ok let's say I get pissed, what what can I do about it? I was pretty annoyed the first couple days and rather angry, now I'm just hoping my info are safe.

Uh...if someone asks you if it bothers you, to say "yes"?

Honesty isn't such a bad thing, even in the anonymous internet, is it?

Edit: and I hope everyone's info is safe, I wouldn't wish that crap on anyone.

I'm not sure that many people on this sight understand the concept of random sampling of large populations and the associated error and confidence level.

Many people are angry about it, just not to the point of changing consoles

I'm not sure that many people on this sight understand the concept of random sampling of large populations and the associated error and confidence level.

I'm not supporting the original survey, as I don't know the particulars of how it was conducted, but a 2100 sample size is actuallly not that bad.  It is also significantly more accurate (to multiple magnitudes) than responses culled from a PS3 heavy fanbase (ie VGChartz).

That being said, even if the sample was done with statistically sound methods with high confidence in an acceptable error rate, there is no indication that the survey looked for INTENT to switch, rather simply that the concerns over the PSN breach made them consider a switch.

I am rather surprised by the number of people who say they don't care, or don't play online that much though; my PS3 has always admittedly been my secondary system, so not using the PSN for me, is understandable.  For those who it IS the primary/favored system though, I'm shocked at the number that seem to not care the on-line is down.

To be honest, if this was Live that was down, I'd pissed.  One or two days, who cares...>1 week?  Yep, I'd be pissed.

I do not know how the survey was conducted, but I doubt it was truely random. If they went one type of store, or surveyed online that is not random at all. As you probably know a random sample must have equal oppurtunity for every ps3 owner to be asked this question. The survey does not come close to giving every person equal oppurtunity.

That is why some people are not taking the survey to seriously.

You are making a couple of fairly egregious assumptions, no offense:

1)  IF you don't know how the sampling was done, than jumping to the conclusion that it was done, NOT randomly, is, well...I'm just not sure how you make that jump without introducing personal bias (ie, I dont like what it said, so I don't *think* it was random, so it wasn't).

2)  If the survey was ONLY looking for PS3 owners responses your second point would make sense, but that was not all that was reported, so limiting it to PS3 owners would invalidate the other items on the survey.

I'm cool with people not liking the survey, but trying to invalidate the survey, with statements like "it wasn't random" or "they didn't use enough people" wihtout sound, valid reasons for saying those things, well that is the definition of introducing bias into a response.