Well, the reason I stayed as long as I did was simple responsibility for my decisions. It wasn't "for better or worse" for me; I was working as hard as I could on the better bit, especially for my daughters. She did end up breaking things off before I was ready to give up, once she settled on an older guy that could give her what she wanted. I don't speak with bitterness other than in jest; while what she did still seems a betrayal, it was the means to the proper end.
For me, the motivation to work on things was more about not wanting to fail, because failing meant my entire life would change; every single aspect. I've said it before, but it bears repeating: often the bigger loss in a divorce is loss of the married life itself, which is NOT the same by any means as losing the spouse. It's devastating to watch your carefully built 2-volvo and white picket fence life fall to smithereens, and it's demoralizing to watch how fast your illusion of control evaporates. With hindsight, it's easy to see that I just shouldn't have been married at 21 (duh), and that a divorce at 27 with kids under 5 was still early, thank god, but at the time, it was absolutely the end of my world, literally.
On the supposedly wiser end of the story, one of my buddies used to tell me it was all for the better because now I could go out and be the pussy king of the city (he had a drinking game he made up; every time he shouted "She's a whore!" I'd have to take a shot. My poor liver....). I'm not geared that way, especially after being in a relatively long term monogamous relationship. It was fun to date and party and all the rest, but banging a bunch of girls all Jersey-Shore style is just expensive, annoying, and not fulfilling (admittedly, the freedom to try it out is nice). I'm happy with my girlfriend now, in a committed relationship, but I can tell you; the concept of marriage is terrifying, if only because I don't want to lose it again. What I should realize (but am to afraid to admit outside of this/. post) is all long term, healthy, monogamous relationships, where all resources are shared and contributed to, build those ties, wedding license or not.
I don't know how being in Europe would change those basic human elements, unless the relationship isn't viewed as melding two lives into one, as marriage is typically perceived here. This type of relationship isn't a bad thing; in fact, it may be a better way to live, and we have plenty of relationships like that here. It's just an apples to oranges comparison; often "marriage" in the US still consists of a complete blending of two lives, hopes, and dreams, and sometimes one of the two gets trampled on.
However things shake loose, he's welcome to apply for membership in the "She spread her legs for me!" club, currently 1500+ members strong. Free swab tests upon membership approval!
I think this would be ideal, but the uphill part of the battle is getting middle- and upper- management organized enough to plan projects this way.
It's much, much easier, from a management perspective, to keep people on staff 40, 50, or 60 hours per week because you know they'll all be there to complete tasks as they come in. If you allow people to leave after a completed project, or to set their own schedules, all of a sudden you have to keep track of which employee is available for which task at which times, and to trust them to complete work on-time, and that causes pointy-haired head implosions.
It would seem the way to get this to happen is to make damn sure that every hour you spend is productive, that you complete everything with elegance and efficiency, and you prove yourself a strong Acme-corp employee that anticipates company requirements with near-prescience. Sadly, though, the typical reward for performance like this is more work, not less hours.
Part of the problem is there will always be people willing to work more than 40 hours per week, meaning those who do not will be seen as "less productive" (manager-ese for "lazy"). Whether or not you get fired, there will be incentive to work just a few more hours per day, or skipping lunches (this is where many of my OT hours come into play - that's 5 a week), etc, to keep your *perceived* productivity competitive. Without long-term efficiency data and organization to support a mandated 40 hour work week, it just won't happen as those extra hours start creeping past 50 per week.
Looking back at my own work week, even *trying* to work only 40 hours, I usually put in 50+, more when you count the things I do from home or on a weekend. While I actually don't mind this (it's often easier to answer an e-mail at home than to waste productive time the following morning), as long as it's on my terms, I loathe knowing that it can be required of me. Forced OT makes me feel less like a team-member and more like a black box; requirements go in, work comes out, who gives a shit if the "equipment" overheats and the work quality suffers, so long as it gets done.
Maybe that's what needs to change; we need a bigger say in deciding when we work and what incentives - especially when we're salaried - we get for working OT (within reason; there are asshats who hate their jobs and will demand a 5 hour work week with a free Dodge Charger for working 7, screwing everybody in the process).
