No problems loading here. After a couple of minutes, I'm tired of it. Time to kill it. No cowbells. No drums. No strings. No piano. Nada. Just strange synthesizer noises from decades ago - as has already been pointed out. A couple of loops almost sound good, but mostly just boring repetition.
How about a warning that "Jumping to conclusions makes you look stupid!"
Does a cell phone emit radiation? Yes. Does radiation cause cancer? Almost certainly yes. Need examples of other handheld devices causing cancer in situations similar to those in which cell phones are used?
Google for testicular cancer among police. Cops with radar guns, sitting in the confines of a car, often lay that damned gun on their lap while talking on the radio, or driving. A radiation emitting device laying on your balls is quite likely to do strange things to your ball cells.
Now, extrapolate. Do you REALLY want to hold that damned cell phone up to your ear? How many hours per day are you willing to hold it there?
I'll pass, thank you very much. No, I don't need a boatload of proof that cell phones cause cancer. Just a little bit of common sense goes a long way.
Heh. Years ago, I had one of those credit card deals. The wife actually got it, but it was in my name. It had an "unemployed" clause in it - if I was out of work, missed payments, they would make the minimum payments for me.
I worked myself out of a job on one construction site, the next job fell through, I missed a payment, and immediately got those threatening calls. Hey, I did all MY part, sent them letters, etc. They didn't do THEIR part!
They pissed me off pretty quickly, and I decided that I wasn't paying, AT ALL. I had my defense ready, if/when we went to court.
Years later, I got a summons in the mail. The wife opened it, and laughed. The idiots had allowed the statute of limitations expire on them, the summons was valid, but the complaint was invalid. She hired some guy to walk into court, and explain things to the judge (took about 15 minutes) and the judge dismissed the case.
Odd. My wife has both a DirecTV and a Dish mounted on our old house, where they've been for years. My adult sons were starting school when Dish was mounted, and DirecTV went up about the time they started high school. I've never heard a word about returning any equipment. A newer Dish sits on the new house, quietly corroding, and they've never asked for that one either. I know it's five years or more since we paid for that service. The internet replaces some of her satellite viewing, and the new digital TV allows her to watch more channels from further away, so she just dropped all that crap.
I never thought any of it was worth the price. 99 channels are worth about ten bucks a month to me - hey, I can only watch one at a time, and I don't care about sports, porn, or 85% of the rest of the trash on their programming. Disney was alright - when the kids were little. Today? Cinderalla and the rest need to get a life to share between them, LMAO
Sorry - no, I don't favor 40 year copyright terms. I just used that as a point that begins to enter the realms of sanity. Today, we live with life of the author, + 50 years for some works, and the organizations like RIAA are trying to push for longer limits. Totally insane.
I really favor 12 to 15 year copyright terms - which was about what we had when copyright was invented. I'm also willing to compromise, somewhat. Lives are much longer today, it really does take a much larger investment to create some works, and some works have HUGE economic impacts. Movies, for instance, I might justify 20 to 25 year protections. Some books may merit 20 years. Songs? 15 years, maybe. Software? As mentioned above, software only has an economic lifetime of about 12 to 14 years, with an obviously decreasing value the older it is. I'd give software about 7 years of protection - which would put Windows XP and all previous versions of Windows into public domain right now.
But, I don't even seriously argue for all of that. If we can just get the world's leaders out of the pockets of corporate producers, if we can just get SANE protection periods, THEN we might argue for fair and reasonable terms.
I'll repeat - what we have today doesn't even enter into the realms of sanity. Let's make it sane, then argue over fairness.
Your first point is valid. Your second point is valid. 3rd point, about not being Australian? Doesn't matter. Men the world around can recognize a douche, no matter what language the douche speaks, or what culture the douche is from. Pussies are pussies, they need to be washed from time to time, and there really isn't much variation on douches. Form follows function.
Does anyone have an email, so that we can all tell the douche he is obviously a douche?
