you should not have to pay an early termination charge because the provider chose to terminate the agreement.
However they may still attempt to collect it from you. At that point, you must sue, and you sadly must weigh the options: eat $500 or spend $5,000 so you don't have to pay $500. It's not a given that you'll get you $5,000 back if you win, though the threat might be enough to make them back off.
Verizon has always seen their customers purely as a source of profit, and has done everything they can to maximize the fees they can charge customers...
Somebody doesn't understand the point of a "business".
The good and bad methods out there are simply different strategies, and frankly, constantly screwing your customers is usually a bad one unless you are in a monopoly position.
Hey, guess what kind of position most telco's are in? Thanks Mr. Government, really appreciate that one!
What is even more disturbing is that all the telcos in the US have generally increased their SMS rates to a new high. They now charge the same outrageous fee ($0.20 in, $0.20 out), leading me to believe that instead of competing, they are colluding.
Not all, my SMS is $7 a month for unlimited messages, another $8 for unlimited data on a non-smart phone (don't bother, it sucks), and standard $30 for unlimited smart phone data (includes texts). It's a local carrier though, and they pound you up the poop chute in other ways (namely getting their cable internet - it's hella expensive and the only decent option here).
French copyright still gives far more rights to the creators than US copyright, and it always has. It was one of the driving forces behind the Berne convention.
The article is right about about the "copyright ratchet", but it's extremely short-sighted and, frankly, wrong when it says that it is the US pushing its laws onto the rest of the world. It has recently been driven by the US - things like the DMCA and Sonny Bono act and such, but most of the draconian copyright laws did not exist in the US until the 60's, where we were the ones who were "ratcheted up" to the rest of the world's standards, which had already been ratcheted up by the French (who still have the most restrictive copyright laws in the world, in my opinion). The French still give far more rights to author's/artists than the US does, so to say it is US driven is a little disingenuous, or at the very least completely ignorant of history. It also goes squarely against the articles main point: that copyright harmonization is any different than any other harmonization. There are swings back and forth.
The real difference between copyright harmonization and other types of harmonization is copyright law affects everyone every single day, where most laws only affect a few people at any given time. Yet only a very small number of people are involved in the decision making process. Our supposed representatives are too easily swayed by lobbyists, they aren't considering the people any more.
You do realize you're riffing on Ayn Rand, right? Not saying that's good or bad, but few people realize that was her principle point.
Maybe because it wasn't? Have you read any of her work? Or do you just get the liberal Cliff's notes?
She wasn't about stealing from society by force of law, she was about freedom from being coerced into giving to society. They are very different things (though to a socialist, they are identical). What about this law increases the freedom from being coerced into giving to society?
Frankly, Ayn Rand would be appalled at the proposed German law. It represents the exact opposite of the ideals she supported. In fact, it is very, very similar to the central theme in Atlas Shrugged. In Atlas Shrugged, it was impossible to exist in mainstream society without breaking the law. Her solution was to step out of society completely, and form a new one.
There was one pirate in the story, but he was characterized as quite a narcissistic asshole (though irresistible to the main character), and most of the people in the reclusive society of "doers" did not approve of his methods. John Galt, the elusive figure around which the story was built, and the ultimate role model pushed forward by Rand, was certainly no pirate. He did preach too much, in my opinion, when given the opportunity. That part of the book sucked.
Indeed, headlines are purported to be facts, and they certainly look like facts (man drowns in river, oil spill to break record, etc). Under pretty much all copyright law in the world facts are not copyrightable. The very idea of it is insane. It's the composition that's copyrightable, not the content. You can't copy someone's article word for word, but you can use that article as a source and say the exact same facts.
I can't believe newspapers of all people are dumb enough not to see what this could do to them. It's not going to make any kind of effecitve "headline exchange", people will just use different headlines. They'll start adding things like "New York Times says 'Headless Man Runs Nude Through Central Park'" instead of "Headless Man Runs Nude Through Central Park". That would pass muster, because it is a quote: The NYT did indeed say that (if they said it of course).
I think there are quite a few people that will kindly (or maybe not-so-kindly) explain why "Mc" and "Mac" are not the same.
And they'd all be completely fucking wrong.
"Mc" is an abbreviated form of "Mac", which is a condensed version of "Meic" which is the condensed version of the phrase "mac meic", which means "son of the son of". It is found in both Scotland and Ireland because the Scots got their surname convention directly from the Irish. You don't find any O's (i.e. O'Flanigan) in Scotland simply because the "ua" (from which the O comes) form had fallen out of favor by the time the Scottish began using the Irish naming conventions.
