If screen real-estate was truely the issue, people would have stayed on their desktops/laptops.
The problem with mobile browsing is the publishers constant desire to force-feed a "mobile version" of their website to end-users. Most mobile versions suck pretty bad and they are not typically intuitive. When on a mobile version, I don't click on ads. Why would I bother when i'll just be taken to another crappy stripped down mobile version. However, after installing the dolphine browser and getting a normal looking web page back, I click on ads frequently if they interest me.
To summarize, if you want mobile users to click on ads as much as desktop users, then give them a desktop experience.
I agree that the use of "bricked" in the article summary was off-base, and I did not need to focus on it's meaning as much as I did. The original articles do not even use the word bricked. Enjoy your weekend.
Absolutely not. They should entertain all cases that are brought before them: even the frivelous ones. Do you have any other brilliant questions for me?
Since you choose to take apart language so much... Your use of a comma after the word "themselves" is innappropriate. A period is used to terminate a complete thought. Your use of a question mark after "...phones?" is idiotic because it was not an interrogative statement. Your use of "an naive" doesn't even make sense. You're obviously a bumbling idiot yourself. Your use of an elipsis after "arguing is there..." is moronic because you're at the termination of a complete thought. There is no implied continuation. A period should have been used instead. Starting a sentence with "And" is immature. You forgot a comma after "by the way" because it's a prepisitional phrase followed by a complete thought.
Long story short: I refuse to take advice about the meaning of words from an idiot who can't even use language properly. Get an education before you throw around insults and make yourself look like a jackass.
Who pays the $200,000 anual salary of the judge? Who pays the bailiffs? Who pays the other couple dozen or so clerks that process the paperwork associated with the lawsuit?
Customer service? LOL. What kind of dipshit works in customer service for seven years? You're not very good at making assumptions friend. When you put a system like this into place there are absolutely expences. Afterall, AT&T has to hire "bitter" customer service reps to take calls from the idiots that lost their phones. You'll probably argue, "they already have reps", but a new system that takes new requests requires more warm bodies. A customer service rep like yourself probably can't understand that kind of math. I left AT&T because they asked me to break the law and I would not. As a result, I was let go. If anything, I have more annimosity toward AT&T than to consumers. However, I also have the common sense to know what responsibilities a corporation should or should not have and what responsibilities a government agency should or should not have. There is absolutely no need for this lawsuit. If you actually read the articles, you'll realize that AT&T is implementing this program, and some idiot thinks he should be compensated because AT&T "should have" implemented this years ago. If the court-happy phone-losing idiot is correct, then phone companies around the world are left to spend millions to protect consumers from themselves out of fear of getting sued by a jackass like this. I seriously can't believe how many people are behind this lawsuit. The "brick your idiots phone" program is a mute point. Take it or leave it: whatever. However, the premise of the lawsuit is asinine.
It's unreasonable for an idiot to lose his/her phone and then sue the fuck out of AT&T because it failed to protect the idiot from themselves.
It's unreasonable for the idiot to then clog up our court systems with frivelous lawsuits that cost taxpayers millions of dollars
It's unreasonable for AT&T to be required to spend millions on a system designed to protect idiots from themselves and then pass those expenses on to responsible consumers.
It's unreasonable for forgetful idiots that leave their phones in bars, classrooms, and taxi's to report them "stolen" when they were really "lost" and then expect consumers and taxpayers to foot the bill for their cry-baby antics.
In no way is it unreasonable to teach idiots to hang on to their smartphone real tight, and then have AT&T deactivate the SIM card if it's lost. This is the process that's already in place.
You have valid points: sure. You want to talk about ridiculous? What is truly ridiculous is frivelous lawsuits such as this one that cost taxpayers MILLIONS of dollars. The premise of the lawsuit is simply this, "AT&T didn't spend millions of dollars to protect me from myself, and now I'm sad so i'll sue the fuck out of them."