I've been Rickrolled with Firefox on Linux, and I've also been hijacked by those sites that tell me about infections on C:/ and ask me to click "yes" to install an antivirus to clean up my infections. Firefox on Linux, no less.
But, in each case, it is the extension which enabled malicious script to redirect me. I don't think that Firefox was at fault, but I was. Mozilla never asked me to install a bunch of crap on top of their browser. If we are going to point fingers, I think we need to point fingers at Macromedia, at javascript, and some of those lesser known extensions and scripts.
As your own post points out, configuration means everything. If I sit down at a computer at work, I can't download ANYTHING with the default browser, which is IE7. I have to log in as admin, or use a browser installed on a USB to download ANYTHING.
I fail to see all good news for Firefox on that page. Or, should I say that I don't see all good news for consumers.
Together, IE6, IE7 and IE8 still dominate the market. I'm afraid that will remain true for a couple more years, no matter how much pressure the rest of the world puts on the market. Separating the versions of the various browsers just clutters the picture.
If I may, I'll point out that I'm partly color blind. It's tough to see that chart. It's hard to see the "real picture". What is literally true for me, is figuratively true for those who are working so hard to track browser usage.
Is there a page that tracks usage, which lumps IE (all versions), Firefox (all versions) Opera (all versions) etc?
Yes indeed. Global domination by Firefox is indeed getting closer - but not this year, and probably not next year. Let's give it between 3 and 5 years, alright?
The "least restrictive means," or "less drastic means," test is a standard imposed by the courts when considering the validity of legislation that touches upon constitutional interests. If the government enacts a law that restricts a fundamental personal liberty, it must employ the least restrictive measures possible to achieve its goal. This test applies even when the government has a legitimate purpose in adopting the particular law. The Least Restrictive Means Test has been applied primarily to the regulation of speech. It can also be applied to other types of regulations, such as legislation affecting interstate commerce.
In Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 81 S. Ct. 247, 5 L. Ed. 2d 231 (1960), the U.S. Supreme Court applied the least restrictive means test to an Arkansas statute that required teachers to file annually an Affidavit listing all the organizations to which they belonged and the amount of money they had contributed to each organization in the previous five years. B. T. Shelton was one of a group of teachers who refused to file the affidavit and who as a result did not have their teaching contract renewed. Upon reviewing the statute, the Court found that the state had a legitimate interest in investigating the fitness and competence of its teachers, and that the information requested in the affidavit could help the state in that investigation. However, according to the Court, the statute went far beyond its legitimate purpose because it required information that bore no relationship to a teacher's occupational fitness. The Court also found that the information revealed by the affidavits was not kept confidential. The Court struck down the law because its "unlimited and indiscriminate sweep" went well beyond the state's legitimate interest in the qualifications of its teachers.
Two constitutional doctrines that are closely related to the least restrictive means test are the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines. These doctrines are applied to statutes and regulations that restrict constitutional rights. The Overbreadth Doctrine requires that statutes regulating activities that are not constitutionally protected must not be written so broadly as to restrict activities that are constitutionally protected.
The vagueness doctrine requires that statutes adequately describe the behavior being regulated. A vague statute may have a chilling effect on constitutionally protected behavior because of fear of violating the statute. Also, law enforcement personnel need clear guidelines as to what constitutes a violation of the law.
The least restrictive means test, the overbreadth doctrine, and the vagueness doctrine all help to preserve constitutionally protected speech and behavior by requiring statutes to be clear and narrowly drawn, and to use the least restrictive means to reach the desired end.
I really don't believe that the DMCA would pass muster if examined in light of least restrictive means. DMCA is by definition a restriction on the PEOPLE's rights.
Gotta disagree. The Sakdoctor is on target here. Laws that infringe on the people's rights are wrong. DMCA most definitely infringes on people's rights. No court in America should ever have approved of any DMCA law, period. Making up more new laws to make DMCA work better is not the correct route. Just repeal it, and make the "rights holders" do some real work to enforce reasonable law.
