I'm not defending her, but since her account was hacked, what stopped these emails from being fraudulent. Additionally, since we only received screenshots, and not a dump of the entire account, what is to say these were not simply photoshopped? I think they were real, and I believe she was illegally avoiding using the gov't email for dubious reasons, but seriously, what stops all of this from simply being that she was framed?
I just know I couldn't get it. They wouldn't offer it to me. I never found a policy reason why... just that they didn't allow me to buy it. It was quite a shock to me, I tell you. I'd never had a business refuse an offer to pay them more.
This site seems to also comment on it, but does not cite source.
If you look at the fine print on this website: http://www.comcastbusinessservices.com/spring08/, Comcast Digital Voice service is not available for public use such as "bars, restaurants and residential addresses" which implies that they restrict Business Class services. Sorry I can't get you a cut and dry proof, but I do have personal experience.
oh if only it could be... Then we'd have reasonable laws! Except that people still interpret the words differently than the intended meaning, so we'd still have lawyers looking to twist the law to fit the situation, and we'd be back where we are.
I think Shakespeare was on to something "Kill all the lawyers." (Not the best solution, but lawyers definitely have screwed up the system.)
Probably... Oh well, not everyone understands the point of the internet... I mean, come on, Wikipedia seems to be treating their online Encyclopedia as if it were a printed copy, and keep trimming off factual articles (a small percentage of deletions, I know, but still the same basic premise... some people just think less is better, and some think the web should be treated similar to print media... what to do? oh what to do?)
Hack your cable modem... the Trunk can handle much more than what your one house is pulling, and most bandwidth caps are configuration driven, and are simply stored as a setting on the modem.
Disclaimer: I'm not advocating illegal activities... just answering a question:-)
They don't even provide me with what they promised contractually, and I'm supposed to think this is fair? And then when they finally get put to the screws, they turn around and say "here's the cap. Go over it, and you lose your internet" and I'm supposed to say "oh, that's better"? Really?
Consider this scenario (Yup, a car analogy!):
First off, let's assume buying a car is not a feasible option - let's say that due to some strange market circumstances, no company sells vehicles, and in order to buy one, you'd really need to buy a manufacturing company. Let's also assume that only one or two companies exist in any given area which will lease vehicles to consumers. With this premise in mind... here we go:
Let's say you're leasing a small car and need more flexibility.
I offer to lease you a minivan, and say it gets 400 miles to a tank, always starts, and can carry 1000 pounds of stuff, and included in your rental price is practically unlimited gas - say up to 5 full tanks per month.
You say "well, my only other options are the car that gets 20 miles to a tank, I have to pay per mileage fees, I pay for the gas, it usually starts, but can only carry 50 pounds of stuff, so even if this quadruples my car rental costs, it's worth it... deal!"
A week later, your minivan randomly doesn't start, and you have to call me and argue with me for 20 minutes and I finally say something about our system having a lock on that car, sorry, and turn it back on.
A couple days later, you have a project that requires you to make 3 trips to the lumber yard. You know it's just a minivan and not intended for this use, but you also know it can handle 1000 pounds, and can fit the wood you need, so you just decide to use it to pick up the lumber. You drive to the lumber yard, load it up, and bring back the first load - 100 miles round trip. No problems. Second load, no problems. Get in the car for the third load, and the car won't start.
You call me up to complain about the problem.
I respond "Our system shows you've hauled 2000 pounds of stuff today and have driven 200 miles. This is abnormal use. We shut off your vehicle. I can turn it back on, but you can't continue to haul the maximum load in this car repeatedly. How are we to know you aren't hauling stolen property? Also, the cost of the gas is too high, and it is causing us to be unable to provide practically unlimited gas to our other customers. We have to shut down their vehicles every so often when customers like you abuse the system like this, so it is not fair to our other customers. If you upgrade to our next package (it's 50% more), you can have 1200 miles and 3000 pounds maximums." You then ask "Will I run into issues if I use the maximum on this plan too?" I reply "Of course you can't use the full mileage or full capacity of the vehicle! It's just not fair to our other customers. This plan simply allows you a bigger share of the overall 'unlimited' gas."