To the creature that is the angry wife, the ONLY justification for not being home, catering to her every wish, unloading the dishwasher, and cleaning the garage, because you're lucky to have her to cook shitty potatoes for you, buddy, is if you're out bringing in more money so she can buy more things for you to carry home for her. Any other activity is tantamount to infidelity. This is one of the major reasons my angry wife is now an angry ex-wife (which still sorta sucks but not nearly as badly).
I kid, but some people (of both sexes) really do live this way.
Actually, I really DO remember companies wanting to keep me happy. I remember calling to report a problem with a sound card, and getting an RMA without having to ask. I remember being able to try a free doughnut to see if I'd like it before having to buy a dozen. I remember being able to talk to a friendly and helpful customer service rep instead of having every CS call start with two sighs; one by me and one by the rep. I dunno; I don't remember things being perfect, but I do recall feeling as if things were hit or miss instead of a guaranteed miserable time.
As for your comment on the 6 mo - 12 mo switch between providers, I have a bit of experience there, and you're not silly at all, so long as you do it the right way. The following is some inside info that may help maximize how much you can save.
I used to work as a CSSA for Qwest/CenturyLink (customer services and sales agent, which is THE most self-conflicting job title I've ever had). The funny thing was there was zero motivation to keep a customer, but intense rewards for pulling in a new one. This created a situation where you'd attempt to "solve" a customer problem ASAP, often by not giving a shit, in order to get to a "good" incoming call. The few terrific *service* reps would have the vast majority of customer fixes, which is why when you call the phone company (or Comcast or Cox, this is an industry problem, not a company one) it often takes 3 or 4 attempts to get a helpful rep. You think your rep was stupid? Probably not, actually. He simply pretended to be because it's fastest way to get you off the phone, since he's not allowed to hang up on you. "Herp derp, what's a fone agin?" gets you off the phone faster than actually fixing your issue.
It was even easier to just transfer people wanting to cancel to the "Loyalty" department. Try it out. Say the word "cancel" and count how many seconds the transfer takes. The phrase "I'll cancel if I have to!" to a CSSA is like the phrase "Ok, but just the tip...." to a frat boy. Loyalty, of course, does have a few incentives to keep a customer, and a few more tools to use in their attempt to do so. Even still, they generally wanted to get to "good" calls too, so "fuck a bunch of your problem; I got sales goals to meet or the union and I get to have a talk with my boss-lady for the 3rd time this month. Go ahead and go to Comcast; see you in 6 months."
Most of these companies actually rely on the up front costs (both money and time) of getting new service over real, actual, solid customer service. It's proved to be a more effective barrier, freeing their reps to sell NFL Sunday Ticket to old ladies. You'd be surprised how much time and money the average Joe loses when he has to get a new modem and/or tech install each time he switches, especially since the rep on the phone hits an incentive for every add-on feature they can staple in. A great many folks just toss their modems when they move, and we were "taught" not to discourage this; in fact, you can't even buy em new any more; it's a forced lease, with insane shipping prices. And don't even get me going on package pricing; it's complete and utter horseshit that these companies can advertise prices that only exist by having a $60 land line/digital phone and/or $75 satellite/cable TV service tacked on. How the hell do you sell $120/mo for 5 years when a customer called in looking for $19.95? It's no wonder the telcos have shit customer service, because in an 8 hour day there are so few opportunities to hit sales goals that it's better to rifle through calls until you get a live one; especially one who's already pissed off at and leaving some other provider.
Service swapping is kind of like the rabbit complaining to the bear about how mean the wolves are, but what other choice does the rabbit have? As for being a representative of the bear, I can tell you I really did feel like a predator, and jumped ship when I realized just how good at it I was getting.
That's a very good point, and I find myself swayed your way somewhat. Still, AT&T already has lots of customers that require much more resources than the rest. Some speak different languages, or demand higher service levels than others, or threaten to jump ship over every little error, etc. These types of customers exist in a great many industries, in numbers that make it unwise not to include them in revenue streams.
I think the fact that AT&T doesn't want this guy as a customer has nothing to do with saving resources; it seems more likely that AT&T is vindictively denying him of their services to make an example of him. I don't say that, in itself, is illegal (or even immoral) but you'd think AT&T would want to recoup their losses if the guy still wants to be a customer. But, then, $850 (or even the previous $8500 typo!) is an incredibly small amount of money to AT&T. Maybe they have decided to cut their losses so he doesn't sue again.