If more Scots knew their own ancestry it wouldn't be a problem, but that's true of almost every argument of the sort.
The Scots and Irishmen are nothing more than brothers who fight too much.
Mr. Khan and Mr. Jintao are just as valid as Mr. President. Same with Mr. General or Mr. Principal, or Mr. Secretary. Using "Mister" in front of a title is perfectly valid and very common in English.
In other words, you're completely fucking wrong, you idiot retard.
And "Mr." is an abbreviation for "Mister" and should be punctuated as such.
Dealing with all the stupid customers who get confused by the overly complex passwords they'd type in would be more expensive than the occasional cracked 0-9 account.
That is bullshit, and is exactly why most people can't remember the complex passwords they have. I've experienced this first hand at a military base with some similar ridiculous requirements. You could walk down the hallway, and half the offices had a sticky with their account name and password stuck to the screen, because the password was too anti-mnemonic and changed to often to ever really remember.
A 9 digit password with two upper case letters, two lower case letters, two numbers, and two special characters is just as hard to remember as a 15 digit password with the same requirements, and far harder to create a unique password for. It seriously cuts down on the number of potential combinations, and makes the password significantly easier to brute force than a system with every possibility available.
Pass phrases are more secure than anything out there, and are far easier to remember, yet bullshit like this is why they aren't more common. Require at least three words and plain dictionary words become available and provide far more security than nine digits ever could.
Of the single-word password systems that do not allow dictionary words, short passwords with multiple mandatory requirements are about the least secure there are, and among the hardest to create and remember. Most of these passwords the only way people can keep them straight is to write them down, particularly if they aren't used very frequently (like a bank account password).
Without proper address validation, the server accepts the entire message, instead of just the address. That's what the \x004@ bit was about. When an email gets sent, it's a big string of data with headers. If you do email address filtering (which is what the GP did) instead of actual validation you can send an entire message in a field that is only supposed to accept the address.
It is literally the entire email message encapsulated in the address, and any time that address gets processed it shows up as a normal email, not just an absurd email address.
Filtering is easy, validation is hard. Validation is necessary for email to work as intended.
Of course, Christianity has its roots in Judaism, which while not exactly "spread" by the point of the sword, it was advanced by the point of the sword.
Judaism's history was a very violent one, though they were/are not particularly interested in spreading the religion, because it is a racial religion.
I would think most of the great Ph.D.'s would be DIY, else what's the point? Your thesis is supposed to be original research, and serious research at that, so I don't see how coming up with a way of building extremely expensive technology at a tiny fraction of the cost in your garage is anything but exactly what a Ph.D. thesis is all about.
It's not a book report or high school research paper, you know.
You should be using a 2x4 with a handle cut in the end (ergonomics, you know).
If your kids are particularly unruly, just drill holes of various size in the face of the paddle. This decreases the wind resistance as you swing, and also reduces the overall mass. This makes it easier to swing, hurt worse when it strikes, and less likely to bruise the fleshy parts of the body, namely, the ass (the universally preferred location to apply punishment).
We hear about next gen nuclear power and fuel recycling etc but its all just talk nobody ever cites an example.
The reason we don't recycle spent Uranium in the US is because the Government was afraid of weapon's grade plutonium being produced (which is technically legitimate, but very silly).
So instead we're content to use only 1% or so of the potential accessible energy in the fuel rods, instead of the 10-20% other countries are able to get.
We're also stuck using plants built in the 70's because it's impossible to get a permit to build a new plant in the US.
The nuclear efficiency problem is a completely artificial problem, and even so nuclear is still one of the cheapest forms of energy generation.
If you want to talk about subsidized power, look no further than Wind. It's cheaper to build new turbines, thanks to government subsidies, than it is to maintain existing turbines. Drive through California sometime to see what I mean, there are dead turbines everywhere.
Vibration. There is only so much they can handle before they literally start to fall apart. This is true of all machines, but especially true of large rotating machines.
Slashdot Mirror
you should not have to pay an early termination charge because the provider chose to terminate the agreement.
However they may still attempt to collect it from you. At that point, you must sue, and you sadly must weigh the options: eat $500 or spend $5,000 so you don't have to pay $500. It's not a given that you'll get you $5,000 back if you win, though the threat might be enough to make them back off.
