I can't fault a manufacturer for not covering lost / damaged items within a warranty period. That's why some credit cards will cover you for lost/damaged goods. AMEX has been great with lost/damaged stuff for me (ran over a usb headset that dropped out of my ear once). Also Allianz and others will sell you loss/damage insurance which is cheap considering replacement cost of some of these items. I have my portables all covered this way and
T-Mobile and others are offering what Samsung has offered. Full Refund + $100 if you get another Samsung phone (S7) or $25 credit. I'm not sure on the contract side but if I extended my contract or signed up for service based on this device you'd have a good argument to terminate that deal. I do however think when you pay $800+ for a phone it should work, be safe as in not blow up and last as long as your contract. The carriers in this case aren't at fault but they should do everything to keep the business.
I realize Verizon buys content but the core search engine, web services, apis, and other things that make up yahoo. After the initial disclosure a few months ago and now this, I can't see Yahoo as being worth much of anything other than a name for epic failure.
Actually there's a recent spate of articles indicating that the Navy won't proceed with the ammo, which jumped to $800,000/round. While I agree with R&D being necessary, even cutting back to only three ships this seems like a tremendous sink hole of money.
So, Extremely expensive R&D, Avg. Cost/Ship $7.5B which is more than nuclear powered Nimitz Ronald Regan ($6.5B) it leaks, uses ammo that is 10x more than projected in terms of cost. This needs to be scrapped. I think that's what's missing really in Defense Spending, the ability to honestly start looking at red flags early on in a project so we don't develop these sink holes of one off (or three off) technology.
I have to also think that maintenance costs will be extremely high as well. I'd love to know what the lifetime costs of the three proposed ships would be.
Well I was talking the treaty itself, not the parties/personalities involved in it. Fundamentally the parties in the US are so far apart on things I doubt consensus is possible whereas I believe there are more common things that can be agreed upon in terms of national interests. Maybe I'm an optimist but considering Clinton flip flopped on it and depending on what side of the issue you were on and in what country there's pro and con positions. Trump has been against it, Republicans wouldn't consider it for a vote so it's a poison pill in its current form regardless of anything beneficial in it.
I think it was handled incorrectly from the start and especially considering how bad NAFTA has been for the US and the secrecy around its negotiations made it a non-starter. We also shouldn't have to rely on Wikileaks to actually find out what's going on regarding something that fundamentally intruded into so many aspects that I wouldn't consider "Trade." It's now a dead horse in the US, let it die. For the next 4 years it'll be interesting to see if it or some form of it is reworked to focus on Trade issues.
No, I write perfect code. It's always perfect because I wrote it. Don't bother reviewing it, it's perfect and works as designed. I designed it. Go away, you're preventing me from writing more code.
TPP I think we can all agree was a horrible piece of work. Negotiated in secret, lots of provisions that only big business would like etc. Obama has given up on it, Trump ran against, The Senate won't consider it so it's dead in its current form. That doesn't mean it can't be renegotiated and reworked and I think that'll be the tactic moving forward which may result in multiple agreements. This huge conglomeration of things that made it into TPP to me at least made it seem like a shadow government and from a sovereignty perspective I don't agree with that at all. I also think companies like Disney don't need any help protecting their IP/Content to the extents that TPP allowed.
Take for example Kim DotCom, under TPP he'd be doing time in Club Fed under TPP; he almost did without it and just for running a service where he wasn't violating copyright, the users of the service were.
Congress through its leadership can block any legislation from even getting considered. It's not in the constitution that way, but it's the way the procedural processes have evolved. Like the filibuster. Last year, McConnell told the WH TPP won't even be considered, just like the SCOTUS nominee. If it doesn't get to the floor for a vote, it never happened. The new administration can then merely come in, say we're withdrawing it and it's gone from any agenda consideration.