It still seems stupid to leave money on the table, especially if an agreement between the parties was reached. I'm in the spot where $850 is the difference between a profit and a loss, though, so the numbers mean more to me. The only time I feel justified in completely cutting off a customer is if they're literally costing me more than I'm receiving, but I have policies (labor pricing, down payments, etc) put in place to prevent this. I've only cut customers off for NOT paying their bills - the picky ones kind of suck to work with, but they also bring in a lot of cash (and loyalty) if I can deliver. AT&T et. al. just don't exist in that plane of existence.
Maybe it's just my faulty memory, but it used to be pretty common that companies would go above and beyond to ensure customer loyalty; now it seems they offer their services as a privilege; if you're not happy with them, too bad, because they really don't need your business. There's something wrong with that.
Well said. While I'm not surprised that the providers are trying to avoid repeating history, I hope our legislators have the balls and brains to realize it's a second dance with the same partners.
The only way a land-line company can drop you is due to documented non-payment for an extended time, and even then, they are required to take you back once you've paid the past due, though they can require a small up-front deposit.
They can deny you every feature on the line but a dial-tone (often called a 1FR-only line), but that dial-tone simply *must* be made available, unless you've consistently owed the company money and aren't paying them at all (3 full months behind, if I remember right). Doesn't matter if you purposely go out and chop their lines up with a back-hoe because they won't send a tech out to fix the crackle in your handset (an actual call I took when I worked for Qwest). They'll make you pay for any damage they can prove you caused, but they still have to fix the issue promptly in order to provide you with a dial tone.
In your example of getting free long distance... well... the phone company wouldn't even blink because it wouldn't be their long distance you're stealing. The phone company's long distance usage isn't monitored by folks at the house like others' are (10-10-321, etc), at least for billing purposes. Whoever it IS being stolen from could have issues later on, and will probably back-charge it to your phone bill if they find out (because LD companies are gifted at fucking people over). The phone company itself even offers a paid service that forbids the long distance service from being changed from theirs for 6 months.
The obvious way around even the "I owe the phone company money" issue is to simply put the line in someone else's name, because the phone company won't deny dial-tone service to an address, only an SSN (usually) + Name + Address match.
In any case, yes, a landline phone company is lawfully obligated to providing service to all paying customers in their service area, period, though they can charge for damages and abuses. None of those rules apply to cell or digital phones, nor to internet or cable services. Those folks can and will refuse service to anyone they deem a poor customer.
Logically, we all know "Unlimited" is silly. Simply substitute "Unlimited" for "Infinite" and you can see how unrealistic the concept is. Your reasoning also shows what a farce "Unlimited" is, as well.
I think what most people assume they're getting when they buy an "Unlimited" product is they are able to consume as much of that product as they possibly can. When you buy "Unlimited" data, or "Unlimited" texts, "Unlimited" talk minutes, or "Unlimited" (all-you-can-eat) food, or "Unlimited" water from the city, or whatever the hell "Unlimited" else, all you're expecting is that A) it'll consistently and easily be there for you to use, no matter how much you use it, and B) you won't get charged more if you use "too much".
Unfortunately with "Unlimited" data plans, you get either A) or B), not both. If you use too much, you get less, negating A), and to undo this restriction, you have to pay more, negating B). That's not "Unlimited" by even the common advertising usage of the word.
Let's say they did this with texts. Wouldn't it just piss your right off to if an AT&T rep told you "After 100 texts, all subsequent texts are only sent 30 minutes after you queue them. But, simply by paying $0.10 per text, you can have this *limitation* on your Unlimited texts removed. Shall I sign you up?"
If I go into a restaurant that advertises "all I can eat!" it means I can eat as much as I want, until I cannot or do not want to eat any more. If I'm a little dude, this will be far less than if I'm a big dude, but the restaurant shouldn't be allowed to prepare food for the buffet more slowly if a fat bunch of folks blunders through the doors. If they do, is it really "All you can eat"? No, it's "eat all that we're willing to bring you."
As far as inviting customers into a buffet type purchase... well, even the unlikely scenario of having just one single person consume ALL of the restaurant's resources is the risk of advertising an all-you-can-eat buffet. The risk is hedged against the very powerful advertising draw of a "limitless" purchase. What the owner is hoping for is the overall average of food consumed/person will be profitable. At the very least, the restaurant should inform customers that after x plates of food they can only have x more plates of food per hour, and let them decide if the price is worth it. But look what just happened! Our restaurant lost the draw of the "limitless" at the expense of hemming their (larger) customers in. When selling stuff, you can't have it both ways.