Reasonable law, by the way, would see everything copyrighted before about 1970 in the public domain - and possible some things even later than 1970.
Who has the rights? Did any rights holders object? Nope? They've ABANDONED their rights, and/or they approve of Google's use of their works. Vacant houses and vacant properties (from your analogy) are sold at sheriff's auctions all around this country - I almost said daily, but certainly monthly. This looks like a sheriff's auction to me.
Re:Let's just be clear on what they mean here
on
A Requiem For Saab
·
· Score: 1
"I am driving a '93 9000 with >195k"
How 'bout a '90 Mazda MX6? It went over 1/4 million miles back in May or June.;^)
Re:Your argument is over 20 years out of date
on
A Requiem For Saab
·
· Score: 1
"all non-diesel models, which can easily do over 100mph... unlike the diesel"
Yeah - something about small diesels that has always puzzled me. Why DON'T they go fast? I mean, I've driven a fully loaded Peterbilt over 100, a Kenworth, and a Freightliner. We're talking 40 tons here, not a mere 3000 pound vehicle. Try finding a gasoline engine that will move 80,000 pounds that fast! Why do people settle for substandard performance in their diesel powered cars?
Oh, I understand the difference between torque and horsepower, and I understand that gas powered engines are always going to be better at screeching wheels, and jackrabbit starts, all other things being equal. But, that diesel can outrun ANY gas powered vehicle in the long haul, if it's engineered properly!
Re:I guess you could call it a ...
on
A Requiem For Saab
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You seem to be describing all victims of globalization. Make a better burger, catch McDonald's attention, be bought out, and your burgers disappear. Make a better car, catch the attention of a major auto maker -----
Obviously, I'm no fan of globalization. I'm perfectly happy to allow the Finnish to do things their way, South Africans do things their way, and New Yorkers to do things their way. I can look at each, and decide for myself which is best for me - if any. Screw those megacorporations - they decrease the number of choices we all have.
Corporations have no more "right to privacy" than any private citizen. It sickens me that the government will respect "trade secrets" and other such nonsense, but sees no reason to protect your privacy, or mine. As a taxpayer, as a voter, and as a citizen, I think my right to know WHY GS needed some of my hard earned coin supersedes any need for privacy on their part. Once the public understand exactly why GS needed that cash, then maybe the nation will be more agreeable to regulations that prevent such problems in the future.
Oh - wait - there's the answer!! Neither GS, nor any other corporation wants to see any more regulation than they can get away with.
Not so much as you seem to imply. It was as large, or maybe even a larger, barrier before Google got started. Google has done a lot of homework, and legal work, pointing toward all those rights holders that must be negotiated with. Some freeloading corporation can follow all the legal work, which will connect him with each and every rights holder that Google had to find in the first place.
As for the actual negotiations - I would imagine that the freeloader corporation might have to match, or better, Google's deals. Who is in a position to do so? Maybe Microsoft? Anyone else?
Alright. Let's follow your logic. The roofing company does asphalt shingle roofs at the rate of $80/square. I negotiate with them to have it done for $60/square. That's illegal? WTF?
As has already been pointed out, Google NEGOTIATED for the right to publish all this stuff. We might squabble over the prices paid, and those people who may have lacked representation - but they NEGOTIATED, in good faith. How, exactly, is this illegal?
I sure hope you don't use coupons, and respond to sales, because by your logic, THOSE are illegal as well!
Early payment fees for mortgage isn't *really* comparable. A mortgage is a long term agreement, often times 30 years or more. It represents a sizable portion of an individual and/or a joint earnings potential. In short, it can be seen as a lifetime investment. I *can* justify a small fee for altering a lifetime investment deal. (note, I don't actually justify the fee, I'm just drawing a distinction here)
A telephone shouldn't be seen as such. A couple hundred dollars worth of equipment is a relatively minor investment, unless you're dirt poor. Even a 1000 dollar investment should be seen as a short term loan and/or investment.
