"Many laws have been repealed and governments overthrown because people were more concerned with doing what was right than doing what was legal."
But the real change - the change that counts in the end - happened when those laws were repealed, not when people were flouting them, unjust as they may be. Slavery didn't end when people ignored or broke laws condoning the practice, but when those laws were finally gone.
So yes, it is the legality that counts.
No, because the laws were only repealed due to people not supporting them and, as a result, not following them.
You're only looking at the end result, not what caused that result to occur.
I never said it wasn't. Just that it's an absurd price and that I don't feel sorry for a person charging 50+ times the actual value of the product if people pirate it instead.
Sorry, but I don't blame people for pirating $1,000 software because unless it's software that allows you to print money, NO program is worth that much.
The only reason insane prices like that exist for software is because the people running businesses are morons. If all businesses told MS "Sorry, we're not paying $500 per user for Office 2010 - we're willing pay $150 per user and if you don't like that, we'll switch to Open Office", you better believe the price of Office 2010 would drop real quick. The problem is that the idiots making decisions think that they "need" software XYZ and if they don't buy the newest version of it that they'll somehow be uncompetitive.
"There is a difference between morality and legality. Learn it."
The difference being, it's the legality that counts.
Countless people throughout history would beg to disagree with you. Many laws have been repealed and governments overthrown because people were more concerned with doing what was right than doing what was legal.
It's perfectly related. They're both issues of a company (Apple and Dell) selling defective hardware and claiming that it's not defective when they got caught.
Yes, I'm aware of that. However, I've seen no evidence that the software backwards compatibility wasn't just code that they stopped including in the OS.
My thoughts on the PS2 compatibility? I think that it's a simple software feature that they removed once they saw that there was still demand for new PS2 consoles. Once they reach a point where no one wants to buy PS2 consoles anymore, I have a feeling that they'll push an update that adds PS2 compatibility (seeing as there's no reason it can't do it since the PS3 will play PSX games).
And how long until you are actually allowed to install it on your phone? And will your carrier even port it to run on your hardware? You don't just get to install those unless you root your phone.
It's already "out". The "in a month" was referring to when the update would be on most phones. It's already on the Nexus One.
In what world is 320x480 at 163ppi the same resolution as 480x800 217ppi?
Wow, someone mixes up a resolution and you cry about it? Of course, an Apple person such as yourself is incapable of making a mistake.... The point stands that the image quality on screen on the biggest Android phones is so good that you wouldn't notice much difference (if any) between it and the iPhone 4 in actual usage. Yes, on paper the iPhone 4 has a better display - but the screen size is too small for it to be noticeable.
That is flat out incorrect. The space on the iPhone can be used for anything, it is not segmented by file type. You are wrong.
No, I'm not. As I said, I used to own an iPhone and looked into it once. It was a good 8 months ago, so don't ask me if it was mentioned somewhere in the phones settings or on a tech site, but it's limited.
Apparently someone (you) hasn't taken a look at the Android Marketplace.
Did I ever say that Android didn't have a lot of crappy apps? No, I didn't. I merely pointed out that it's a lie to claim that Apple has more "quality" apps simply because it has more apps.
What apps are companies like Capcom and Square making for Android? Last I checked, major game developers are only targeting one platform
First, I said "very few companies" - last I checked, Capcom and Square were two companies, not most. Secondly, if you're a gamer, you already have other systems meaning that your comment about "targeting only one platform" is false as well (since they also target PS3, 360, Nintendo and their handhelds as well...)
You are the mirror image of the so-called Apple fanboys, just for a different company.
Nope, I just hate lying trolls like you who worship at the Church of Apple and refuse to accept that there are other devices as good or possibly better than something Apple makes. If I was an Android fanboy, why did I buy an iPhone over an Android phone before? I didn't change to Android until after Android phones were as good / better than iPhones. I go with whatever company makes the best product. For the time being, it's NOT Apple. In a year I might ditch my Evo for an iPhone 5, I won't know until I see the phones out next year.
The specs I'm seeing are 8GB built in + 16GB SD card as standard. That's 24GB total. You could up it to 8+32 = 40GB, but that will add to the cost.