This is what AT&T (and others) have been advertising their "Unlimited" plans as. "Use as much data as you want; hell, glut yourself on it!! Err.... unless you're identified as a data glutton, in which case you have to consume your unlimited data no faster than we're willing to arbitrarily provide it.". Slowing the speeds artificially after a customer consumes an arbitrary amount of data is the issue. You cannot do this and still attempt to advertise the plan as "Unlimited". Nobody's asking AT&T to provide both unlimited speeds and unlimited data; we're simply asking them to allow us to use all the data we want, at the advertised rate, or to stop marketing the plan as "Unlimited" entirely, because it's not.
Now I'm hungry, and yes, I'm blaming AT&T for that, too. Dammit.
Especially since Euler had to hack in a +1 to turn a -1 into that oh-so-elegant zero.
That's like finding out all of Bob Ross' happy little trees were Photoshopped in during the commercial break. Tao is a "full-circle" representation, literally, while Pi is simply "half" assed. =)
Hmm. The Pi Manifesto's first three arguments are "Tau is silly.", "It doesn't matter which one we use." and "Physicists are dumb. Even the Babylonians used Pi." Then it goes on to argue the Tau Manifesto uses cherry-picked examples by.... cherry picking examples. I think, if we had to decide on the number now, without the long history of Pi, Tau should win by a hair, as described by this analogy of Pi to 1/2 and Tau to 1 (from the Tau Manifesto):
"Imagine we lived in a world where we used the letter h to represent “one half”, and had no separate notation for 2h. We would then observe that h is ubiquitous in mathematics. In fact, 2h is the multiplicative identity, so how can one doubt the importance of h? All mathematicians and geeks agree, h is where it’s at.
But this is madness: 2h is the fundamental number, not h. Let us therefore introduce a separate symbol for 2h; call it “1”. We then see that h=1/2, and there is no longer any reason to use h at all. Arguing that is important in mathematics is the same as arguing that h is important. And indeed many mathematical formulas do contain a factor of 1/2, but that’s no reason to use a separate letter for the concept. The same goes for : like our hypothetical h, is superfluous—h is just 1/2; is just/2."
Also the Tau are unstoppable at range in WH:40k, and the Pi isn't even a playable race. So there's that, too.
Ah, but you can do this: On June 28 at 3:18, everybody leaves work early to contemplate the nature of existence (which simply cannot be done at work). Mathematically religious holiday! That means you can eat pie at home in your underpants* WITHOUT your dumbass co-workers stealing your fork.
*According to wikipedia, this is the ONLY way to properly contemplate existence, unless, of course, my edit was edited.
Good comment. It got me thinking; I wonder if one reason we are drawn to watching violence from relative safety is to allow us to learn more about violence (or disasters, or whatever) without risk.
I've never really thought about it this way, but it seems to make a rudimentary sense that we'd develop a desire to watch a train wreck (or fist fight, or Megatron vs Optimus) in order to see who survives, and then mimic their actions if we find ourselves in our own train wreck later on. Surely the ridiculousness of a Hollywood fight scene won't help much in this regard, but, prior to TV? Say, Roman gladiator times? Maybe.
I hear so many people arguing that it's not reasonable for Japan to shut their reactors down instead of fixing the problems leading to the disaster, and they're all correct; it is! But it doesn't matter - people view nuclear power as more dangerous than ever now, and convincing an emotionally scared population otherwise is one of the hardest uphill battles to fight.
Something extravagant needs to be done to "prove" the safety of nuclear power. In fact, I think inventing "infallible nuclear safety suits for your entire family; act now and save!!!" would probably be more effective in reducing fear of nuclear power than 50 years of trouble-free reactor operation.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the reason I stayed as long as I did was simple responsibility for my decisions. It wasn't "for better or worse" for me; I was working as hard as I could on the better bit, especially for my daughters. She did end up breaking things off before I was ready to give up, once she settled on an older guy that could give her what she wanted. I don't speak with bitterness other than in jest; while what she did still seems a betrayal, it was the means to the proper end.
/. post) is all long term, healthy, monogamous relationships, where all resources are shared and contributed to, build those ties, wedding license or not.