I worked for AT&T for seven years. The majority of cell phone "thefts" were idiots that left their phone in a bar and somebody else "found" it. The money that corporations have to put into systems like this to protect idiots from themselves are passed on to responsible consumers like myself. Then those idiots sue AT&T and those costs are passed on to responsible taxpayers like myself.
What exactly is it that you're worried about here?
I am afraid that responsible individuals will have to unjustly continue to pay for the irresponsible actions of idiots. Be a big boy, and hang on to your little smartphone real tight now.
AT&T is NOT akin to the DMV. AT&T is a corporation and the DMV is a State Department. The two should never be compared. When you ask corporations to police the world and protect you from yourself, you're asking for a very bad place to live my friend. Now please take your foot out of your mouth and use it to walk to another country. We don't need a Corporatocracy in The United States; we have enough problems already.
The manufacturers? Now Samsung, Apple, Nokia, Motorola, Sony Erricson, Siemens, Qualcom, HTC, Dell, HP, LG, Palm, and RIM have to be involved too???!!! How many multi-million dollar companies does it take to get one idiot to hang on to his phone?
I can certainly appreciate your sarcasm. I enjoy it too. Here's some back at ya! The article summary clearly states, "refusing to brick stolen cell phones". Do you know what a bricked phone is? I can tell you what it's not; it's not a "do not use list".
There are dozens of posts here from "resonable" people that do not want AT&T to perform this service for them. Keep reading.
This is a scenario in your world, "Great news, the police recovered your $500 smartphone after a 2 day investigation. Too bad it's permanently bricked though. Here you go. Have a great day."
Those things are not "pretty much completely untraceable." Cars can be located and disabled with onstar. Computers can be located by their IP address and globally unique MAC address. There are some people here that do not want to live in an orwellian society where corporations control things they should not have control over. I happen to be one of them. It's obvious we have a difference of opinion so further discussion is a mute point. Enjoy your bricked phones and your Corporatocracy.
"...which would cause the same level of inconvenience to the owner."
Deactivating somebodies service to prevent a phone from making calls is NOT "the same level of inconvenience" as bricking somebodies phone to prevent it from ever being used on any network ever again.
Imagine in a world where: the cable company polices stolen TVs, the internet service provider polices stolen computers, Ford has to police stolen cars, radio stations have to police stolen radios, landline companies police stolen cordless phones, and cell phone companies police stolen cell phones. America already has enough corporations runnings the country by the balls. We don't need another one. Please think long and hard before you ask for this "Protection" from AT&T.
I fail to see how these companies could validate with 100% certainty that the device reported stolen actually belong to the owners that claimed to own them. This is important; because if you can't validate the owner with 100% certainty, then you open the door to situations where person A falsly reports persons B's phone stolen and gets it bricked. This would be a denial of service prank/attach and I'm sure it would be a much larger liability for AT&T than simply letting theives reactivate a device that was obtained nefariously. Are they going to make everyone that claims to have a phone stolen produce a receipt to validate ownersihp? To requre AT&T to get involved would be a disaster. When you require/allow corporations to get involved in things that should ONLY be law enforcement investigations, then you open a whole new can of worms.
I worked for AT&T for 7 years. All you have to do is call customer service and asks for your unlock code. Why is something so simple blown out of proportion? This isn't a new policy either. It's been in effect for over 10 years that I am aware of.
Have the stones? I always enjoy learning. Thanks for the gentle nudge. I did read a few articles about this after you mentioned it here. I found this to be rather interesting.
Windsor resident Michael Vujovich, who recently received an angioplasty procedure at Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital, told the Free Press that the agreement doesn't illustrate a fault in Canada's health care system, but is an example of how well it works.
"I go to the hospital in Windsor and two hours later, I'm done having angioplasty in Detroit," he said, noting the Ontario health ministry covered his $38,000 bill.
The articles I read generally paited a picture of Canadians seeking more technically advanced services from Detroit hospitals. If they are medically needed, then Canada pays for them. Perhaps this relates to another commentors opinion (bigby),
One model has incentive to innovate; the other stagnates.