Yes, 24 GB for $199 on the Droid X versus 16 GB for $199 on the iPhone. Then it's what, $70-$100 for a 32 GB card? That means (roughly) $299 for 40 GB on the Droid X versus $299 for 32 GB on the iPhone. Either way, the Droid X has more storage per $.
You can only put applications on the 8GB.
For now. Once 2.2 comes out in oh, about a whole month, you can install apps to your SD card. Also, if you read up on iPhones, you'll realize that only a small portion of their storage capacity can be used for apps - most of it is dedicated to file stores (music, movies, books, pictures).
And if an application does offer the option of saving to either disk, then that must add complexity to the UI. iPhone is easy - you don't have to worry about where to save data.
You've obviously never even touched an Android phone.
For a significantly larger screen. The resolution improvement is far better than simply looking at the screen pixel counts would suggest.
I had an iPhone 3GS and now I have an Evo. Despite both being the same resolution, the image quality on the Evo is MUCH better, despite being a 33% larger screen. Again, try USING an Android phone before you bash them.
You're comparing a yet to be released Android device with a recently released iPhone. And the Android device is behind.
You haven't read the specs on an Evo or Droid X compared to an iPhone 4, have you? The iPhone 4 has virtually no advantages over any of the new Android phones and then there's the fact that you don't lose your signal just for holding your Android phone;-)
But by then it'll be up against the iPhone 5, which will have progressed again in various areas - not necessarily the screen. Android will always be playing catch up.
And now you've thoroughly proven that you're nothing but a trolling Apple fanboy. Apple makes minor changes once a year where Android handsets make major changes every few months. Could Apple beat Android? It's possible, but unlikely due to Lord Jobs' ego.
Dont forget the superior optics in the iPhone, the second front facing camera in the iPhone, or the gyroscope in the iPhone.
I'm unsure of what you're referring to by "optics" - if you mean the back camera, it's pretty even actually when you use them. As for the front camera, not only does an Evo have a front camera, but it has a higher resolution and isn't restricted to the crippled Facetime software for video calls. As for the gyroscope, please, give me an example of something that this matters for - it's a gimmick, nothing more.
Don't forget the iPhone is smaller in all dimensions, and lighter too.
Smaller != better. Especially since it means a much smaller screen that's harder to read things on and requires more zooming and scrolling to use.
Don't forget the iPhone has videoconferencing.
Android has that too - but I forgot, you intentionally keep from using an Android device so that you won't have your delusions shattered.
Don't forget the iPhone offers tap-to-focus for both stills and video. etc.
Yup, Android has that too (well, maybe not for video, but I haven't tried it yet).
So what do you get with the iPhone? A cool shiny device that works well in many situations and gives bragging rights
As long as those situations don't involve holding the phone;-) Also, it only gives you bragging rights among the uneducated masses that aren't smart enough to LOOK at other devices and realize that there's something outside the iPhone. Also, studies have shown
Awww, poor boy was bullied by someone with a tattoo or something?
No, I've just met plenty of trailer trash with tattoos. Anyone who's actually a badass doesn't feel the need for a tattoo to prove how tough they are because they're not concerned with proving how tough they are.
Do some people get tramp stamps or bands around their biceps because they're douchebags who think it'll make them look cool? Yes. Does that mean the person posting this question is one of them? Yes.
There, fixed that for ya!
Err, what does that have to do with anything? It's art. It might be good art, it might be bad art, but it's are all the same. Who gives a shit what the medium is?
Calling tattoos "art" is like calling rap "art" or the picture of the pee-drenched Mona Lisa (or was it the Last Supper? I forget) "art". They're not art, just a sad attempt to look cool by people with nothing worthwhile to offer the world.
As an aside, they aren't supposed to make you "look tough or interesting".
Tell that to the people thinking they're so tough or cool because they have a tattoo (in other words, the overwhelming majority of people with tattoos).
They're supposed to be an outward expression of personal values through art. If you don't like that, I suggest staying away from music, books, and other artforms, as apparently that's not your thing.