For me, the motivation to work on things was more about not wanting to fail, because failing meant my entire life would change; every single aspect. I've said it before, but it bears repeating: often the bigger loss in a divorce is loss of the married life itself, which is NOT the same by any means as losing the spouse. It's devastating to watch your carefully built 2-volvo and white picket fence life fall to smithereens, and it's demoralizing to watch how fast your illusion of control evaporates. With hindsight, it's easy to see that I just shouldn't have been married at 21 (duh), and that a divorce at 27 with kids under 5 was still early, thank god, but at the time, it was absolutely the end of my world, literally.
On the supposedly wiser end of the story, one of my buddies used to tell me it was all for the better because now I could go out and be the pussy king of the city (he had a drinking game he made up; every time he shouted "She's a whore!" I'd have to take a shot. My poor liver....). I'm not geared that way, especially after being in a relatively long term monogamous relationship. It was fun to date and party and all the rest, but banging a bunch of girls all Jersey-Shore style is just expensive, annoying, and not fulfilling (admittedly, the freedom to try it out is nice). I'm happy with my girlfriend now, in a committed relationship, but I can tell you; the concept of marriage is terrifying, if only because I don't want to lose it again. What I should realize (but am to afraid to admit outside of this
I don't know how being in Europe would change those basic human elements, unless the relationship isn't viewed as melding two lives into one, as marriage is typically perceived here. This type of relationship isn't a bad thing; in fact, it may be a better way to live, and we have plenty of relationships like that here. It's just an apples to oranges comparison; often "marriage" in the US still consists of a complete blending of two lives, hopes, and dreams, and sometimes one of the two gets trampled on.
Ha! Well said, sir. You and I should drink many beers together.
The GPS tracker she put in your skull is super hard to argue with. Though I guess you could try drinking enough booze to short it out. ;)
If he is, I truly and honestly wish him luck.
However things shake loose, he's welcome to apply for membership in the "She spread her legs for me!" club, currently 1500+ members strong. Free swab tests upon membership approval!
Bitter humor is the best kind.
I think this would be ideal, but the uphill part of the battle is getting middle- and upper- management organized enough to plan projects this way.
It's much, much easier, from a management perspective, to keep people on staff 40, 50, or 60 hours per week because you know they'll all be there to complete tasks as they come in. If you allow people to leave after a completed project, or to set their own schedules, all of a sudden you have to keep track of which employee is available for which task at which times, and to trust them to complete work on-time, and that causes pointy-haired head implosions.
It would seem the way to get this to happen is to make damn sure that every hour you spend is productive, that you complete everything with elegance and efficiency, and you prove yourself a strong Acme-corp employee that anticipates company requirements with near-prescience. Sadly, though, the typical reward for performance like this is more work, not less hours.
Part of the problem is there will always be people willing to work more than 40 hours per week, meaning those who do not will be seen as "less productive" (manager-ese for "lazy"). Whether or not you get fired, there will be incentive to work just a few more hours per day, or skipping lunches (this is where many of my OT hours come into play - that's 5 a week), etc, to keep your *perceived* productivity competitive. Without long-term efficiency data and organization to support a mandated 40 hour work week, it just won't happen as those extra hours start creeping past 50 per week.
Looking back at my own work week, even *trying* to work only 40 hours, I usually put in 50+, more when you count the things I do from home or on a weekend. While I actually don't mind this (it's often easier to answer an e-mail at home than to waste productive time the following morning), as long as it's on my terms, I loathe knowing that it can be required of me. Forced OT makes me feel less like a team-member and more like a black box; requirements go in, work comes out, who gives a shit if the "equipment" overheats and the work quality suffers, so long as it gets done.
Maybe that's what needs to change; we need a bigger say in deciding when we work and what incentives - especially when we're salaried - we get for working OT (within reason; there are asshats who hate their jobs and will demand a 5 hour work week with a free Dodge Charger for working 7, screwing everybody in the process).
Not married to an angry wife, are ya?
To the creature that is the angry wife, the ONLY justification for not being home, catering to her every wish, unloading the dishwasher, and cleaning the garage, because you're lucky to have her to cook shitty potatoes for you, buddy, is if you're out bringing in more money so she can buy more things for you to carry home for her. Any other activity is tantamount to infidelity. This is one of the major reasons my angry wife is now an angry ex-wife (which still sorta sucks but not nearly as badly).