I wasn't aware of this distinction, and I appreciate the comment. I did some searching and found that there are strong connections between the use of the Caduceus in modern medicine and Freemasonry regarding the symbolism. Feel free to share anymore insight you have regarding these symbols.
The United States runs a "for profit" model. Canada runs a "for better society" model. In one model the fundamental design of one system dictates that consumers spend as much as possible and receive as little as possible. The fundamentals of the other design dictate that consumers all receive adequate care, and the only reason to spend more is to get more.
Slashdot Mirror
If screen real-estate was truely the issue, people would have stayed on their desktops/laptops. The problem with mobile browsing is the publishers constant desire to force-feed a "mobile version" of their website to end-users. Most mobile versions suck pretty bad and they are not typically intuitive. When on a mobile version, I don't click on ads. Why would I bother when i'll just be taken to another crappy stripped down mobile version. However, after installing the dolphine browser and getting a normal looking web page back, I click on ads frequently if they interest me. To summarize, if you want mobile users to click on ads as much as desktop users, then give them a desktop experience.
Why would you want to install something that doesn't work?
I agree that the use of "bricked" in the article summary was off-base, and I did not need to focus on it's meaning as much as I did. The original articles do not even use the word bricked. Enjoy your weekend.
The distinction between moot and mute is very appreciated. Thank you.
Absolutely not. They should entertain all cases that are brought before them: even the frivelous ones. Do you have any other brilliant questions for me?
Long story short: I refuse to take advice about the meaning of words from an idiot who can't even use language properly. Get an education before you throw around insults and make yourself look like a jackass.
Who pays the $200,000 anual salary of the judge? Who pays the bailiffs? Who pays the other couple dozen or so clerks that process the paperwork associated with the lawsuit?
Taxpayer dollars. What the fuck are you talking about?
Idiot losing cell phones + lawsuit = judge & other supporting staff
judge & other supporting staff = taxpayer dollars
You've got to be the biggest idiot on slashdot if you can't figure that one out: I don't care where the fuck you went to work.
Customer service? LOL. What kind of dipshit works in customer service for seven years? You're not very good at making assumptions friend. When you put a system like this into place there are absolutely expences. Afterall, AT&T has to hire "bitter" customer service reps to take calls from the idiots that lost their phones. You'll probably argue, "they already have reps", but a new system that takes new requests requires more warm bodies. A customer service rep like yourself probably can't understand that kind of math. I left AT&T because they asked me to break the law and I would not. As a result, I was let go. If anything, I have more annimosity toward AT&T than to consumers. However, I also have the common sense to know what responsibilities a corporation should or should not have and what responsibilities a government agency should or should not have. There is absolutely no need for this lawsuit. If you actually read the articles, you'll realize that AT&T is implementing this program, and some idiot thinks he should be compensated because AT&T "should have" implemented this years ago. If the court-happy phone-losing idiot is correct, then phone companies around the world are left to spend millions to protect consumers from themselves out of fear of getting sued by a jackass like this. I seriously can't believe how many people are behind this lawsuit. The "brick your idiots phone" program is a mute point. Take it or leave it: whatever. However, the premise of the lawsuit is asinine.
It's unreasonable for an idiot to lose his/her phone and then sue the fuck out of AT&T because it failed to protect the idiot from themselves.
It's unreasonable for the idiot to then clog up our court systems with frivelous lawsuits that cost taxpayers millions of dollars
It's unreasonable for AT&T to be required to spend millions on a system designed to protect idiots from themselves and then pass those expenses on to responsible consumers.
It's unreasonable for forgetful idiots that leave their phones in bars, classrooms, and taxi's to report them "stolen" when they were really "lost" and then expect consumers and taxpayers to foot the bill for their cry-baby antics.
In no way is it unreasonable to teach idiots to hang on to their smartphone real tight, and then have AT&T deactivate the SIM card if it's lost. This is the process that's already in place.