Faulty comparison. Someone's taste in music, books, painting, etc doesn't require them to PERMANANTLY have it ruin their body. A Motley Crue t-shirt can be taken off once you realize that they're not as cool as you thought they were.....
Your "a job is a privilege not a right" is about a hundred years late.
Sorry, but having job X IS a privilege. You have the right to have A job, but companies have the right to not hire you if they don't like you (that includes having trashy tattoos, piercings, or not being able to speak English like anyone who passed the 3rd grade).
Because whether I do business with Nike or not, they will use slave labour.
Nike, nor any other business that I'm aware of, uses slave labor. Just because you don't like the wages they pay, doesn't make it slave labor. There's an incident recently of a tuna company being required by people like you to raise wages in an asian factory - as a result, they cut labor. Before, they were paying the normal rate in that country and employing thousands of people. Now they pay more and they dramatically cut the number of people working. I'm sure the people who are now unemployed are real grateful that people like you decided you knew what was best for them and caused them to lose their jobs.
And whether I use a bike or car, we are running out of oil soon
I want us off oil mostly because I despise OPEC and it would give certain political groups a lot less power to push their other ideas. However, the myth that we are "running out of oil soon" is FUD that's been spread since the late 1800's.
the case is only relevant as an example that corporations will only do 'the decent thing' when forced by public opinion.
No, it's an example of companies NOT doing the right thing and letting people skip out on their bills because emotional and irrational people like you scream "But something sad that's totally unrelated to her ability to pay her bills happened! She shouldn't have to pay her bills!" As I pointed out before, the only reason that Verizon caved is because he was a Marine and this fucked up society worships the military as infallible, so they don't want to risk getting labeled as anti-military.
As you yourself pointed out, there is no particularly compelling moral reason this woman shoud be excempt from her contract - but Verizon cares naught for the actual moral issues, the troops, whatever; they have an obligation to their shareholders only to care about one thing!
Ok, see, now you're just not even making sense anymore. You acknowledge that there's no reason for them to let her off the hook, yet then demand that if it wasn't for those "evil shareholders" that they would let her off the hook. Really, your foaming at the mouth rage over people doing business with each other is way past being annoyed when companies do something bad (I'm with you on going after them when they do something bad) and has now passed into the inane ravings of a lunatic.
If you're that upset that sometimes when people interact they make choices of their own free will that you don't like, then I suggest building a hut in the wilderness where you'll never have to interact with people again.
Seeing as how I'm against stealing money of any sort, I'm against bailouts for companies as well. But since you mentioned in your subject line "too big to fail", I feel compelled to point out that "too big to fail" is just as ludicrous an idea as your notion of "too sad to pay their bills".
No, Verizon only did it because he was a Marine and we worship the military in this fucked up society.
But just to test you, how about a different situation - a person has bills that run around 50-60% of their monthly income and then ends up unemployed and unable to get unemployment insurance - should they be allowed to skip out on their bills as opposed to using the money they had in savings and credit cards to pay the bills until they get a job again?
The most powerful individuals in it are fictitious, and by definition uncaring and inhuman.
Caring has nothing to do with the matter at hand. She had a contract that requires a fee of $X if she broke it. She is more than able to pay the fee and she broke it. She should be required to pay up. If it was some insane circumstance where she had no job and no savings at all and every last penny she had went to pay for her husbands funeral (which would actually be paid by the government, but this is hypothetical), then yes, I'd say that Verizon should be nice and not make her pay. That's not the case though. She's exploiting her husbands death to not pay her bills that she's fully capable of paying.
I am basically just saying we should not let them run things...
If you don't like company X or industry Y, then don't do business with them and they won't "run things". No one made her get a cell phone and no one made her break her contract. Those were her choices and hers alone. You're arguing that she should be exempted from the consequences of her actions because her husband died, which is sad, yet irrelevant to her paying her cell phone bill.
Basic theory of national defence: fight your wars on someone else's soil. Otherwise you'll be fighting them on your soil.
Except that these were countries that we had no quarrel with and no reason to go to war with. If we didn't attack them, they would not have attacked us. Those wars were fought over politicians personal agendas, just like the current one.