I kid, but some people (of both sexes) really do live this way.
You maybe are showing your age? LOL.
I'm only 32...... meth is a hell of a drug. ;)
Actually, I really DO remember companies wanting to keep me happy. I remember calling to report a problem with a sound card, and getting an RMA without having to ask. I remember being able to try a free doughnut to see if I'd like it before having to buy a dozen. I remember being able to talk to a friendly and helpful customer service rep instead of having every CS call start with two sighs; one by me and one by the rep. I dunno; I don't remember things being perfect, but I do recall feeling as if things were hit or miss instead of a guaranteed miserable time.
As for your comment on the 6 mo - 12 mo switch between providers, I have a bit of experience there, and you're not silly at all, so long as you do it the right way. The following is some inside info that may help maximize how much you can save.
I used to work as a CSSA for Qwest/CenturyLink (customer services and sales agent, which is THE most self-conflicting job title I've ever had). The funny thing was there was zero motivation to keep a customer, but intense rewards for pulling in a new one. This created a situation where you'd attempt to "solve" a customer problem ASAP, often by not giving a shit, in order to get to a "good" incoming call. The few terrific *service* reps would have the vast majority of customer fixes, which is why when you call the phone company (or Comcast or Cox, this is an industry problem, not a company one) it often takes 3 or 4 attempts to get a helpful rep. You think your rep was stupid? Probably not, actually. He simply pretended to be because it's fastest way to get you off the phone, since he's not allowed to hang up on you. "Herp derp, what's a fone agin?" gets you off the phone faster than actually fixing your issue.
It was even easier to just transfer people wanting to cancel to the "Loyalty" department. Try it out. Say the word "cancel" and count how many seconds the transfer takes. The phrase "I'll cancel if I have to!" to a CSSA is like the phrase "Ok, but just the tip...." to a frat boy. Loyalty, of course, does have a few incentives to keep a customer, and a few more tools to use in their attempt to do so. Even still, they generally wanted to get to "good" calls too, so "fuck a bunch of your problem; I got sales goals to meet or the union and I get to have a talk with my boss-lady for the 3rd time this month. Go ahead and go to Comcast; see you in 6 months."
Most of these companies actually rely on the up front costs (both money and time) of getting new service over real, actual, solid customer service. It's proved to be a more effective barrier, freeing their reps to sell NFL Sunday Ticket to old ladies. You'd be surprised how much time and money the average Joe loses when he has to get a new modem and/or tech install each time he switches, especially since the rep on the phone hits an incentive for every add-on feature they can staple in. A great many folks just toss their modems when they move, and we were "taught" not to discourage this; in fact, you can't even buy em new any more; it's a forced lease, with insane shipping prices. And don't even get me going on package pricing; it's complete and utter horseshit that these companies can advertise prices that only exist by having a $60 land line/digital phone and/or $75 satellite/cable TV service tacked on. How the hell do you sell $120/mo for 5 years when a customer called in looking for $19.95? It's no wonder the telcos have shit customer service, because in an 8 hour day there are so few opportunities to hit sales goals that it's better to rifle through calls until you get a live one; especially one who's already pissed off at and leaving some other provider.
Service swapping is kind of like the rabbit complaining to the bear about how mean the wolves are, but what other choice does the rabbit have? As for being a representative of the bear, I can tell you I really did feel like a predator, and jumped ship when I realized just how good at it I was getting.
That's a very good point, and I find myself swayed your way somewhat. Still, AT&T already has lots of customers that require much more resources than the rest. Some speak different languages, or demand higher service levels than others, or threaten to jump ship over every little error, etc. These types of customers exist in a great many industries, in numbers that make it unwise not to include them in revenue streams.
I think the fact that AT&T doesn't want this guy as a customer has nothing to do with saving resources; it seems more likely that AT&T is vindictively denying him of their services to make an example of him. I don't say that, in itself, is illegal (or even immoral) but you'd think AT&T would want to recoup their losses if the guy still wants to be a customer. But, then, $850 (or even the previous $8500 typo!) is an incredibly small amount of money to AT&T. Maybe they have decided to cut their losses so he doesn't sue again.