Verizon has always seen their customers purely as a source of profit, and has done everything they can to maximize the fees they can charge customers...
Somebody doesn't understand the point of a "business".
The good and bad methods out there are simply different strategies, and frankly, constantly screwing your customers is usually a bad one unless you are in a monopoly position.
Hey, guess what kind of position most telco's are in? Thanks Mr. Government, really appreciate that one!
What is even more disturbing is that all the telcos in the US have generally increased their SMS rates to a new high. They now charge the same outrageous fee ($0.20 in, $0.20 out), leading me to believe that instead of competing, they are colluding.
Not all, my SMS is $7 a month for unlimited messages, another $8 for unlimited data on a non-smart phone (don't bother, it sucks), and standard $30 for unlimited smart phone data (includes texts). It's a local carrier though, and they pound you up the poop chute in other ways (namely getting their cable internet - it's hella expensive and the only decent option here).
French copyright still gives far more rights to the creators than US copyright, and it always has. It was one of the driving forces behind the Berne convention.
The article is right about about the "copyright ratchet", but it's extremely short-sighted and, frankly, wrong when it says that it is the US pushing its laws onto the rest of the world. It has recently been driven by the US - things like the DMCA and Sonny Bono act and such, but most of the draconian copyright laws did not exist in the US until the 60's, where we were the ones who were "ratcheted up" to the rest of the world's standards, which had already been ratcheted up by the French (who still have the most restrictive copyright laws in the world, in my opinion). The French still give far more rights to author's/artists than the US does, so to say it is US driven is a little disingenuous, or at the very least completely ignorant of history. It also goes squarely against the articles main point: that copyright harmonization is any different than any other harmonization. There are swings back and forth.
The real difference between copyright harmonization and other types of harmonization is copyright law affects everyone every single day, where most laws only affect a few people at any given time. Yet only a very small number of people are involved in the decision making process. Our supposed representatives are too easily swayed by lobbyists, they aren't considering the people any more.
You do realize you're riffing on Ayn Rand, right? Not saying that's good or bad, but few people realize that was her principle point.
Maybe because it wasn't? Have you read any of her work? Or do you just get the liberal Cliff's notes?
She wasn't about stealing from society by force of law, she was about freedom from being coerced into giving to society. They are very different things (though to a socialist, they are identical). What about this law increases the freedom from being coerced into giving to society?
Frankly, Ayn Rand would be appalled at the proposed German law. It represents the exact opposite of the ideals she supported. In fact, it is very, very similar to the central theme in Atlas Shrugged. In Atlas Shrugged, it was impossible to exist in mainstream society without breaking the law. Her solution was to step out of society completely, and form a new one.
There was one pirate in the story, but he was characterized as quite a narcissistic asshole (though irresistible to the main character), and most of the people in the reclusive society of "doers" did not approve of his methods. John Galt, the elusive figure around which the story was built, and the ultimate role model pushed forward by Rand, was certainly no pirate. He did preach too much, in my opinion, when given the opportunity. That part of the book sucked.
Indeed, headlines are purported to be facts, and they certainly look like facts (man drowns in river, oil spill to break record, etc). Under pretty much all copyright law in the world facts are not copyrightable. The very idea of it is insane. It's the composition that's copyrightable, not the content. You can't copy someone's article word for word, but you can use that article as a source and say the exact same facts.
I can't believe newspapers of all people are dumb enough not to see what this could do to them. It's not going to make any kind of effecitve "headline exchange", people will just use different headlines. They'll start adding things like "New York Times says 'Headless Man Runs Nude Through Central Park'" instead of "Headless Man Runs Nude Through Central Park". That would pass muster, because it is a quote: The NYT did indeed say that (if they said it of course).
Actually he does, right here:
This list is by no means exhaustive.
Yeah, it's those friggin antonym nut-jobs!
THX 1138, that's who. And he'll run away if you don't get it right!
Meh, just give them the "Noone" surname. For such a rare surname, it's extremely common on Slashdot.
I think there are quite a few people that will kindly (or maybe not-so-kindly) explain why "Mc" and "Mac" are not the same.
And they'd all be completely fucking wrong.
"Mc" is an abbreviated form of "Mac", which is a condensed version of "Meic" which is the condensed version of the phrase "mac meic", which means "son of the son of". It is found in both Scotland and Ireland because the Scots got their surname convention directly from the Irish. You don't find any O's (i.e. O'Flanigan) in Scotland simply because the "ua" (from which the O comes) form had fallen out of favor by the time the Scottish began using the Irish naming conventions.