You raise a stink. I respond by releasing a notice to all customers saying that the monthly allotment of mileage is limited to 1000 miles, state that this is reasonable usage, and that anyone going over this will have to give up their vehicle, and that customers who use too much in a given day will have their vehicle's use limited so as to help balance things out. I then move on as if this solved the problem. I don't reimburse you, I don't lower your rates... I just change the contract on you and tell you to like it. Oh, and you had to wait another week to finish your project because you were forced to pick up smaller loads from the lumber yard.
You'd be furious. You'd sue me to oblivion irregardless of any fine print that popped up in the car when you first turned it on. You'd cry out that it is false advertising and you'd be right.
/end of analogy
Comcast has done pretty much the same thing, and nothing is really happening to them yet.
When do I get what I paid for? If never, when do I get my partial refund?
Sadly, never.
And, obviously, going back to the old option just wouldn't work out too well either because the demands increased with the available supply. Oh well, now I'm screwed.
Great. Good point. So then they shouldn't sell it as 6Mbps unless I get a dedicated 6Mbps... sell me a clearly labeled 347kbps guaranteed with option to burst up to 6MBps (to be autobalanced against all other users using more than 347kbps) and an automatic cutoff cap of 250GB per month with no penalties for using it all up:
Be honest with me when selling me a package, and I won't complain about the service down the road. Tell me "you use too much, and we shut you off. Oh, you want to know how much you've used? Figure it out yourself, and we don't believe you anyways" and I can tell you (comcast) where to shove it.
You were too late anyways... someone registered Deletionist.com at 10:28pm EST - so someone beat you to the punch. Not sure what they will actually do with it, but whatever.
I get mail about 5 times per week where my email address is in the from email address... so I'm not sure this system would work too well anyways, especially since someone would just figure a way to "sign" the emails anyways. It would just be an arms race, and the spammers have lots of money to work with.
For this to work in the US, you would need to also remove the "case precedent" portion from the legal system. "Common folk" would not know enough about previous cases to be able to stand a chance against the rich who would have a lawyer build their case for them even if the law required the individual to defend themselves. If you remove case precedent and if you simplify the entire legal code, and then you have a system where self representation would be feasible.
Those are pretty big ifs, and cut out all of those who are making so much money off our legal system. Sadly, because of this, it is not likely to ever happen.
Interestingly enough, many good presidents have also been lawyers. Go figure.
The Summary implies "Obama no longer cares about Network Neutrality!", but I say this is just spreading FUD (cue the "flaimbait" mods... sigh). The GP says both candidates are puppets, but the parent says (rightfully so, IMHO) that it may have been "merely a way to package both [of their] views...", and I think xulfer's hit the nail on the head.
Yes, the website has been heavily edited, but as I read the edits, I looked at it from a writer and editor's perspective. Nothing added seemed to take away from the earlier content (and much of it clarified issues not previously commented on), nothing removed seemed to indicate that Obama's stance on Network Neutrality had changed (both versions sate that "Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.").
Basically, when looking at this from a writer and editor's perspective, whomever is responsible for this content decided that to keep all of this content while adding the new content would be information overload. The editor kept the summary portions and removed the long multi-paragraph clarifications and expansion on the summaries.
So, to sum it up: The exceptionally verbose descriptions were edited down to succinct statements of political position, new political stances not mentioned previously were added (with verbose descriptions), and the whole thing was cleaned up to be readable and clear.
And the people selling the product aren't the one's jailbreaking the phones... they sell a product that clearly states that it does not work on a standard iPhone. Nothing illegal in all of that.
Exactly... I'm not a mac user, but I have actually gone to their site to watch their commercials (I have Tivo, so I never see commercials normally). They're that funny!
Especially when he is attempting to build out forums that actually discuss the various costs associated with the various cities... this would seem like a logical way to organize the various discussions for the various cities.