Also, fun fact - did you know that without explicit Congressional approval, it is unconstitutional for the US to have a standing military in a time of peace? Kind of explains why ever since WWII the government has always had some bogus excuse for a perpetual war or "police action" of some sort.....
Really? The Army pays for his mortgage while he's away?
I guess you missed the part in that guys calculation where he mentioned monthly stipend for housing.
So, because I think a woman should pay her bills instead of exploiting her husbands death to get out of her (not his, HER) legal obligations, I'm disgusting?
It's the irrational and irresponsible people like you that make me proud to get flamed for advocating personal responsibility.
Well first off, as it's been pointed out plenty of times, this was HER personal phone she was canceling, NOT his and NOT a joint account. Secondly, why the fuck should he get special treatment for his job?
Common sense and ethics have NOTHING to do with waiving a persons bills just because a totally unrelated unfortunate incident happens. The fact that you want to promote the military as being superior to us mere peasants and that they should get more special privileges than they already do shows a complete lack of ethics on your part.
You probably favor the system where being in the military gives you an automatic bump to the head of the line in getting a government job - even if the job is completely unrelated to the military. Yea, if it's a job such as police or FBI, sure, you should get an advantage because you have related experience. However, promoting a person who was in the military for a scientist position over a much more qualified person who wasn't in the military is just idiotic.
So, you think that because her husband died, she should be allowed to skip out on paying her bills? Hey, cancel her credit cards, her mortgage, student loans, car loan - all of her debt is vanished because her husband died! That's not how it works, nor should it. A bill specifically relating to service for him (such as his personal cell phone) should be (and legally is) voided because he's dead and not using the service anymore. However, since the bill she wanted (and got) waived had nothing to do with him, she should be required to pay it.
If there is not legal protection for something like a cell phone service contract, there should be. And Verizon should be shamed for this asinine handling of the situation. Not only was he actively serving and quite busy... but he fucking died for Christ's sake. Assholes
Sorry, but you're the asshole. If you bothered to RTFA, you'd know it was HER cellphone she wanted to skip out on paying the ETF for, NOT his. There are laws against charging an ETF on a dead persons contract. This wasn't his contract though, and as such it's rather disappointing that Verizon let her skip out on paying her bills just because she went to the media with a sob story that had nothing to do with her being charged an ETF.
So he makes a grand total of approximately 2641.6 a month to defend our country
Explain to me what exactly the war has to do with defending our country?
The US has only fought one war in the last century that involved defending our country, and that was fighting against the Japanese during WWII because they attacked Pearl Harbor first. The rest of them were pointless wars for politicians personal agendas and the safety of the US and it's citizens was never threatened.
Oh, and your figures are severely skewed because you forgot to take into account the fact that when he's deployed the military covers all of his expenses, so that money is pure profit.
Why would a corporation care about a grieving widow, unless there was some sort of bad publicity to arise out of... oh dear.
And why does the fact that her husband died mean that she shouldn't have to pay for her cellphone bill? I'd understand if it was HIS phone that she was deactivating (they aren't allowed to charge an ETF for cancelling the service of someone who's dead), but it was HER phone she was cancelling because she chose to move to a place where she wouldn't get service.
Her husband dying is completely irrelevant to the issue with Verizon charging her an ETF as was stated in her contract. The issue here is a woman decided of her own volition to move to a place where she wouldn't get service with Verizon and as such, she canceled her contract early. Instead of paying the ETF as she should, she uses a sob story about how her husband died (which had no impact on the phone bill, since we're only talking about canceling HER phone) and as such, she shouldn't be expected to pay her bills and fulfill her legal obligations.
I accidentally broke my phone and decided to change carriers when I got a new one - I paid the ETF without complaint. Paying an ETF on a broken phone is much more ridiculous than paying an ETF because you decide to move where you know you won't get service.
I know, I'll get modded down because people want to say "But her husband died!" - yes, he did, and that sucks for her big time. I'd hate to have something like that happen to me. However, it doesn't change the fact that she still has to pay her bills and uphold her end of the contract.
Slashdot Mirror
"Many laws have been repealed and governments overthrown because people were more concerned with doing what was right than doing what was legal."