It still seems stupid to leave money on the table, especially if an agreement between the parties was reached. I'm in the spot where $850 is the difference between a profit and a loss, though, so the numbers mean more to me. The only time I feel justified in completely cutting off a customer is if they're literally costing me more than I'm receiving, but I have policies (labor pricing, down payments, etc) put in place to prevent this. I've only cut customers off for NOT paying their bills - the picky ones kind of suck to work with, but they also bring in a lot of cash (and loyalty) if I can deliver. AT&T et. al. just don't exist in that plane of existence.
Maybe it's just my faulty memory, but it used to be pretty common that companies would go above and beyond to ensure customer loyalty; now it seems they offer their services as a privilege; if you're not happy with them, too bad, because they really don't need your business. There's something wrong with that.
Then AT&T is stupid for not wanting their money back.
Well said. While I'm not surprised that the providers are trying to avoid repeating history, I hope our legislators have the balls and brains to realize it's a second dance with the same partners.
The only way a land-line company can drop you is due to documented non-payment for an extended time, and even then, they are required to take you back once you've paid the past due, though they can require a small up-front deposit.
They can deny you every feature on the line but a dial-tone (often called a 1FR-only line), but that dial-tone simply *must* be made available, unless you've consistently owed the company money and aren't paying them at all (3 full months behind, if I remember right). Doesn't matter if you purposely go out and chop their lines up with a back-hoe because they won't send a tech out to fix the crackle in your handset (an actual call I took when I worked for Qwest). They'll make you pay for any damage they can prove you caused, but they still have to fix the issue promptly in order to provide you with a dial tone.
In your example of getting free long distance... well... the phone company wouldn't even blink because it wouldn't be their long distance you're stealing. The phone company's long distance usage isn't monitored by folks at the house like others' are (10-10-321, etc), at least for billing purposes. Whoever it IS being stolen from could have issues later on, and will probably back-charge it to your phone bill if they find out (because LD companies are gifted at fucking people over). The phone company itself even offers a paid service that forbids the long distance service from being changed from theirs for 6 months.
The obvious way around even the "I owe the phone company money" issue is to simply put the line in someone else's name, because the phone company won't deny dial-tone service to an address, only an SSN (usually) + Name + Address match.
In any case, yes, a landline phone company is lawfully obligated to providing service to all paying customers in their service area, period, though they can charge for damages and abuses. None of those rules apply to cell or digital phones, nor to internet or cable services. Those folks can and will refuse service to anyone they deem a poor customer.
Bingo.
Wait.... it's like playing "Bingo" while the announcer slowly loses volume the closer you get to winning.
Logically, we all know "Unlimited" is silly. Simply substitute "Unlimited" for "Infinite" and you can see how unrealistic the concept is. Your reasoning also shows what a farce "Unlimited" is, as well.
I think what most people assume they're getting when they buy an "Unlimited" product is they are able to consume as much of that product as they possibly can. When you buy "Unlimited" data, or "Unlimited" texts, "Unlimited" talk minutes, or "Unlimited" (all-you-can-eat) food, or "Unlimited" water from the city, or whatever the hell "Unlimited" else, all you're expecting is that A) it'll consistently and easily be there for you to use, no matter how much you use it, and B) you won't get charged more if you use "too much".
Unfortunately with "Unlimited" data plans, you get either A) or B), not both. If you use too much, you get less, negating A), and to undo this restriction, you have to pay more, negating B). That's not "Unlimited" by even the common advertising usage of the word. Let's say they did this with texts. Wouldn't it just piss your right off to if an AT&T rep told you "After 100 texts, all subsequent texts are only sent 30 minutes after you queue them. But, simply by paying $0.10 per text, you can have this *limitation* on your Unlimited texts removed. Shall I sign you up?"
If I go into a restaurant that advertises "all I can eat!" it means I can eat as much as I want, until I cannot or do not want to eat any more. If I'm a little dude, this will be far less than if I'm a big dude, but the restaurant shouldn't be allowed to prepare food for the buffet more slowly if a fat bunch of folks blunders through the doors. If they do, is it really "All you can eat"? No, it's "eat all that we're willing to bring you."
As far as inviting customers into a buffet type purchase... well, even the unlikely scenario of having just one single person consume ALL of the restaurant's resources is the risk of advertising an all-you-can-eat buffet. The risk is hedged against the very powerful advertising draw of a "limitless" purchase. What the owner is hoping for is the overall average of food consumed/person will be profitable. At the very least, the restaurant should inform customers that after x plates of food they can only have x more plates of food per hour, and let them decide if the price is worth it. But look what just happened! Our restaurant lost the draw of the "limitless" at the expense of hemming their (larger) customers in. When selling stuff, you can't have it both ways.