What about iLive.net and the iLive Products? iPod and iLife and i-everythingelse doesn't mean that Apple owns everything that is the letter i followed by a word... same thing was decided with podcast (just because their devices were clearly the reason that "podcast" became a word didn't suddenly give them the legal right to fight everyone who used "pod" in their name or "podcast" to describe a "broadcast available as a downloadable mp3" or whatever the definition is nowadays).
I just mentioned the Apocrypha specifically, instead of the whole Septuagint, because the Septuagint has been used in many of the other translations, but I was specifically referring to the Apocrypha (the 13 books not considered canon until the Council of Trent in the 1500s, and then only considered canon by the Roman Catholic church, though I believe that even the Roman Catholic church has now dropped it from the list of canonical books of the bible), but thank you for the links:-)
Wow... I guess I wasn't clear enough that I don't feel that way... I was just pointing out some possible legitimate concerns for some people who may suffer from mild paranoia, schizophrenia, bi-polar, or depression (In response to the question "I take it you can prove you were harmed by this?"). This type of government behavior could very easily tip them over the edge and cause serious damage. And for that comment, I get modded as a troll and insulted by someone who obviously didn't read my statement:
The Biblegateway site is primarily, from my understanding, focused on Protestant translations of the 66 books of what is generally agreed apon as the Protestant Bible, and is limited some by copyright issues (it is costly for them to have the NIV Bible on there, for example, and they can only have so many). It does not contain the Catholic Apocrypha (that I've seen), nor does it contain the book of Mormon or other texts not included in the canonical Protestant Bible.
Even in ministries like this, they have to pick a niche, and having the dozens of various Protestant translations into English, and various translations into other languages, is rather impressive.
I look forward to reading the JPS 1917, but I don't believe that including it at BibleGateway.com would fit into their mission for the site.
Because of the limited space in my sig, I ommitted the word "Christian" from my sig, and if I had unlimited space, it would have read as:
Before commenting on the Christian Bible, please read it first, in various translations, so as to understand it fully.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not defending her, but since her account was hacked, what stopped these emails from being fraudulent. Additionally, since we only received screenshots, and not a dump of the entire account, what is to say these were not simply photoshopped? I think they were real, and I believe she was illegally avoiding using the gov't email for dubious reasons, but seriously, what stops all of this from simply being that she was framed?
I just know I couldn't get it. They wouldn't offer it to me. I never found a policy reason why... just that they didn't allow me to buy it. It was quite a shock to me, I tell you. I'd never had a business refuse an offer to pay them more.
http://www.tripso.com/today/comcasts-new-use-limit-a-headache-for-business-and-leisure-travelers/
This site seems to also comment on it, but does not cite source.
If you look at the fine print on this website: http://www.comcastbusinessservices.com/spring08/, Comcast Digital Voice service is not available for public use such as "bars, restaurants and residential addresses" which implies that they restrict Business Class services. Sorry I can't get you a cut and dry proof, but I do have personal experience.
oh if only it could be... Then we'd have reasonable laws! Except that people still interpret the words differently than the intended meaning, so we'd still have lawyers looking to twist the law to fit the situation, and we'd be back where we are.
I think Shakespeare was on to something "Kill all the lawyers." (Not the best solution, but lawyers definitely have screwed up the system.)
Probably... Oh well, not everyone understands the point of the internet... I mean, come on, Wikipedia seems to be treating their online Encyclopedia as if it were a printed copy, and keep trimming off factual articles (a small percentage of deletions, I know, but still the same basic premise... some people just think less is better, and some think the web should be treated similar to print media... what to do? oh what to do?)
Business Class is not available to all end users, so should not be considered a valid solution.
They sorta did... it's still available in verbose form in the referenced PDF. Not the best, but it is still there.
Hack your cable modem... the Trunk can handle much more than what your one house is pulling, and most bandwidth caps are configuration driven, and are simply stored as a setting on the modem.
:-)
Disclaimer: I'm not advocating illegal activities... just answering a question
They don't even provide me with what they promised contractually, and I'm supposed to think this is fair? And then when they finally get put to the screws, they turn around and say "here's the cap. Go over it, and you lose your internet" and I'm supposed to say "oh, that's better"? Really?