However that might be seen by the business world, I insist that the equipment cost and the service contract should be entirely distinct and separate, and that your monthly bill should itemize what portion of your bill is being applied to each. As others have pointed out, once my $100 or $800 telephone is paid off, my bills don't go down. Assuming that I keep my contract for ten years, then I have presumably paid for the same telephone about 5 times over. There is something seriously wrong with this picture.
It should probably also be noted that the same plan from the provider costs the same, whether you opt for that $100 phone, or the $800 phone. Again, there is something wrong with this picture. Am I really paying for an $800 dollar phone, no matter which physical phone I choose to use?
Transparency is something that the providers simply do not understand. Any time I sign a contract, I like to know precisely what I'm getting, what I'm paying, and WHY.
Again - assuming that I keep my contract for 10 years, have I subsidized a telephone for 4 other users? That is simply wrong, if so. If the telco wishes to subsidize those phones, that is fine - but they should do it with their own money!! Certainly not with MINE!
Agreed. A telephone should be sold for what it is worth, separately from any service fees. It's alright to break the price of the phone up into 12, or even 24 monthly installments - but the bill should be itemized. Monthly charge of 25 bucks for payment of the phone itself, plus 25 bucks or whatever for service. Payment for the phone would be due if the service is terminated for any reason, then you're in the clear. The phone should be transferrable to ANY OTHER service carrier.
Verizon, nor anyone else, ever had a justification for early termination fees. Any legitimate fee would be small - ten to 25 bucks for processing paperwork.
Slashdot Mirror
No problems loading here. After a couple of minutes, I'm tired of it. Time to kill it. No cowbells. No drums. No strings. No piano. Nada. Just strange synthesizer noises from decades ago - as has already been pointed out. A couple of loops almost sound good, but mostly just boring repetition.
How about a warning that "Jumping to conclusions makes you look stupid!"
Does a cell phone emit radiation? Yes. Does radiation cause cancer? Almost certainly yes. Need examples of other handheld devices causing cancer in situations similar to those in which cell phones are used?
Google for testicular cancer among police. Cops with radar guns, sitting in the confines of a car, often lay that damned gun on their lap while talking on the radio, or driving. A radiation emitting device laying on your balls is quite likely to do strange things to your ball cells.
Now, extrapolate. Do you REALLY want to hold that damned cell phone up to your ear? How many hours per day are you willing to hold it there?
I'll pass, thank you very much. No, I don't need a boatload of proof that cell phones cause cancer. Just a little bit of common sense goes a long way.
They have college classes in railroad cars now? The economy must be worse than I thought. What's the course of study? Engineering?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Company
Heh. Years ago, I had one of those credit card deals. The wife actually got it, but it was in my name. It had an "unemployed" clause in it - if I was out of work, missed payments, they would make the minimum payments for me.
I worked myself out of a job on one construction site, the next job fell through, I missed a payment, and immediately got those threatening calls. Hey, I did all MY part, sent them letters, etc. They didn't do THEIR part!
They pissed me off pretty quickly, and I decided that I wasn't paying, AT ALL. I had my defense ready, if/when we went to court.
Years later, I got a summons in the mail. The wife opened it, and laughed. The idiots had allowed the statute of limitations expire on them, the summons was valid, but the complaint was invalid. She hired some guy to walk into court, and explain things to the judge (took about 15 minutes) and the judge dismissed the case.
That one made me feel good, LMAO
Odd. My wife has both a DirecTV and a Dish mounted on our old house, where they've been for years. My adult sons were starting school when Dish was mounted, and DirecTV went up about the time they started high school. I've never heard a word about returning any equipment. A newer Dish sits on the new house, quietly corroding, and they've never asked for that one either. I know it's five years or more since we paid for that service. The internet replaces some of her satellite viewing, and the new digital TV allows her to watch more channels from further away, so she just dropped all that crap.