Unfortunately for all of us, left or right, there's no bilateral consensus anymore unless it's against a real or perceived threat. In those rare cases, of which we've seen a couple this year it'll get right through and voted on, often with veto proof votes.
come up with a political parody app and you won't be able to have it on the App Store. Develop a phony shopping app and you're given the green light. This is what we call hypocrisy folks and why Walled Gardens aren't all they are promised to be.
But Samsung wants to mine you just like Google and Apple do. That way they can provide targeted marketing opportunities and profiles to third parties. By using one service you're denying them their opportunity to mine you and that's antisocial..;-)
Tomlinson.. I was using rudimentary store/forward e-mail in 1976.. Don't however confuse that to a lawyer making an obtuse argument of invention to get money. I would have argued that since e-mail is a concept and not a product that it's not subject to ownership but maybe copyright.
looking at driving record (moving violations) as well as claims (at fault, no fault) and geographic area for accidents and claims. Pretty easy and doesn't create a ton of Orwellian privacy issues.
Stop introspecting the device within the browser framework. Browse the web, run sandboxed script code, but stop digging into the device. Leave the other information mining to apps with appropriate user controls to say fuck off when appropriate.
Having a device that's now confiscated before flying associated with the name Note is not going to go away. It's best for Samsung to drop the Note brand name and just expand their S device to a larger form factor.
I've been a happy Note owner for years, 3 different versions but when the specs on the Note 7 came out I saw it as a loser, too thin, too little battery life and I have to use mine on many flights. I've now had to show multiple flight attendants and gate agents that "no, this is a Note 6, not a Note 7." Sorry, next upgrade will be an LG for me and the Note is dead to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Priced Bose lately?
I can't fault a manufacturer for not covering lost / damaged items within a warranty period. That's why some credit cards will cover you for lost/damaged goods. AMEX has been great with lost/damaged stuff for me (ran over a usb headset that dropped out of my ear once). Also Allianz and others will sell you loss/damage insurance which is cheap considering replacement cost of some of these items. I have my portables all covered this way and
T-Mobile and others are offering what Samsung has offered. Full Refund + $100 if you get another Samsung phone (S7) or $25 credit. I'm not sure on the contract side but if I extended my contract or signed up for service based on this device you'd have a good argument to terminate that deal. I do however think when you pay $800+ for a phone it should work, be safe as in not blow up and last as long as your contract. The carriers in this case aren't at fault but they should do everything to keep the business.
It's dead, get your money back and get something else. I can't imagine anyone wanting to cling onto this burning POS.
I realize Verizon buys content but the core search engine, web services, apis, and other things that make up yahoo. After the initial disclosure a few months ago and now this, I can't see Yahoo as being worth much of anything other than a name for epic failure.
Her parachute is guaranteed, not that I agree she was worth that much to begin with but still she'll come out fine.
Actually there's a recent spate of articles indicating that the Navy won't proceed with the ammo, which jumped to $800,000/round.
While I agree with R&D being necessary, even cutting back to only three ships this seems like a tremendous sink hole of money.
So, Extremely expensive R&D, Avg. Cost/Ship $7.5B which is more than nuclear powered Nimitz Ronald Regan ($6.5B) it leaks, uses ammo that is 10x more than projected in terms of cost. This needs to be scrapped. I think that's what's missing really in Defense Spending, the ability to honestly start looking at red flags early on in a project so we don't develop these sink holes of one off (or three off) technology.
I have to also think that maintenance costs will be extremely high as well. I'd love to know what the lifetime costs of the three proposed ships would be.
$22B for three ships. That's not sustainable. It's time for the Pentagon to look for more reliable, less costly weapons systems.
Well I was talking the treaty itself, not the parties/personalities involved in it. Fundamentally the parties in the US are so far apart on things I doubt consensus is possible whereas I believe there are more common things that can be agreed upon in terms of national interests. Maybe I'm an optimist but considering Clinton flip flopped on it and depending on what side of the issue you were on and in what country there's pro and con positions. Trump has been against it, Republicans wouldn't consider it for a vote so it's a poison pill in its current form regardless of anything beneficial in it.