Consider this scenario (Yup, a car analogy!):
First off, let's assume buying a car is not a feasible option - let's say that due to some strange market circumstances, no company sells vehicles, and in order to buy one, you'd really need to buy a manufacturing company. Let's also assume that only one or two companies exist in any given area which will lease vehicles to consumers. With this premise in mind... here we go:
Let's say you're leasing a small car and need more flexibility.
I offer to lease you a minivan, and say it gets 400 miles to a tank, always starts, and can carry 1000 pounds of stuff, and included in your rental price is practically unlimited gas - say up to 5 full tanks per month.
You say "well, my only other options are the car that gets 20 miles to a tank, I have to pay per mileage fees, I pay for the gas, it usually starts, but can only carry 50 pounds of stuff, so even if this quadruples my car rental costs, it's worth it... deal!"
A week later, your minivan randomly doesn't start, and you have to call me and argue with me for 20 minutes and I finally say something about our system having a lock on that car, sorry, and turn it back on.
A couple days later, you have a project that requires you to make 3 trips to the lumber yard. You know it's just a minivan and not intended for this use, but you also know it can handle 1000 pounds, and can fit the wood you need, so you just decide to use it to pick up the lumber. You drive to the lumber yard, load it up, and bring back the first load - 100 miles round trip. No problems. Second load, no problems. Get in the car for the third load, and the car won't start.
You call me up to complain about the problem.
I respond "Our system shows you've hauled 2000 pounds of stuff today and have driven 200 miles. This is abnormal use. We shut off your vehicle. I can turn it back on, but you can't continue to haul the maximum load in this car repeatedly. How are we to know you aren't hauling stolen property? Also, the cost of the gas is too high, and it is causing us to be unable to provide practically unlimited gas to our other customers. We have to shut down their vehicles every so often when customers like you abuse the system like this, so it is not fair to our other customers. If you upgrade to our next package (it's 50% more), you can have 1200 miles and 3000 pounds maximums." You then ask "Will I run into issues if I use the maximum on this plan too?" I reply "Of course you can't use the full mileage or full capacity of the vehicle! It's just not fair to our other customers. This plan simply allows you a bigger share of the overall 'unlimited' gas."
You raise a stink. I respond by releasing a notice to all customers saying that the monthly allotment of mileage is limited to 1000 miles, state that this is reasonable usage, and that anyone going over this will have to give up their vehicle, and that customers who use too much in a given day will have their vehicle's use limited so as to help balance things out. I then move on as if this solved the problem. I don't reimburse you, I don't lower your rates... I just change the contract on you and tell you to like it. Oh, and you had to wait another week to finish your project because you were forced to pick up smaller loads from the lumber yard.
You'd be furious. You'd sue me to oblivion irregardless of any fine print that popped up in the car when you first turned it on. You'd cry out that it is false advertising and you'd be right.
/end of analogy
Comcast has done pretty much the same thing, and nothing is really happening to them yet.
When do I get what I paid for? If never, when do I get my partial refund?
Sadly, never.
And, obviously, going back to the old option just wouldn't work out too well either because the demands increased with the available supply. Oh well, now I'm screwed.
Great. Good point. So then they shouldn't sell it as 6Mbps unless I get a dedicated 6Mbps... sell me a clearly labeled 347kbps guaranteed with option to burst up to 6MBps (to be autobalanced against all other users using more than 347kbps) and an automatic cutoff cap of 250GB per month with no penalties for using it all up:
250GB/month ÷ (30 days/mo avg. * 24hrs/day) = ~ 347kbps
Be honest with me when selling me a package, and I won't complain about the service down the road. Tell me "you use too much, and we shut you off. Oh, you want to know how much you've used? Figure it out yourself, and we don't believe you anyways" and I can tell you (comcast) where to shove it.
You were too late anyways... someone registered Deletionist.com at 10:28pm EST - so someone beat you to the punch. Not sure what they will actually do with it, but whatever.
I get mail about 5 times per week where my email address is in the from email address... so I'm not sure this system would work too well anyways, especially since someone would just figure a way to "sign" the emails anyways. It would just be an arms race, and the spammers have lots of money to work with.