But the real change - the change that counts in the end - happened when those laws were repealed, not when people were flouting them, unjust as they may be. Slavery didn't end when people ignored or broke laws condoning the practice, but when those laws were finally gone.
So yes, it is the legality that counts.
No, because the laws were only repealed due to people not supporting them and, as a result, not following them.
You're only looking at the end result, not what caused that result to occur.
I never said it wasn't. Just that it's an absurd price and that I don't feel sorry for a person charging 50+ times the actual value of the product if people pirate it instead.
Sorry, but I don't blame people for pirating $1,000 software because unless it's software that allows you to print money, NO program is worth that much.
The only reason insane prices like that exist for software is because the people running businesses are morons. If all businesses told MS "Sorry, we're not paying $500 per user for Office 2010 - we're willing pay $150 per user and if you don't like that, we'll switch to Open Office", you better believe the price of Office 2010 would drop real quick. The problem is that the idiots making decisions think that they "need" software XYZ and if they don't buy the newest version of it that they'll somehow be uncompetitive.
"There is a difference between morality and legality. Learn it."
The difference being, it's the legality that counts.
Countless people throughout history would beg to disagree with you. Many laws have been repealed and governments overthrown because people were more concerned with doing what was right than doing what was legal.
It's perfectly related. They're both issues of a company (Apple and Dell) selling defective hardware and claiming that it's not defective when they got caught.
So, does that mean only a rotten company would sell defective phones and lie about it claiming that the customers are "just holding it wrong"?
Yes, I'm aware of that. However, I've seen no evidence that the software backwards compatibility wasn't just code that they stopped including in the OS.
My thoughts on the PS2 compatibility? I think that it's a simple software feature that they removed once they saw that there was still demand for new PS2 consoles. Once they reach a point where no one wants to buy PS2 consoles anymore, I have a feeling that they'll push an update that adds PS2 compatibility (seeing as there's no reason it can't do it since the PS3 will play PSX games).
And how long until you are actually allowed to install it on your phone? And will your carrier even port it to run on your hardware? You don't just get to install those unless you root your phone.
It's already "out". The "in a month" was referring to when the update would be on most phones. It's already on the Nexus One.
In what world is 320x480 at 163ppi the same resolution as 480x800 217ppi?
Wow, someone mixes up a resolution and you cry about it? Of course, an Apple person such as yourself is incapable of making a mistake.... The point stands that the image quality on screen on the biggest Android phones is so good that you wouldn't notice much difference (if any) between it and the iPhone 4 in actual usage. Yes, on paper the iPhone 4 has a better display - but the screen size is too small for it to be noticeable.
That is flat out incorrect. The space on the iPhone can be used for anything, it is not segmented by file type. You are wrong.
No, I'm not. As I said, I used to own an iPhone and looked into it once. It was a good 8 months ago, so don't ask me if it was mentioned somewhere in the phones settings or on a tech site, but it's limited.
Apparently someone (you) hasn't taken a look at the Android Marketplace.
Did I ever say that Android didn't have a lot of crappy apps? No, I didn't. I merely pointed out that it's a lie to claim that Apple has more "quality" apps simply because it has more apps.
What apps are companies like Capcom and Square making for Android? Last I checked, major game developers are only targeting one platform
First, I said "very few companies" - last I checked, Capcom and Square were two companies, not most. Secondly, if you're a gamer, you already have other systems meaning that your comment about "targeting only one platform" is false as well (since they also target PS3, 360, Nintendo and their handhelds as well...)
You are the mirror image of the so-called Apple fanboys, just for a different company.
Nope, I just hate lying trolls like you who worship at the Church of Apple and refuse to accept that there are other devices as good or possibly better than something Apple makes. If I was an Android fanboy, why did I buy an iPhone over an Android phone before? I didn't change to Android until after Android phones were as good / better than iPhones. I go with whatever company makes the best product. For the time being, it's NOT Apple. In a year I might ditch my Evo for an iPhone 5, I won't know until I see the phones out next year.
The specs I'm seeing are 8GB built in + 16GB SD card as standard. That's 24GB total. You could up it to 8+32 = 40GB, but that will add to the cost.
