1) T-M subscriber enters standard 2-year contract, gets standard subsidized phone at a discount which assumes the carrier gets their money back from extra fees over two years.
2) Subscriber gets phone unlocked after 40 days, for no charge.
Since you're locked in for the remainder of your two-year contract unless you presumably pay a hefty early-termination fee, I don't necessarily see the advantage of unlocking the phone before the contract's up.
A salesman once screwed up and lost a contract early in Microsoft's history, then appeared before Bill Gates expecting to be fired for his mistake. Instead Bill told him that his job was secure, because (I'm paraphrasing like mad here) he'd learned a valuable lesson and knew an approach that would not work next time, so it was better for the company to keep him rather than hire someone else without this experience.
Not a new idea among clueful bosses, in other words.
I still remember the...bong...bong... tone from my 56k USR Sportster attempting an x2 connection, which was one of the two competing OEM "standards" for what eventually became v.90 (it lost out to K56flex, but the modem's firmware was upgradeable).
Hah, for that matter I can just about whistle 14.4k V.42 handshaking tones. Good times on the old QuickBBS-based system in my hometown; alas, it was too far out in the sticks to be on Fidonet.
This was back in the Bad Old Days when it was possible to get a 14.4 external modem for a contemporaneous computer whose maker had cheaped out and used 16450 UARTs that could only drive a serial port to IIRC 9600 bps reliably, which led to lots of CRC errors.
More precisely "judicial activism" is when a judge makes a ruling that a far-right Republican doesn't like. They're the ones who invented the term during Bush the Lesser's first administration, you might recall.
I'm not arguing, dear boy, I am abusing you. You are unworthy of the mental effort for a rational argument (you've got your mind made up and are unwilling to be confused by things like/rational thought/ and/logic/), so I'm going to mock and demean you until you go away.
Oh, you're one of those people (and I use the term loosely) who think it's all about economic freedom (i.e. the freedoms of the 1%) and give not a tinker's damn about civil rights.
You're equating GETTING NUTRITIONAL DATA to a slow slide to DICTATORSHIP?
Are you capable of not shitting your pants on a daily basis? You really make me wonder here. Do you have any major facial deformities? All your teeth? Do you make people squeal like a pig for weekend fun?
Nobody's going to ask for that information, not get it, and then decide "You know, I'm starving and my kids are pitching a fit, I'm going to drive around to six different restaurants until I find one that gives me the facts".
No, all you (and the others) can see is OMG GOVERNMENT MAKING PEOPLE DO STUFF == NANNY STATE. It's convenient that you can turn your brains off like that whenever you don't want to argue something on the merits, but it makes you look awfully stupid.
See, this is why I can't take the right seriously, because of fucking drama queens like you who don't understand why having multiple logical fallacies in one screed is bad.
You don't have an unimpinged right to choose if you're prevented from getting all the facts, fuckwit. This is an attempt to let consumers have the facts SO THEY CAN MAKE INFORMED CHOICES.
You are entitled to your own opinions. You are *not* entitled to your own facts.
Slashdot Mirror
I must be misunderstanding something, then.
1) T-M subscriber enters standard 2-year contract, gets standard subsidized phone at a discount which assumes the carrier gets their money back from extra fees over two years.
2) Subscriber gets phone unlocked after 40 days, for no charge.
Since you're locked in for the remainder of your two-year contract unless you presumably pay a hefty early-termination fee, I don't necessarily see the advantage of unlocking the phone before the contract's up.
How much do they charge?
A salesman once screwed up and lost a contract early in Microsoft's history, then appeared before Bill Gates expecting to be fired for his mistake. Instead Bill told him that his job was secure, because (I'm paraphrasing like mad here) he'd learned a valuable lesson and knew an approach that would not work next time, so it was better for the company to keep him rather than hire someone else without this experience.
Not a new idea among clueful bosses, in other words.
Winsock? Luxury.
This was in DOS using Telix to talk to the local BBS.
Life is too short to manually deal with dependencies, thanks.
Seriously, that's the #1 thing that will keep me away from Slack. It seems pretty solid otherwise.
I still remember the ...bong...bong... tone from my 56k USR Sportster attempting an x2 connection, which was one of the two competing OEM "standards" for what eventually became v.90 (it lost out to K56flex, but the modem's firmware was upgradeable).
Hah, for that matter I can just about whistle 14.4k V.42 handshaking tones. Good times on the old QuickBBS-based system in my hometown; alas, it was too far out in the sticks to be on Fidonet.
This was back in the Bad Old Days when it was possible to get a 14.4 external modem for a contemporaneous computer whose maker had cheaped out and used 16450 UARTs that could only drive a serial port to IIRC 9600 bps reliably, which led to lots of CRC errors.
Internet Libertarian tactic #2: shouting "WAKE UP" because you disagree with someone.
Three words, my friend: steers and queers.
A moose once shot my brother...
More precisely "judicial activism" is when a judge makes a ruling that a far-right Republican doesn't like. They're the ones who invented the term during Bush the Lesser's first administration, you might recall.
Come on, is that the best insult you can manage? I can't give you any better than a D- for that, boy.
Come to think of it, you're probably used to getting grades like that.
I'm not arguing, dear boy, I am abusing you. You are unworthy of the mental effort for a rational argument (you've got your mind made up and are unwilling to be confused by things like /rational thought/ and /logic/), so I'm going to mock and demean you until you go away.
Kill yourself.
Oh, you're one of those people (and I use the term loosely) who think it's all about economic freedom (i.e. the freedoms of the 1%) and give not a tinker's damn about civil rights.
Kill yourself.
At this point I think he's trolling. Nobody's that stupid.
You're equating GETTING NUTRITIONAL DATA to a slow slide to DICTATORSHIP?
Are you capable of not shitting your pants on a daily basis? You really make me wonder here. Do you have any major facial deformities? All your teeth? Do you make people squeal like a pig for weekend fun?
Organic food /is/ better, and here's why: no pesticide residues going into your body.
And believe him, even.
There's a word you should understand; it's called "context".
You, sir, are fucking retarded.
Nobody's going to ask for that information, not get it, and then decide "You know, I'm starving and my kids are pitching a fit, I'm going to drive around to six different restaurants until I find one that gives me the facts".
No, all you (and the others) can see is OMG GOVERNMENT MAKING PEOPLE DO STUFF == NANNY STATE. It's convenient that you can turn your brains off like that whenever you don't want to argue something on the merits, but it makes you look awfully stupid.
How very schoolyard of you. You've ignored my argument and chosen to throw back "NO YOU" like a first-grader.
Your mother must be proud.
Right, right, everyone's got Internet access and smartphones.
Don't be an idiot.
STRAWMAN SIGHTED.
See, this is why I can't take the right seriously, because of fucking drama queens like you who don't understand why having multiple logical fallacies in one screed is bad.
Calorie denialism is just another symptom of the Republicans needing to disagree with the Other at every turn.
You don't have an unimpinged right to choose if you're prevented from getting all the facts, fuckwit. This is an attempt to let consumers have the facts SO THEY CAN MAKE INFORMED CHOICES.
You are entitled to your own opinions. You are *not* entitled to your own facts.
I'd agree with you if it were not for Kelo v. New London.
As it is, at least the liberal justices aren't as bad.