At the least, AT&T agreed to implement an additional security measure which they then ignored entirely (as if it didn't exist). That constitutes a specific promise made and then reneged.
It's notable that at one time, AT&T took security VERY seriously. They still enjoy the reputation even though increasingly it seems undeserved.
Even then, working really hard at something that people want is often not as successful as starting with wealthy parents and directing others to work really hard for something someone wants and then keeping the profit.
Given a few infamous cases of "affluenza", people are provably correct about the wealthy getting special treatment in law. Commoner goes bankrupt, sorry but your student debts will follow you through the bankrupcy. Bank goes bankrupt, it's here, have a billion dollars to make sure those executive bonus checks don't bounce.
In some states, poor people still go to jail (debtor's prison in all but name) if they can't pay a fine. Cash bail is simply unaffordable for many. Even 10% of the bail is out of some people's range and you don't get it back even if you're not guilty. And of course, public defenders are chronicallu overloaded and in some states only available if you're indigent (but not if paying the lawyer bill will render you indigent). Of course that's not even an option in civil court, so a corporation threatening to sue you is effectively an edict from the king.
Essentially, being poor is expensive and to many it feels like being kicked when they're down.
OTOH, text messaging is a common 2FA method and AT&T needs to do better before someone gets their bank account hoovered.
I hope AT&T loses big considering that they screwed up once, agreed to an additional security measure, then ignored the extra measure entirely in the process of screwing up again.
Perhaps the point is the U.S. doesn't set the minumum high enough and doesn't do enough to encourage a smaller income Gap. It also has serious holes in it's safety net. Just this morning I saw a cop running people who fell through the holes out from under the bridge they were trying to call home.
But go ahead, keep being deliberately obtuse and encouraging that as a national policy, enjoy the communist revolution.
Since the original claim was a general statement about GPS not being a complete replacement of WWV, one specific counterexample doesn't really counter it. Any more than a claim that an astronaut who 'drops' a 50 pound weight on his foot doesn't get hurt doesn't really counter the statement "if you drop a weight 50 pound on your foot, it'll hurt." since for the other 99.99999% of us living on Earth, it will.
It would be more of a counter if the claim was "GPS can never be recieved inside any structure".
It's not just within buildings, but it cane get awfully funny between tall buildings as well. Suddenly your accurate to a couple meters GPS can't decide which city block you're on.
It is likely your cellphone routinely loses GPS inside buildings too. It just assumes you haven't moved much as long as it sees the same cell towers and possibly WiFi SSIDs.
It's not at all uncommon for corporations to rattle the saber even when they don't have a leg to stand on. Mostly they're counting on the other party to not have enough time or money to go to court even when they're clearly in the right.
As for people in other countries doing it by scripting, they don't give a crap about a suit in a U.S. court. U.S. civil courts have no jurisdiction over them.
AH, I see, moving the goalposts. I said "a system that sets a minimum level and encourages a smaller income gap and one that tries to force equality". That would be one of the many hybrid systems in place throughout Europe and Scandinavia.
If hard righters keep painting that with the communist paintbrush, they shouldn't be surprised when more people start suggesting we give that communism thing a try.
OTOH, if they more correctly call it a hybrid or mixed system, more people will call for a hybrid or mixed system.
You might not have noticed an entire class of people who until they started rioting in the '60s were disadvantaged by segregation laws and so were not doing all that well.
You think Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" us a communist writing? The book that founded capitalist thinking? I'm guessing you never read it. You really should before you embarrass yourself further.
Interestingly, it doesn't matter what I think. My statement wasn't a threat, it was a prognostication. If the current state of affairs doesn't improve, it will come to pass. The replacement may be better, worse, or more of the same but it will happen.
But any workable solution will probably involve socializing healthcare and the rest of education. It will likely involve universal basic income in some form or another.
That *IS* the corruption. Smith warned that corporate charters were dangerous. He suggested they only be granted in a few rare cases where such group efforts were necessary to accomplish a thing at all and then to keep them limited in scope and well regulated. Passing them out to all comers and not enforcing the public interest *IS* corruption. Consider, any corporation that violates the law is intrinsically NOT in the public interest. That's a lot of corporations that should have been forcibly dissolved but instead paid fines smaller than the ill-gotten profits from the crime.
Early in American history, when charters of corporation were issued, they specified the line of business and actually would be dissolved if the corporation acted against the public interest.
You are creating a false dichotomy. There is a difference between a system that sets a minimum level and encourages a smaller income gap and one that tries to force equality.
Slashdot Mirror
At the least, AT&T agreed to implement an additional security measure which they then ignored entirely (as if it didn't exist). That constitutes a specific promise made and then reneged.
It's notable that at one time, AT&T took security VERY seriously. They still enjoy the reputation even though increasingly it seems undeserved.
Even then, working really hard at something that people want is often not as successful as starting with wealthy parents and directing others to work really hard for something someone wants and then keeping the profit.