Yes, 24 GB for $199 on the Droid X versus 16 GB for $199 on the iPhone. Then it's what, $70-$100 for a 32 GB card? That means (roughly) $299 for 40 GB on the Droid X versus $299 for 32 GB on the iPhone. Either way, the Droid X has more storage per $.
You can only put applications on the 8GB.
For now. Once 2.2 comes out in oh, about a whole month, you can install apps to your SD card. Also, if you read up on iPhones, you'll realize that only a small portion of their storage capacity can be used for apps - most of it is dedicated to file stores (music, movies, books, pictures).
And if an application does offer the option of saving to either disk, then that must add complexity to the UI. iPhone is easy - you don't have to worry about where to save data.
You've obviously never even touched an Android phone.
For a significantly larger screen. The resolution improvement is far better than simply looking at the screen pixel counts would suggest.
I had an iPhone 3GS and now I have an Evo. Despite both being the same resolution, the image quality on the Evo is MUCH better, despite being a 33% larger screen. Again, try USING an Android phone before you bash them.
You're comparing a yet to be released Android device with a recently released iPhone. And the Android device is behind.
You haven't read the specs on an Evo or Droid X compared to an iPhone 4, have you? The iPhone 4 has virtually no advantages over any of the new Android phones and then there's the fact that you don't lose your signal just for holding your Android phone ;-)
But by then it'll be up against the iPhone 5, which will have progressed again in various areas - not necessarily the screen. Android will always be playing catch up.
And now you've thoroughly proven that you're nothing but a trolling Apple fanboy. Apple makes minor changes once a year where Android handsets make major changes every few months. Could Apple beat Android? It's possible, but unlikely due to Lord Jobs' ego.
Dont forget the superior optics in the iPhone, the second front facing camera in the iPhone, or the gyroscope in the iPhone.
I'm unsure of what you're referring to by "optics" - if you mean the back camera, it's pretty even actually when you use them. As for the front camera, not only does an Evo have a front camera, but it has a higher resolution and isn't restricted to the crippled Facetime software for video calls. As for the gyroscope, please, give me an example of something that this matters for - it's a gimmick, nothing more.
Don't forget the iPhone is smaller in all dimensions, and lighter too.
Smaller != better. Especially since it means a much smaller screen that's harder to read things on and requires more zooming and scrolling to use.
Don't forget the iPhone has videoconferencing.
Android has that too - but I forgot, you intentionally keep from using an Android device so that you won't have your delusions shattered.
Don't forget the iPhone offers tap-to-focus for both stills and video. etc.
Yup, Android has that too (well, maybe not for video, but I haven't tried it yet).
So what do you get with the iPhone? A cool shiny device that works well in many situations and gives bragging rights
As long as those situations don't involve holding the phone ;-) Also, it only gives you bragging rights among the uneducated masses that aren't smart enough to LOOK at other devices and realize that there's something outside the iPhone. Also, studies have shown
Awww, poor boy was bullied by someone with a tattoo or something?
No, I've just met plenty of trailer trash with tattoos. Anyone who's actually a badass doesn't feel the need for a tattoo to prove how tough they are because they're not concerned with proving how tough they are.
Do some people get tramp stamps or bands around their biceps because they're douchebags who think it'll make them look cool? Yes. Does that mean the person posting this question is one of them? Yes.
There, fixed that for ya!
Err, what does that have to do with anything? It's art. It might be good art, it might be bad art, but it's are all the same. Who gives a shit what the medium is?
Calling tattoos "art" is like calling rap "art" or the picture of the pee-drenched Mona Lisa (or was it the Last Supper? I forget) "art". They're not art, just a sad attempt to look cool by people with nothing worthwhile to offer the world.
As an aside, they aren't supposed to make you "look tough or interesting".
Tell that to the people thinking they're so tough or cool because they have a tattoo (in other words, the overwhelming majority of people with tattoos).
They're supposed to be an outward expression of personal values through art. If you don't like that, I suggest staying away from music, books, and other artforms, as apparently that's not your thing.