I never thought any of it was worth the price. 99 channels are worth about ten bucks a month to me - hey, I can only watch one at a time, and I don't care about sports, porn, or 85% of the rest of the trash on their programming. Disney was alright - when the kids were little. Today? Cinderalla and the rest need to get a life to share between them, LMAO
Sorry - no, I don't favor 40 year copyright terms. I just used that as a point that begins to enter the realms of sanity. Today, we live with life of the author, + 50 years for some works, and the organizations like RIAA are trying to push for longer limits. Totally insane.
I really favor 12 to 15 year copyright terms - which was about what we had when copyright was invented. I'm also willing to compromise, somewhat. Lives are much longer today, it really does take a much larger investment to create some works, and some works have HUGE economic impacts. Movies, for instance, I might justify 20 to 25 year protections. Some books may merit 20 years. Songs? 15 years, maybe. Software? As mentioned above, software only has an economic lifetime of about 12 to 14 years, with an obviously decreasing value the older it is. I'd give software about 7 years of protection - which would put Windows XP and all previous versions of Windows into public domain right now.
But, I don't even seriously argue for all of that. If we can just get the world's leaders out of the pockets of corporate producers, if we can just get SANE protection periods, THEN we might argue for fair and reasonable terms.
I'll repeat - what we have today doesn't even enter into the realms of sanity. Let's make it sane, then argue over fairness.
douchebusters.com.au would work for these guys then?
Who ya gonna call? DOUCHEBUSTERS!!
Your first point is valid. Your second point is valid. 3rd point, about not being Australian? Doesn't matter. Men the world around can recognize a douche, no matter what language the douche speaks, or what culture the douche is from. Pussies are pussies, they need to be washed from time to time, and there really isn't much variation on douches. Form follows function.
Does anyone have an email, so that we can all tell the douche he is obviously a douche?
Alright - let's be fair, please.
I've been Rickrolled with Firefox on Linux, and I've also been hijacked by those sites that tell me about infections on C:/ and ask me to click "yes" to install an antivirus to clean up my infections. Firefox on Linux, no less.
But, in each case, it is the extension which enabled malicious script to redirect me. I don't think that Firefox was at fault, but I was. Mozilla never asked me to install a bunch of crap on top of their browser. If we are going to point fingers, I think we need to point fingers at Macromedia, at javascript, and some of those lesser known extensions and scripts.
As your own post points out, configuration means everything. If I sit down at a computer at work, I can't download ANYTHING with the default browser, which is IE7. I have to log in as admin, or use a browser installed on a USB to download ANYTHING.
I fail to see all good news for Firefox on that page. Or, should I say that I don't see all good news for consumers.
Together, IE6, IE7 and IE8 still dominate the market. I'm afraid that will remain true for a couple more years, no matter how much pressure the rest of the world puts on the market. Separating the versions of the various browsers just clutters the picture.
If I may, I'll point out that I'm partly color blind. It's tough to see that chart. It's hard to see the "real picture". What is literally true for me, is figuratively true for those who are working so hard to track browser usage.
Is there a page that tracks usage, which lumps IE (all versions), Firefox (all versions) Opera (all versions) etc?
Ahhhhh, here we go: http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-weekly-200827-200951
Yes indeed. Global domination by Firefox is indeed getting closer - but not this year, and probably not next year. Let's give it between 3 and 5 years, alright?
Least Restrictive Means Test
The "least restrictive means," or "less drastic means," test is a standard imposed by the courts when considering the validity of legislation that touches upon constitutional interests. If the government enacts a law that restricts a fundamental personal liberty, it must employ the least restrictive measures possible to achieve its goal. This test applies even when the government has a legitimate purpose in adopting the particular law. The Least Restrictive Means Test has been applied primarily to the regulation of speech. It can also be applied to other types of regulations, such as legislation affecting interstate commerce.
In Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 81 S. Ct. 247, 5 L. Ed. 2d 231 (1960), the U.S. Supreme Court applied the least restrictive means test to an Arkansas statute that required teachers to file annually an Affidavit listing all the organizations to which they belonged and the amount of money they had contributed to each organization in the previous five years. B. T. Shelton was one of a group of teachers who refused to file the affidavit and who as a result did not have their teaching contract renewed. Upon reviewing the statute, the Court found that the state had a legitimate interest in investigating the fitness and competence of its teachers, and that the information requested in the affidavit could help the state in that investigation. However, according to the Court, the statute went far beyond its legitimate purpose because it required information that bore no relationship to a teacher's occupational fitness. The Court also found that the information revealed by the affidavits was not kept confidential. The Court struck down the law because its "unlimited and indiscriminate sweep" went well beyond the state's legitimate interest in the qualifications of its teachers.
Two constitutional doctrines that are closely related to the least restrictive means test are the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines. These doctrines are applied to statutes and regulations that restrict constitutional rights. The Overbreadth Doctrine requires that statutes regulating activities that are not constitutionally protected must not be written so broadly as to restrict activities that are constitutionally protected.
The vagueness doctrine requires that statutes adequately describe the behavior being regulated. A vague statute may have a chilling effect on constitutionally protected behavior because of fear of violating the statute. Also, law enforcement personnel need clear guidelines as to what constitutes a violation of the law.
The least restrictive means test, the overbreadth doctrine, and the vagueness doctrine all help to preserve constitutionally protected speech and behavior by requiring statutes to be clear and narrowly drawn, and to use the least restrictive means to reach the desired end.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Least+Restrictive+Means+Test
I really don't believe that the DMCA would pass muster if examined in light of least restrictive means. DMCA is by definition a restriction on the PEOPLE's rights.
"Yours, on the other hand, could have been penned by Asimov himself ;)"
And, flattery will get you anywhere you want to go, LMAO
Gotta disagree. The Sakdoctor is on target here. Laws that infringe on the people's rights are wrong. DMCA most definitely infringes on people's rights. No court in America should ever have approved of any DMCA law, period. Making up more new laws to make DMCA work better is not the correct route. Just repeal it, and make the "rights holders" do some real work to enforce reasonable law.
Reasonable law, by the way, would see everything copyrighted before about 1970 in the public domain - and possible some things even later than 1970.
Who has the rights? Did any rights holders object? Nope? They've ABANDONED their rights, and/or they approve of Google's use of their works. Vacant houses and vacant properties (from your analogy) are sold at sheriff's auctions all around this country - I almost said daily, but certainly monthly. This looks like a sheriff's auction to me.
"I am driving a '93 9000 with >195k"
How 'bout a '90 Mazda MX6? It went over 1/4 million miles back in May or June. ;^)
"all non-diesel models, which can easily do over 100mph... unlike the diesel"
Yeah - something about small diesels that has always puzzled me. Why DON'T they go fast? I mean, I've driven a fully loaded Peterbilt over 100, a Kenworth, and a Freightliner. We're talking 40 tons here, not a mere 3000 pound vehicle. Try finding a gasoline engine that will move 80,000 pounds that fast! Why do people settle for substandard performance in their diesel powered cars?
Oh, I understand the difference between torque and horsepower, and I understand that gas powered engines are always going to be better at screeching wheels, and jackrabbit starts, all other things being equal. But, that diesel can outrun ANY gas powered vehicle in the long haul, if it's engineered properly!
You seem to be describing all victims of globalization. Make a better burger, catch McDonald's attention, be bought out, and your burgers disappear. Make a better car, catch the attention of a major auto maker -----
Obviously, I'm no fan of globalization. I'm perfectly happy to allow the Finnish to do things their way, South Africans do things their way, and New Yorkers to do things their way. I can look at each, and decide for myself which is best for me - if any. Screw those megacorporations - they decrease the number of choices we all have.