I think it was handled incorrectly from the start and especially considering how bad NAFTA has been for the US and the secrecy around its negotiations made it a non-starter. We also shouldn't have to rely on Wikileaks to actually find out what's going on regarding something that fundamentally intruded into so many aspects that I wouldn't consider "Trade." It's now a dead horse in the US, let it die. For the next 4 years it'll be interesting to see if it or some form of it is reworked to focus on Trade issues.
No, I write perfect code. It's always perfect because I wrote it. Don't bother reviewing it, it's perfect and works as designed. I designed it.
Go away, you're preventing me from writing more code.
TPP I think we can all agree was a horrible piece of work. Negotiated in secret, lots of provisions that only big business would like etc. Obama has given up on it, Trump ran against, The Senate won't consider it so it's dead in its current form. That doesn't mean it can't be renegotiated and reworked and I think that'll be the tactic moving forward which may result in multiple agreements. This huge conglomeration of things that made it into TPP to me at least made it seem like a shadow government and from a sovereignty perspective I don't agree with that at all. I also think companies like Disney don't need any help protecting their IP/Content to the extents that TPP allowed.
Take for example Kim DotCom, under TPP he'd be doing time in Club Fed under TPP; he almost did without it and just for running a service where he wasn't violating copyright, the users of the service were.
yup, never let it be said that the world doesn't have a shortage of hypocrites.
Congress through its leadership can block any legislation from even getting considered. It's not in the constitution that way, but it's the way the procedural processes have evolved. Like the filibuster. Last year, McConnell told the WH TPP won't even be considered, just like the SCOTUS nominee. If it doesn't get to the floor for a vote, it never happened. The new administration can then merely come in, say we're withdrawing it and it's gone from any agenda consideration.
Unfortunately for all of us, left or right, there's no bilateral consensus anymore unless it's against a real or perceived threat. In those rare cases, of which we've seen a couple this year it'll get right through and voted on, often with veto proof votes.
Are jumping for joy. Actually Vine has a big following, not as big as say Instagram but still a following.
come up with a political parody app and you won't be able to have it on the App Store. Develop a phony shopping app and you're given the green light. This is what we call hypocrisy folks and why Walled Gardens aren't all they are promised to be.
at at same volume as the owner as it burns through your pocket? That's the feature I want to see.
But Samsung wants to mine you just like Google and Apple do. That way they can provide targeted marketing opportunities and profiles to third parties. By using one service you're denying them their opportunity to mine you and that's antisocial.. ;-)
"How do I stop my phone from catching fire Samsung?"
Great read.
Tomlinson.. I was using rudimentary store/forward e-mail in 1976..
Don't however confuse that to a lawyer making an obtuse argument of invention to get money. I would have argued that since e-mail is a concept and not a product that it's not subject to ownership but maybe copyright.
looking at driving record (moving violations) as well as claims (at fault, no fault) and geographic area for accidents and claims. Pretty easy and doesn't create a ton of Orwellian privacy issues.
"The planet is fine, the people are fucked." - George Carlin
Stop introspecting the device within the browser framework. Browse the web, run sandboxed script code, but stop digging into the device. Leave the other information mining to apps with appropriate user controls to say fuck off when appropriate.
Reusing an old slogan, it does work however just without the fanfare.
Having a device that's now confiscated before flying associated with the name Note is not going to go away. It's best for Samsung to drop the Note brand name and just expand their S device to a larger form factor.
I've been a happy Note owner for years, 3 different versions but when the specs on the Note 7 came out I saw it as a loser, too thin, too little battery life and I have to use mine on many flights. I've now had to show multiple flight attendants and gate agents that "no, this is a Note 6, not a Note 7." Sorry, next upgrade will be an LG for me and the Note is dead to me.