms that's a long time. Mobile (cellular) phones, are also a fairly recent thing available to the public, as are video calls made from them.

Anyway... radios were used a long time ago to transmit information. Wirelessly. With wires though, all we got was sound, (telephone). Again, without wires, we got moving image and sound in the form of the television.

So.... if we actually got more information from a wireless network than we did with wires, so why was the internet even invented to run off phone lines, which transmitted a limited amount of information?

More importantly though, if all this wireless technology is so old, and the internet is fairly old in this technologically advanced age of ours,

WHY ARE WIRELESS INTERNET CONNECTIONS SO CRAP?

How did buddha become fat buddha?

Question asked by "Wranderer". (Thankyou sir)

Buddha was a slim strong looking and sounding individual in the Indian stories. Now how come the Asian version of Buddha is very large and fat and ungraceful but jolly. How did this happen? It's very unlogical, Buddha did alot of walking all around India and begged for food which meant that he never recieved a huge amount or gorged himself or asked for more than his fill. I know Buddhism isn't as popular in India as it once was but how did he transform into this huge jolly man in it's transition to other parts of Asia. For a character which represents balance the east asian version looks nothing like it.

So, please tell me how did Buddha become so fat???

Why is it called closing your eyes?

Your eyes are never open, so can never be closed. Ok, picky, so technically your eyelids close and it's a lazy abbreviation?! Nup. Put your finger on an eyelid and “close them”. Bottom one kinda goes towards your nose and the top one lowers.

SO WHY IS IT CALLED CLOSING THEM?

I'm back - and asking about statistics

Ok. I fiiiiiiiiinally have the internet back. However, I'm tired and the gf is being sooky so I'm just posting quickly and this time I can give you a time frame. 3 days. Things will be back to weekly. So anyways!

Statistics are stupid.

Probably my longest and most passionate rant!!!

Umpteenth percent of people know that. For some reason, statistics have enough place in society to warrant the worlds best job, that of the “statistician”. The media, most often newspapers, often use statistics to emphasise their point, cause uproar, or to make their point using what I feel is effectively deceipt.

For instance, you might get the Herald Sun or The Age, (more likely the HS, I read it but fuck me it's turning in to a gigantic gossip column), with a headline Our Drug Fueled Children, supported by statistics saying that 60% of kids between 14-17 have tried marijuana and 25% have tried other illicit drugs.

So, the reason I'd find this particular example flawed:

No matter how much you guarantee it, kids will never be mature enough to believe or trust in the anonimity of surveys, so you will get kids that falsely answer yes due to peer pressure thinking other kjids will find out and think that they're cooler. Then you'll have the kids that refuse to trust that the results will not be released to their teachers or parents, and falsely answer no.

Then you have other variables, such as the type of school, government, low level private, or “elite” level private. The area the survey is conducted in can and will, throw the statistics to an unreasonably flawed level.

In summary, I'm doing a survey on the percentage of people that live in Government housing. If I ask 100 people on the Government estate, I'd get a really high percentage, in an affluent suburb, really low.

So to be fair you ask in a middle class suburb. BANG!!! Your statistics are still flawed. For example, in Melbourne, Flemington is an expensive inner city Suburb. My statistics will be much higher there than a cheaper suburb because Flemington and the surrounding suburbs have several hi-rise, high density public housing estates.

Doesn't matter though, because I've been fair in gathering my statistics, and I can use a headline saying, 70% of Melbourne residents live in public housing.

HOW THE FUCK CAN STATISTICS EVER BE JUSTIFIED ENOUGH FOR STATISTICIANS TO ACTUALLY BE EMPLOYED?!

soon soon

will have the internet in a week or so, and blogging will be back to normal. i'll post pictures of my new house etc on my other blog. for now just check out the old comments.

thanks guys