What - you're trashing Microsoft now?
Corporations have no more "right to privacy" than any private citizen. It sickens me that the government will respect "trade secrets" and other such nonsense, but sees no reason to protect your privacy, or mine. As a taxpayer, as a voter, and as a citizen, I think my right to know WHY GS needed some of my hard earned coin supersedes any need for privacy on their part. Once the public understand exactly why GS needed that cash, then maybe the nation will be more agreeable to regulations that prevent such problems in the future.
Oh - wait - there's the answer!! Neither GS, nor any other corporation wants to see any more regulation than they can get away with.
I'm going to violate YOU, you whining little bitch!
You take that back!! He never was, and never will be as smart as a retard, you retard!
"This is a major barrier to any competition."
Not so much as you seem to imply. It was as large, or maybe even a larger, barrier before Google got started. Google has done a lot of homework, and legal work, pointing toward all those rights holders that must be negotiated with. Some freeloading corporation can follow all the legal work, which will connect him with each and every rights holder that Google had to find in the first place.
As for the actual negotiations - I would imagine that the freeloader corporation might have to match, or better, Google's deals. Who is in a position to do so? Maybe Microsoft? Anyone else?
Alright. Let's follow your logic. The roofing company does asphalt shingle roofs at the rate of $80/square. I negotiate with them to have it done for $60/square. That's illegal? WTF?
As has already been pointed out, Google NEGOTIATED for the right to publish all this stuff. We might squabble over the prices paid, and those people who may have lacked representation - but they NEGOTIATED, in good faith. How, exactly, is this illegal?
I sure hope you don't use coupons, and respond to sales, because by your logic, THOSE are illegal as well!
Early payment fees for mortgage isn't *really* comparable. A mortgage is a long term agreement, often times 30 years or more. It represents a sizable portion of an individual and/or a joint earnings potential. In short, it can be seen as a lifetime investment. I *can* justify a small fee for altering a lifetime investment deal. (note, I don't actually justify the fee, I'm just drawing a distinction here)
A telephone shouldn't be seen as such. A couple hundred dollars worth of equipment is a relatively minor investment, unless you're dirt poor. Even a 1000 dollar investment should be seen as a short term loan and/or investment.
However that might be seen by the business world, I insist that the equipment cost and the service contract should be entirely distinct and separate, and that your monthly bill should itemize what portion of your bill is being applied to each. As others have pointed out, once my $100 or $800 telephone is paid off, my bills don't go down. Assuming that I keep my contract for ten years, then I have presumably paid for the same telephone about 5 times over. There is something seriously wrong with this picture.
It should probably also be noted that the same plan from the provider costs the same, whether you opt for that $100 phone, or the $800 phone. Again, there is something wrong with this picture. Am I really paying for an $800 dollar phone, no matter which physical phone I choose to use?
Transparency is something that the providers simply do not understand. Any time I sign a contract, I like to know precisely what I'm getting, what I'm paying, and WHY.
Again - assuming that I keep my contract for 10 years, have I subsidized a telephone for 4 other users? That is simply wrong, if so. If the telco wishes to subsidize those phones, that is fine - but they should do it with their own money!! Certainly not with MINE!
Agreed. A telephone should be sold for what it is worth, separately from any service fees. It's alright to break the price of the phone up into 12, or even 24 monthly installments - but the bill should be itemized. Monthly charge of 25 bucks for payment of the phone itself, plus 25 bucks or whatever for service. Payment for the phone would be due if the service is terminated for any reason, then you're in the clear. The phone should be transferrable to ANY OTHER service carrier.
Verizon, nor anyone else, ever had a justification for early termination fees. Any legitimate fee would be small - ten to 25 bucks for processing paperwork.
Screw them all.