If more Scots knew their own ancestry it wouldn't be a problem, but that's true of almost every argument of the sort.
The Scots and Irishmen are nothing more than brothers who fight too much.
Mr. Khan and Mr. Jintao are just as valid as Mr. President. Same with Mr. General or Mr. Principal, or Mr. Secretary. Using "Mister" in front of a title is perfectly valid and very common in English.
In other words, you're completely fucking wrong, you idiot retard.
And "Mr." is an abbreviation for "Mister" and should be punctuated as such.
That's right, a true Scotsman would use the old "mac meic X" convention.
Dealing with all the stupid customers who get confused by the overly complex passwords they'd type in would be more expensive than the occasional cracked 0-9 account.
That is bullshit, and is exactly why most people can't remember the complex passwords they have. I've experienced this first hand at a military base with some similar ridiculous requirements. You could walk down the hallway, and half the offices had a sticky with their account name and password stuck to the screen, because the password was too anti-mnemonic and changed to often to ever really remember.
A 9 digit password with two upper case letters, two lower case letters, two numbers, and two special characters is just as hard to remember as a 15 digit password with the same requirements, and far harder to create a unique password for. It seriously cuts down on the number of potential combinations, and makes the password significantly easier to brute force than a system with every possibility available.
Pass phrases are more secure than anything out there, and are far easier to remember, yet bullshit like this is why they aren't more common. Require at least three words and plain dictionary words become available and provide far more security than nine digits ever could.
Of the single-word password systems that do not allow dictionary words, short passwords with multiple mandatory requirements are about the least secure there are, and among the hardest to create and remember. Most of these passwords the only way people can keep them straight is to write them down, particularly if they aren't used very frequently (like a bank account password).
Without proper address validation, the server accepts the entire message, instead of just the address. That's what the \x004@ bit was about. When an email gets sent, it's a big string of data with headers. If you do email address filtering (which is what the GP did) instead of actual validation you can send an entire message in a field that is only supposed to accept the address.
It is literally the entire email message encapsulated in the address, and any time that address gets processed it shows up as a normal email, not just an absurd email address.
Filtering is easy, validation is hard. Validation is necessary for email to work as intended.
Because no one ever automated the process of filling out web-forms right?
Pffft, the idea is absurd! You'd need a computer to do that, and what spammer has a computer?
Oh, right. Yeah, all of them. My bad.
It's "+1 Insightful", or just "+1 Underrated".
Of course, Christianity has its roots in Judaism, which while not exactly "spread" by the point of the sword, it was advanced by the point of the sword.
Judaism's history was a very violent one, though they were/are not particularly interested in spreading the religion, because it is a racial religion.
It's really sad that you were marked "insightful" instead of "funny".
Is satire dead in this country?
I would think most of the great Ph.D.'s would be DIY, else what's the point? Your thesis is supposed to be original research, and serious research at that, so I don't see how coming up with a way of building extremely expensive technology at a tiny fraction of the cost in your garage is anything but exactly what a Ph.D. thesis is all about.
It's not a book report or high school research paper, you know.
That screensaver is pimp.
Yeah, seriously.
You should be using a 2x4 with a handle cut in the end (ergonomics, you know).
If your kids are particularly unruly, just drill holes of various size in the face of the paddle. This decreases the wind resistance as you swing, and also reduces the overall mass. This makes it easier to swing, hurt worse when it strikes, and less likely to bruise the fleshy parts of the body, namely, the ass (the universally preferred location to apply punishment).
We hear about next gen nuclear power and fuel recycling etc but its all just talk nobody ever cites an example.
The reason we don't recycle spent Uranium in the US is because the Government was afraid of weapon's grade plutonium being produced (which is technically legitimate, but very silly).
So instead we're content to use only 1% or so of the potential accessible energy in the fuel rods, instead of the 10-20% other countries are able to get.
We're also stuck using plants built in the 70's because it's impossible to get a permit to build a new plant in the US.
The nuclear efficiency problem is a completely artificial problem, and even so nuclear is still one of the cheapest forms of energy generation.
If you want to talk about subsidized power, look no further than Wind. It's cheaper to build new turbines, thanks to government subsidies, than it is to maintain existing turbines. Drive through California sometime to see what I mean, there are dead turbines everywhere.
Vibration. There is only so much they can handle before they literally start to fall apart. This is true of all machines, but especially true of large rotating machines.