This is what AT&T (and others) have been advertising their "Unlimited" plans as. "Use as much data as you want; hell, glut yourself on it!! Err.... unless you're identified as a data glutton, in which case you have to consume your unlimited data no faster than we're willing to arbitrarily provide it.". Slowing the speeds artificially after a customer consumes an arbitrary amount of data is the issue. You cannot do this and still attempt to advertise the plan as "Unlimited". Nobody's asking AT&T to provide both unlimited speeds and unlimited data; we're simply asking them to allow us to use all the data we want, at the advertised rate, or to stop marketing the plan as "Unlimited" entirely, because it's not.
Now I'm hungry, and yes, I'm blaming AT&T for that, too. Dammit.
I'll get back to you after mine gives me the answer.
(I'd like to think this is a rather clever response, actually)
For now I don't really see the practical use of remembering Pi to that extent.
Chicks.
Especially since Euler had to hack in a +1 to turn a -1 into that oh-so-elegant zero.
That's like finding out all of Bob Ross' happy little trees were Photoshopped in during the commercial break. Tao is a "full-circle" representation, literally, while Pi is simply "half" assed. =)
Hmm. The Pi Manifesto's first three arguments are "Tau is silly.", "It doesn't matter which one we use." and "Physicists are dumb. Even the Babylonians used Pi." Then it goes on to argue the Tau Manifesto uses cherry-picked examples by .... cherry picking examples. I think, if we had to decide on the number now, without the long history of Pi, Tau should win by a hair, as described by this analogy of Pi to 1/2 and Tau to 1 (from the Tau Manifesto):
/2."
"Imagine we lived in a world where we used the letter h to represent “one half”, and had no separate notation for 2h. We would then observe that h is ubiquitous in mathematics. In fact, 2h is the multiplicative identity, so how can one doubt the importance of h? All mathematicians and geeks agree, h is where it’s at.
But this is madness: 2h is the fundamental number, not h. Let us therefore introduce a separate symbol for 2h; call it “1”. We then see that h=1/2, and there is no longer any reason to use h at all. Arguing that is important in mathematics is the same as arguing that h is important. And indeed many mathematical formulas do contain a factor of 1/2, but that’s no reason to use a separate letter for the concept. The same goes for : like our hypothetical h, is superfluous—h is just 1/2; is just
Also the Tau are unstoppable at range in WH:40k, and the Pi isn't even a playable race. So there's that, too.
Ah, but you can do this: On June 28 at 3:18, everybody leaves work early to contemplate the nature of existence (which simply cannot be done at work). Mathematically religious holiday! That means you can eat pie at home in your underpants* WITHOUT your dumbass co-workers stealing your fork.
*According to wikipedia, this is the ONLY way to properly contemplate existence, unless, of course, my edit was edited.
I'd switch to Loci-ing 11/7 instead before you run out of brain cells to store the digits.
tauday.com's manifesto is actually pretty compelling.
Good comment. It got me thinking; I wonder if one reason we are drawn to watching violence from relative safety is to allow us to learn more about violence (or disasters, or whatever) without risk.
I've never really thought about it this way, but it seems to make a rudimentary sense that we'd develop a desire to watch a train wreck (or fist fight, or Megatron vs Optimus) in order to see who survives, and then mimic their actions if we find ourselves in our own train wreck later on. Surely the ridiculousness of a Hollywood fight scene won't help much in this regard, but, prior to TV? Say, Roman gladiator times? Maybe.
I have to chuckle that you're modded Informative right now.
A thousand times this.
I hear so many people arguing that it's not reasonable for Japan to shut their reactors down instead of fixing the problems leading to the disaster, and they're all correct; it is! But it doesn't matter - people view nuclear power as more dangerous than ever now, and convincing an emotionally scared population otherwise is one of the hardest uphill battles to fight.
Something extravagant needs to be done to "prove" the safety of nuclear power. In fact, I think inventing "infallible nuclear safety suits for your entire family; act now and save!!!" would probably be more effective in reducing fear of nuclear power than 50 years of trouble-free reactor operation.
I agree in concept, but apples are too delicious in pies. Instead, burn rhubarb (sick!). Now can I hold your Nobel for a minute?