As a South Asian Indian, I am puzzled by ethnicity questionnaires which never have an option that seems appropriate. "White" seems wrong as does "Caucasian", even if we are supposedly anthropologically related. "Asian" seems to refer to Asians except for persons of the Indian sub-continent. And "Indian" refers to American Indians.
"American Indian" is the term used by the US government on the census form, so it likely is used in many other surveys that use a similar format. (I don't know how broadly it is seen as an offensive or incorrect term.)
There's actually lots of dispute about this--substantial numbers, perhaps a majority, of... indigenous people prefer American Indian to Native American, since the latter sounds like something a government bureaucrat would dream up. A fairly radical and influential group exists that embraces that name, the American Indian Movement.
Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. As a non-American I didn't know the political climate. "American Indian" sounds fine to me; at least it's not so ambiguous. "Indian," IMO should really be used to describe people from India only.
American Indians tend to prefer the term "American Indian" to "Native American". The term "Native American" was invented by white liberals to make themselves feel better.
Desi is bit of a strange term for some. As a person of Sri Lankan origin, I don't know any other Sri Lankans who refer to themselves as desi. I didn't hear the term myself until college. I don't know why we need a new term when "South Asian" is perfectly adequate.
Acquisitions provide liquidity for startups that hope to realize value only in the long-term. This is actually a good thing because it can actively encourage more ambitious startups.
However they did meet with Verizon behind "closed doors" to agree on a common definition of what "net neutrality" is. Yes, it is not as infamatory as "let's implement something together and screw everyone else".
> We remain committed to an open internet.
Of course they do. No company we'll say - "we want to control the internet and everyone's access to it". They'll say somethig like "we want to expand more options for consumers", "we are helping deliver better content", and of course "we want an open internet". They are the ones being accusses of working out a deal behind consumers' back so their PR department will say something nice to soften the blow.
The only way to figure it out is to wait and see what happens. You'll have to forgive me if I don't take Google's PR department's word for it.
I don't think Simpsons paradox plays any role here, if I understand this correctly.
In the first graph, the leading digit counts are not the things being summed up across all the regions. The weekly report counts are summed up across all regions and then the leading digits are counted.
Verizon's network is better than AT&T's for two fundamental reasons:
- It operates mostly on the 850MHz band whereas AT&T operates on both 850Mhz and 1900Mhz band. Lower frequencies penetrate buildings better than higher frequencies. Lower frequencies also have less interference with other electrical devices.
- Verizon uses CDMA technology which intrinsically makes more efficient use of the wireless spectrum than the GSM technology that AT&T uses.
Consequently, AT&T needs to expend more resources on constructing cell towers to achieve the same level of coverage as Verizon.
Wouldn't less towers equate to less potential channels of data? I'm not too familiar with how mobile broadband works but I'm thinking if you have one tower utilizing a X Mhz band covering 50 square miles that would be less bandwidth than 5 towers, overlapping X Mhz bands out of range of each other, each covering only 10 square miles. Could be totally wrong though.
Sigh...