For this to work in the US, you would need to also remove the "case precedent" portion from the legal system. "Common folk" would not know enough about previous cases to be able to stand a chance against the rich who would have a lawyer build their case for them even if the law required the individual to defend themselves. If you remove case precedent and if you simplify the entire legal code, and then you have a system where self representation would be feasible.
Those are pretty big ifs, and cut out all of those who are making so much money off our legal system. Sadly, because of this, it is not likely to ever happen.
Interestingly enough, many good presidents have also been lawyers. Go figure.
Agreed. Wholeheartedly.
-1 Wildly inaccurate
-1 Flamebait
-1 FUD
Any of the above would be fine.
The Summary implies "Obama no longer cares about Network Neutrality!", but I say this is just spreading FUD (cue the "flaimbait" mods... sigh). The GP says both candidates are puppets, but the parent says (rightfully so, IMHO) that it may have been "merely a way to package both [of their] views...", and I think xulfer's hit the nail on the head.
Yes, the website has been heavily edited, but as I read the edits, I looked at it from a writer and editor's perspective. Nothing added seemed to take away from the earlier content (and much of it clarified issues not previously commented on), nothing removed seemed to indicate that Obama's stance on Network Neutrality had changed (both versions sate that "Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.").
Basically, when looking at this from a writer and editor's perspective, whomever is responsible for this content decided that to keep all of this content while adding the new content would be information overload. The editor kept the summary portions and removed the long multi-paragraph clarifications and expansion on the summaries.
So, to sum it up: The exceptionally verbose descriptions were edited down to succinct statements of political position, new political stances not mentioned previously were added (with verbose descriptions), and the whole thing was cleaned up to be readable and clear.
Nothing to see here... move along.
Aye. I be agreein wit ye, matey.
And the people selling the product aren't the one's jailbreaking the phones... they sell a product that clearly states that it does not work on a standard iPhone. Nothing illegal in all of that.
Exactly... I'm not a mac user, but I have actually gone to their site to watch their commercials (I have Tivo, so I never see commercials normally). They're that funny!
Especially when he is attempting to build out forums that actually discuss the various costs associated with the various cities... this would seem like a logical way to organize the various discussions for the various cities.
i.e. legitimate use.
What about iLive.net and the iLive Products? iPod and iLife and i-everythingelse doesn't mean that Apple owns everything that is the letter i followed by a word... same thing was decided with podcast (just because their devices were clearly the reason that "podcast" became a word didn't suddenly give them the legal right to fight everyone who used "pod" in their name or "podcast" to describe a "broadcast available as a downloadable mp3" or whatever the definition is nowadays).
I just mentioned the Apocrypha specifically, instead of the whole Septuagint, because the Septuagint has been used in many of the other translations, but I was specifically referring to the Apocrypha (the 13 books not considered canon until the Council of Trent in the 1500s, and then only considered canon by the Roman Catholic church, though I believe that even the Roman Catholic church has now dropped it from the list of canonical books of the bible), but thank you for the links :-)
Not that I actually currently feel that way.
Way to totally miss the point.
The Biblegateway site is primarily, from my understanding, focused on Protestant translations of the 66 books of what is generally agreed apon as the Protestant Bible, and is limited some by copyright issues (it is costly for them to have the NIV Bible on there, for example, and they can only have so many). It does not contain the Catholic Apocrypha (that I've seen), nor does it contain the book of Mormon or other texts not included in the canonical Protestant Bible.
Even in ministries like this, they have to pick a niche, and having the dozens of various Protestant translations into English, and various translations into other languages, is rather impressive.
I look forward to reading the JPS 1917, but I don't believe that including it at BibleGateway.com would fit into their mission for the site.
Because of the limited space in my sig, I ommitted the word "Christian" from my sig, and if I had unlimited space, it would have read as:
Before commenting on the Christian Bible, please read it first, in various translations, so as to understand it fully.
wow... source?
I guess it was more like a shower than a swirly...
Hint: Modern solar cell already absorb 80%+ of all visible light. that's why they look rather dark...
FTFY