Faulty comparison. Someone's taste in music, books, painting, etc doesn't require them to PERMANANTLY have it ruin their body. A Motley Crue t-shirt can be taken off once you realize that they're not as cool as you thought they were.....
Your "a job is a privilege not a right" is about a hundred years late.
Sorry, but having job X IS a privilege. You have the right to have A job, but companies have the right to not hire you if they don't like you (that includes having trashy tattoos, piercings, or not being able to speak English like anyone who passed the 3rd grade).
Because whether I do business with Nike or not, they will use slave labour.
Nike, nor any other business that I'm aware of, uses slave labor. Just because you don't like the wages they pay, doesn't make it slave labor. There's an incident recently of a tuna company being required by people like you to raise wages in an asian factory - as a result, they cut labor. Before, they were paying the normal rate in that country and employing thousands of people. Now they pay more and they dramatically cut the number of people working. I'm sure the people who are now unemployed are real grateful that people like you decided you knew what was best for them and caused them to lose their jobs.
And whether I use a bike or car, we are running out of oil soon
I want us off oil mostly because I despise OPEC and it would give certain political groups a lot less power to push their other ideas. However, the myth that we are "running out of oil soon" is FUD that's been spread since the late 1800's.
the case is only relevant as an example that corporations will only do 'the decent thing' when forced by public opinion.
No, it's an example of companies NOT doing the right thing and letting people skip out on their bills because emotional and irrational people like you scream "But something sad that's totally unrelated to her ability to pay her bills happened! She shouldn't have to pay her bills!" As I pointed out before, the only reason that Verizon caved is because he was a Marine and this fucked up society worships the military as infallible, so they don't want to risk getting labeled as anti-military.
As you yourself pointed out, there is no particularly compelling moral reason this woman shoud be excempt from her contract - but Verizon cares naught for the actual moral issues, the troops, whatever; they have an obligation to their shareholders only to care about one thing!
Ok, see, now you're just not even making sense anymore. You acknowledge that there's no reason for them to let her off the hook, yet then demand that if it wasn't for those "evil shareholders" that they would let her off the hook. Really, your foaming at the mouth rage over people doing business with each other is way past being annoyed when companies do something bad (I'm with you on going after them when they do something bad) and has now passed into the inane ravings of a lunatic.
If you're that upset that sometimes when people interact they make choices of their own free will that you don't like, then I suggest building a hut in the wilderness where you'll never have to interact with people again.
Seeing as how I'm against stealing money of any sort, I'm against bailouts for companies as well. But since you mentioned in your subject line "too big to fail", I feel compelled to point out that "too big to fail" is just as ludicrous an idea as your notion of "too sad to pay their bills".
No, Verizon only did it because he was a Marine and we worship the military in this fucked up society.
But just to test you, how about a different situation - a person has bills that run around 50-60% of their monthly income and then ends up unemployed and unable to get unemployment insurance - should they be allowed to skip out on their bills as opposed to using the money they had in savings and credit cards to pay the bills until they get a job again?
The most powerful individuals in it are fictitious, and by definition uncaring and inhuman.
Caring has nothing to do with the matter at hand. She had a contract that requires a fee of $X if she broke it. She is more than able to pay the fee and she broke it. She should be required to pay up. If it was some insane circumstance where she had no job and no savings at all and every last penny she had went to pay for her husbands funeral (which would actually be paid by the government, but this is hypothetical), then yes, I'd say that Verizon should be nice and not make her pay. That's not the case though. She's exploiting her husbands death to not pay her bills that she's fully capable of paying.
I am basically just saying we should not let them run things...
If you don't like company X or industry Y, then don't do business with them and they won't "run things". No one made her get a cell phone and no one made her break her contract. Those were her choices and hers alone. You're arguing that she should be exempted from the consequences of her actions because her husband died, which is sad, yet irrelevant to her paying her cell phone bill.
Basic theory of national defence: fight your wars on someone else's soil. Otherwise you'll be fighting them on your soil.
Except that these were countries that we had no quarrel with and no reason to go to war with. If we didn't attack them, they would not have attacked us. Those wars were fought over politicians personal agendas, just like the current one.