Given a few infamous cases of "affluenza", people are provably correct about the wealthy getting special treatment in law. Commoner goes bankrupt, sorry but your student debts will follow you through the bankrupcy. Bank goes bankrupt, it's here, have a billion dollars to make sure those executive bonus checks don't bounce.
In some states, poor people still go to jail (debtor's prison in all but name) if they can't pay a fine. Cash bail is simply unaffordable for many. Even 10% of the bail is out of some people's range and you don't get it back even if you're not guilty. And of course, public defenders are chronicallu overloaded and in some states only available if you're indigent (but not if paying the lawyer bill will render you indigent). Of course that's not even an option in civil court, so a corporation threatening to sue you is effectively an edict from the king.
Essentially, being poor is expensive and to many it feels like being kicked when they're down.
It's the value at the time of the loss. That seems fair since he would have the opportunity to sell at that value but for AT&T screwing up.
OTOH, text messaging is a common 2FA method and AT&T needs to do better before someone gets their bank account hoovered.
I hope AT&T loses big considering that they screwed up once, agreed to an additional security measure, then ignored the extra measure entirely in the process of screwing up again.
Perhaps the point is the U.S. doesn't set the minumum high enough and doesn't do enough to encourage a smaller income Gap. It also has serious holes in it's safety net. Just this morning I saw a cop running people who fell through the holes out from under the bridge they were trying to call home.
But go ahead, keep being deliberately obtuse and encouraging that as a national policy, enjoy the communist revolution.
Since the original claim was a general statement about GPS not being a complete replacement of WWV, one specific counterexample doesn't really counter it. Any more than a claim that an astronaut who 'drops' a 50 pound weight on his foot doesn't get hurt doesn't really counter the statement "if you drop a weight 50 pound on your foot, it'll hurt." since for the other 99.99999% of us living on Earth, it will.
It would be more of a counter if the claim was "GPS can never be recieved inside any structure".
Based on that, it's no wonder Trump wanted him.
Try the basement or a high rise office building.
It's not just within buildings, but it cane get awfully funny between tall buildings as well. Suddenly your accurate to a couple meters GPS can't decide which city block you're on.
It is likely your cellphone routinely loses GPS inside buildings too. It just assumes you haven't moved much as long as it sees the same cell towers and possibly WiFi SSIDs.
I'b bet the copper pipes and HVAC are worth more than $200 as salvage.
But I'll bet you didn't claim it was only worth $200 either.
Well, surely they'd be willing to sell it off at double their valuation!
It's not at all uncommon for corporations to rattle the saber even when they don't have a leg to stand on. Mostly they're counting on the other party to not have enough time or money to go to court even when they're clearly in the right.
As for people in other countries doing it by scripting, they don't give a crap about a suit in a U.S. court. U.S. civil courts have no jurisdiction over them.
AH, I see, moving the goalposts. I said "a system that sets a minimum level and encourages a smaller income gap and one that tries to force equality". That would be one of the many hybrid systems in place throughout Europe and Scandinavia.
If hard righters keep painting that with the communist paintbrush, they shouldn't be surprised when more people start suggesting we give that communism thing a try.
OTOH, if they more correctly call it a hybrid or mixed system, more people will call for a hybrid or mixed system.
Nicotine also has some health benefits once divorced from combustion products. And I'm pretty sure most of those cups aren't filled with decaf.
So how long have you been sniffing your own farts?
I know people joke about Americans who weren't aware that Europe existed, but here I see one before me.
The alternative is that the have-nots get tired of it and burn the whole damned thing down. If you don't want that, it's time to compromise.
You might not have noticed an entire class of people who until they started rioting in the '60s were disadvantaged by segregation laws and so were not doing all that well.
More to the point, corporations are controlled by humans who due to corporate protections do not have to fear consequences for their criminal acts.
That is a very bad combination.
You think Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" us a communist writing? The book that founded capitalist thinking? I'm guessing you never read it. You really should before you embarrass yourself further.
Interestingly, it doesn't matter what I think. My statement wasn't a threat, it was a prognostication. If the current state of affairs doesn't improve, it will come to pass. The replacement may be better, worse, or more of the same but it will happen.
But any workable solution will probably involve socializing healthcare and the rest of education. It will likely involve universal basic income in some form or another.
That *IS* the corruption. Smith warned that corporate charters were dangerous. He suggested they only be granted in a few rare cases where such group efforts were necessary to accomplish a thing at all and then to keep them limited in scope and well regulated. Passing them out to all comers and not enforcing the public interest *IS* corruption. Consider, any corporation that violates the law is intrinsically NOT in the public interest. That's a lot of corporations that should have been forcibly dissolved but instead paid fines smaller than the ill-gotten profits from the crime.
Early in American history, when charters of corporation were issued, they specified the line of business and actually would be dissolved if the corporation acted against the public interest.
See the trend to private security, safe roome, and gated communities in the U.S.
You are creating a false dichotomy. There is a difference between a system that sets a minimum level and encourages a smaller income gap and one that tries to force equality.
Given the overhead of setting up a new identity for every sale, it would make the reselling unprofitable.
As for legality, what law are you referring to?