doug@letni.lonestar.org (Doug Davis) (03/19/91)
Okay, I guess to be a reporter takes flunking basic math. Note,
enclosed is a handy dandy reality check cheat sheet that you can cut
out and take with you. :-)
Let's see, the most expensive long distance calling area I can find is
$ 3.00 per minute. So, two international calls to the place via three
way calling would be $ 6.00 (2 * 3 = 6 for you reporters out there.)
Now, there are 1440 minutes in a day ... call it $7 to included air
time.
One phone left up constantly 24 hours a day costs $10,080. Three
phones would obviously meet and exceed Joe's numbers. However by that
time I would hope someone would notice. Anyway, in a more realistic
perspective:
------------ Cut here for your very own reality check sheet -------
Goal == $ 30,000.00 per day @ $ 7.00 per minute.
Number of phones:
3000 = 10 minutes each, average per day of fraudlent usage.
1000 = 30 minutes each, average per day of fraudlent usage.
500 = 1 hour each, average per day of fraudlent usage.
100 = 5 hours each, average per day of fraudlent usage.
50 = 10 hours each, average per day of fraudlent usage.
25 = 20 hours each, average per day of fraudlent usage.
Now then, even as a city as big as Houston, don't you have real trouble
with the idea of more than 100 fraudlent phones (or is that phraudlent
fones?) running around? Even then, that would be the kind of "Big
significant number" that would cause the industry to DO something. Not
just complain about it to the press. One more reality check:
30000 * (52 * 5) = 7,800,000.00
30000 * (52 * 7) = 10,920,000.00
7.8 MILLION per year of loss in Houston alone, just on the weekdays
mind you. Including the weekends it is almost 11 MILLION dollars.
-------- Cut here for your very own reality check sheet -------
I'm going to refrain from making snide comments about Joe's past
articles, but this one can be debunked by any second grade math
student. It's pretty obvious, either Joe and or his sources are
making things up as they go along.
Take home question: Who else makes up numbers as they go along?
(Hint: 911 documentation)
Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226
{texsun|lawnet|smu}!letni!doug doug@letni.lonestar.org
[Moderator's Note: har har har har har! And have you heard the quote
from Saddam Hussein? Saddam said, "Compared to tanks, journalists are
cheap -- and you get more for your money." :) My thanks to someone
who sent that in their .signature earlier today. Sorry, I forget who.
Mr. Abernathy will now respond. Although he specifically addressed my
comments, which were similar to yours, his reply will serve you
equally well. PAT]0003209613@mcimail.com (Sandy Kyrish) (03/20/91)
If Doug Davis is going to be so snide about journalists' inability to multiply numbers correctly, perhaps he should be a bit more careful not to misspell "fraudulently" seven times in a single document. After all, if he is better than a journalist, then he should be in complete mastery of all journalistic skills. What I'm really complaining about is the number of Digest readers who seem to live for the opportunity to find fault with other people's statements. Every time we laugh at "outsiders" for making technological mistakes, we are proving that we see technology as a special priesthood that only the scrupulously worthy can join. The fact is, technology exists in society, and plain old people are periodically going to make technical mistakes about it. Personally, I don't find poking fun at them an ego trip. Sandy Kyrish 320-9613@mcimail.com
doug@letni.lonestar.org (Doug Davis) (03/22/91)
In article <telecom11.221.4@eecs.nwu.edu> 0003209613@mcimail.com (Sandy Kyrish) writes: > If Doug Davis is going to be so snide about journalists' inability to > multiply numbers correctly, perhaps he should be a bit more careful > not to misspell "fraudulently" seven times in a single document. > After all, if he is better than a journalist, then he should be in > complete mastery of all journalistic skills. Actually I never claimed to be "better than a journalist", at most, I just claimed to be paying attention during the second grade. I also claimed *I* knew how to do a reality check when looking at something easily checked, like minor multiplication. Oh yeah, I also provided those of more, uh, journalistic skills, a handy quick reference for performing reality checks of their own. > Every time we laugh at "outsiders" for making technological mistakes, > we are proving that we see technology as a special priesthood that > only the scrupulously worthy can join. The fact is, technology exists > in society, and plain old people are periodically going to make > technical mistakes about it. YOU have clearly missed the entire point. Did you even read the entire message? I was not being flip about anything of a technical nature of the cellular fraud article. That article came with an unnamed source quoting $30,000.00 loss *PER DAY* due to fraudulent LD charges. It seems a few of us were clever enough to divide this out, and what did we find? The 30,000.00 NUMBER was totally absurd. Making fun of it is just my way of debunking it. Nothing technological about it. Unless you consider the multiplication table technical? Most of the "technical" mistakes that get flamed here are by people calling themselves technical or whose job description implys an amount of literacy concerning technology. Tell me what do you expect will happen when you, knowing a little rudementary knowledge of farming, go to a convention of farmers, call yourself an expert, and start telling them how they should be doing their farming? Theres no magic priesthood of farmers, but they will all just as quickly turn on you for your blatent lack of experience in farming. > Personally, I don't find poking fun at them an ego trip. Obviously then, you find poking fun at people's spelling your prefered ego trip. Otherwise you would have refrained from even commenting on it. Oh, well, enough pointless flaming, if you don't like what I said and want to get personal, take it up with me in email. Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226 {texsun|lawnet|smu}!letni!doug doug@letni.lonestar.org
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (03/22/91)
Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com> writes: > Every time we laugh at "outsiders" for making technological mistakes, > we are proving that we see technology as a special priesthood that > only the scrupulously worthy can join. The fact is, technology exists > in society, and plain old people are periodically going to make > technical mistakes about it. Personally, I don't find poking fun at > them an ego trip. I did not hear any laughing. I did see gross errors and one of the most serious problems in our society today is the rampant spread of misinformation about matters technical. It is misinformation that is fueling the "crackdown on hackers", and activity that is wasting our resources and ruining lives. It is misinformation that is causing confusion and waste in (among other things) the telecom marketplace. It may seem harmless to you that dilatants such as Joe Abernathy use their positions (and lack of knowledge) to arouse and enflame the masses, but there are some of us who see first-hand the harm and destruction that results. If "plain old people", particularly those who have access to the media, make technical mistakes it is the sworn duty of those who know better to correct them. And do it publicly if possible. I am sorry if accuracy offends you, but if "outsiders" are going to pontificate to the world using false doctrine, you had better turn aside while the priesthood of technology performs its exorcism. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
0003209613@mcimail.com (Sandy Kyrish) (03/22/91)
As soon as I posted my last message, I knew I'd catch it from somebody, but I honestly didn't expect it to be Higdon -- whom I had heretofore thought of as a "voice of reason" type. Instead, I feel real disappointed that he hastily and angrily misinterpreted what I was saying. Yes, John, technical/technological errors need to be corrected. What doesn't need to happen is for technologists to deride, snicker, and snort at the non-technologists who make the errors. We don't help our cause one bit by appearing arrogant or snide. Yes, John, misinterpretation and bad knowledge about telecommunications wreaks havoc. But *technologists* are the only people who can correctly disseminate information about technology. If we cut ourselves off from "the great unwashed" and prefer instead to hang out in our technically literate groups, we will not properly transfer information about what's right and what's not. And I do not shun accuracy. I pursue it rigorously as a doctoral student and professional researcher. My area, John, is teaching non-technical people about technology, and helping people choose appropriate technologies. So I like to think I'm doing my part to spread the accurate news.
edtjda@uunet.uu.net (Joe Abernathy) (03/24/91)
One more time, then, since some of you have chosen to turn nasty. I find the discussion of whether the man was telling the truth to be of interest, but a couple of things need to be put into order. First: The number isn't wrong because somebody here (or anywhere) throws out undocumented numbers saying so. It isn't wrong if some rate guide you have says it is, unless you research the tariffs governing operation of the phone service in question during time of crisis -- we're talking about a war, remember. Next: Even if the number is wrong, the way it was presented is completely valid journalism. "That sort of fraud can total up to $30,000 a day." What this statement is intended to do is provide some sort of general framework so that the casual observer can get a feel for what's going on. He didn't say how much money his company had lost, and he wasn't having the conversation with me in good graces, so you couldn't expect him to throw open his books. What he gave us was a reasonable statement for a man who felt his company to be under fire. There are a lot of niceties involved in getting a reliable number in this sort of story, but as this discussion should reveal, there are also a lot of holes for you to fall into when you choose to attack such a number. If I tried to print any of the discussions I've read here, I'd be accused of spouting wild-eyed speculation. Give it a rest, guys, or do some research of your own. Joe [Wild-Eyed Speculator's Note: Yes folks, lets give it a rest, or take it to the alt.bash.abernathy newsgroup. By and large, his article was good and useful; and I was privileged to have it for use here. Of course, I may just be speculating on this last point! :) PAT]