Also, fun fact - did you know that without explicit Congressional approval, it is unconstitutional for the US to have a standing military in a time of peace? Kind of explains why ever since WWII the government has always had some bogus excuse for a perpetual war or "police action" of some sort.....
Really? The Army pays for his mortgage while he's away?
I guess you missed the part in that guys calculation where he mentioned monthly stipend for housing.
Just because you feel sorry for someone, it doesn't mean that they get to skip out on paying their bills.
So, because I think a woman should pay her bills instead of exploiting her husbands death to get out of her (not his, HER) legal obligations, I'm disgusting?
It's the irrational and irresponsible people like you that make me proud to get flamed for advocating personal responsibility.
Well first off, as it's been pointed out plenty of times, this was HER personal phone she was canceling, NOT his and NOT a joint account. Secondly, why the fuck should he get special treatment for his job?
Common sense and ethics have NOTHING to do with waiving a persons bills just because a totally unrelated unfortunate incident happens. The fact that you want to promote the military as being superior to us mere peasants and that they should get more special privileges than they already do shows a complete lack of ethics on your part.
You probably favor the system where being in the military gives you an automatic bump to the head of the line in getting a government job - even if the job is completely unrelated to the military. Yea, if it's a job such as police or FBI, sure, you should get an advantage because you have related experience. However, promoting a person who was in the military for a scientist position over a much more qualified person who wasn't in the military is just idiotic.
So, you think that because her husband died, she should be allowed to skip out on paying her bills? Hey, cancel her credit cards, her mortgage, student loans, car loan - all of her debt is vanished because her husband died! That's not how it works, nor should it. A bill specifically relating to service for him (such as his personal cell phone) should be (and legally is) voided because he's dead and not using the service anymore. However, since the bill she wanted (and got) waived had nothing to do with him, she should be required to pay it.
If there is not legal protection for something like a cell phone service contract, there should be. And Verizon should be shamed for this asinine handling of the situation. Not only was he actively serving and quite busy... but he fucking died for Christ's sake. Assholes
Sorry, but you're the asshole. If you bothered to RTFA, you'd know it was HER cellphone she wanted to skip out on paying the ETF for, NOT his. There are laws against charging an ETF on a dead persons contract. This wasn't his contract though, and as such it's rather disappointing that Verizon let her skip out on paying her bills just because she went to the media with a sob story that had nothing to do with her being charged an ETF.
So he makes a grand total of approximately 2641.6 a month to defend our country
Explain to me what exactly the war has to do with defending our country?
The US has only fought one war in the last century that involved defending our country, and that was fighting against the Japanese during WWII because they attacked Pearl Harbor first. The rest of them were pointless wars for politicians personal agendas and the safety of the US and it's citizens was never threatened.
Oh, and your figures are severely skewed because you forgot to take into account the fact that when he's deployed the military covers all of his expenses, so that money is pure profit.
Why would a corporation care about a grieving widow, unless there was some sort of bad publicity to arise out of... oh dear.
And why does the fact that her husband died mean that she shouldn't have to pay for her cellphone bill? I'd understand if it was HIS phone that she was deactivating (they aren't allowed to charge an ETF for cancelling the service of someone who's dead), but it was HER phone she was cancelling because she chose to move to a place where she wouldn't get service.
Her husband dying is completely irrelevant to the issue with Verizon charging her an ETF as was stated in her contract. The issue here is a woman decided of her own volition to move to a place where she wouldn't get service with Verizon and as such, she canceled her contract early. Instead of paying the ETF as she should, she uses a sob story about how her husband died (which had no impact on the phone bill, since we're only talking about canceling HER phone) and as such, she shouldn't be expected to pay her bills and fulfill her legal obligations.
I accidentally broke my phone and decided to change carriers when I got a new one - I paid the ETF without complaint. Paying an ETF on a broken phone is much more ridiculous than paying an ETF because you decide to move where you know you won't get service.
I know, I'll get modded down because people want to say "But her husband died!" - yes, he did, and that sucks for her big time. I'd hate to have something like that happen to me. However, it doesn't change the fact that she still has to pay her bills and uphold her end of the contract.