Slashdot Mirror
Seven States Pile On To Block AT&T/T-Mobile Deal
An anonymous reader writes "New York, California, and five other U.S. states have joined a lawsuit initiated by the Department of Justice that would block AT&T's merger with T-Mobile. 'The revised filing comes ahead of a court hearing next week, when the two sides are scheduled to discuss the prospects of a settlement. AT&T has said that it will contest the Justice Department's lawsuit, while also seeking a potential settlement.' CNet notes that 'States don't have the power to block the deal, but they can influence the federal regulators and make it more onerous if AT&T attempts to negotiate for concessions to close the deal. They can also slow down the process with their own lawsuits.'"
You should write your state attorney general, that is the official who deals with this. You have [theoretical] power over the attorney general, since that office is usually elected.
Really? I find it hard to believe that GSM is not patent encumbered. My impression was that the lack of being hard-tied to a device was what made it so popular in Europe (what with their quaint notion of Consumer Rights) and it spread from there (and has grown by inertia to everywhere CDMA is as well.)
I've worked with, for and among political offices. It's very well known in that biz that a written letter is much more effective than email, unless you're already an associate of the recipient.
Snail mail is always best for corresponding with politicians and officials with whom you don't already correspond regularly. They're more likely to have it handed to them, because they're mostly old and think email is for people who think for a living, not schmooze. And even if it's just a staffer who reads it (and maybe mentions it to the politico - or better yet, gets it to influence the work their office actually does among other staffers), a letter is better. Lawyers and other official correspondents use snail mail, sometimes as required by law or contract. And the people who write letters tend to be people who vote. Both because they tend to be older, and more office-oriented, and to be people who put actual time into the political process.
--
make install -not war
It's perfectly valid for anybody - T-Mobile customer or not - to argue against the formation of a monopoly. It's won't be easy to stop this one before it forms. But if it is allowed to form, it will be virtually impossible to fix later.
"whom" is dead. Even the textbooks admit that "who" is acceptable (even if not correct or recommended) for the objective case. We have a descriptive language, and as such, you are wrong.
What you say is technically correct but you miss the point. Like most people who miss a good point that says a lot about our culture, you're suddenly concerned with some technical way to give a "pass". So be it.
... 'who' is listed as 'acceptable' so I'll never have to rub two brain cells together and really master my own native language. I found a way to avoid all those horrible milliseconds of thought. Cool." They probably also say things like "man, mediocrity and anti-intellectualism are wonderful, nothing is ever worth exploring or discovering or learning about after all, and I'm really fulfilled as a human being spiritually." Okay, so they never say that last one but they think that's a coincidence.
The difference is actually useful. If you witness someone correctly using "whom", you can bet serious money that they are educated and actually read a book once in a while. The average person is intellectually lazy and can't understand why anyone would read a book without being forced to by a teacher, professor, or employer. This is particularly true of any book written above the 4th-grade reading level that newspapers and advertisers target.
Ergo, they say "hmm
Anyway, the correct use of "whom" naturally tends to distinguish the thinking man from the sheep who need to be herded. The latter avoid learning and thinking as much as they can. They only do it if the cost of it is less than the consequence imposed by failing some external requirement. Even then, they do it reluctantly and only to the minimum degree necessary to appease the authority figure in question. Anyone who isn't part of this crowd stands out instantly.