You have valid points: sure. You want to talk about ridiculous? What is truly ridiculous is frivelous lawsuits such as this one that cost taxpayers MILLIONS of dollars. The premise of the lawsuit is simply this, "AT&T didn't spend millions of dollars to protect me from myself, and now I'm sad so i'll sue the fuck out of them."
I worked for AT&T for seven years. The majority of cell phone "thefts" were idiots that left their phone in a bar and somebody else "found" it. The money that corporations have to put into systems like this to protect idiots from themselves are passed on to responsible consumers like myself. Then those idiots sue AT&T and those costs are passed on to responsible taxpayers like myself.
What exactly is it that you're worried about here?
I am afraid that responsible individuals will have to unjustly continue to pay for the irresponsible actions of idiots. Be a big boy, and hang on to your little smartphone real tight now.
AT&T is more akin to the DMV
AT&T is NOT akin to the DMV. AT&T is a corporation and the DMV is a State Department. The two should never be compared. When you ask corporations to police the world and protect you from yourself, you're asking for a very bad place to live my friend. Now please take your foot out of your mouth and use it to walk to another country. We don't need a Corporatocracy in The United States; we have enough problems already.
The manufacturers? Now Samsung, Apple, Nokia, Motorola, Sony Erricson, Siemens, Qualcom, HTC, Dell, HP, LG, Palm, and RIM have to be involved too???!!! How many multi-million dollar companies does it take to get one idiot to hang on to his phone?
I can certainly appreciate your sarcasm. I enjoy it too. Here's some back at ya! The article summary clearly states, "refusing to brick stolen cell phones". Do you know what a bricked phone is? I can tell you what it's not; it's not a "do not use list".
There are dozens of posts here from "resonable" people that do not want AT&T to perform this service for them. Keep reading.
This is a scenario in your world, "Great news, the police recovered your $500 smartphone after a 2 day investigation. Too bad it's permanently bricked though. Here you go. Have a great day."
Those things are not "pretty much completely untraceable." Cars can be located and disabled with onstar. Computers can be located by their IP address and globally unique MAC address. There are some people here that do not want to live in an orwellian society where corporations control things they should not have control over. I happen to be one of them. It's obvious we have a difference of opinion so further discussion is a mute point. Enjoy your bricked phones and your Corporatocracy.
Regards,
"...which would cause the same level of inconvenience to the owner."
Deactivating somebodies service to prevent a phone from making calls is NOT "the same level of inconvenience" as bricking somebodies phone to prevent it from ever being used on any network ever again.
Imagine in a world where: the cable company polices stolen TVs, the internet service provider polices stolen computers, Ford has to police stolen cars, radio stations have to police stolen radios, landline companies police stolen cordless phones, and cell phone companies police stolen cell phones. America already has enough corporations runnings the country by the balls. We don't need another one. Please think long and hard before you ask for this "Protection" from AT&T.
I fail to see how these companies could validate with 100% certainty that the device reported stolen actually belong to the owners that claimed to own them. This is important; because if you can't validate the owner with 100% certainty, then you open the door to situations where person A falsly reports persons B's phone stolen and gets it bricked. This would be a denial of service prank/attach and I'm sure it would be a much larger liability for AT&T than simply letting theives reactivate a device that was obtained nefariously. Are they going to make everyone that claims to have a phone stolen produce a receipt to validate ownersihp? To requre AT&T to get involved would be a disaster. When you require/allow corporations to get involved in things that should ONLY be law enforcement investigations, then you open a whole new can of worms.
This article sheds new light on how the amino acids would not have been destroyed right away. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14966-volcanic-lightning-may-have-sparked-life-on-earth.html
I worked for AT&T for 7 years. All you have to do is call customer service and asks for your unlock code. Why is something so simple blown out of proportion? This isn't a new policy either. It's been in effect for over 10 years that I am aware of.
Windsor resident Michael Vujovich, who recently received an angioplasty procedure at Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital, told the Free Press that the agreement doesn't illustrate a fault in Canada's health care system, but is an example of how well it works. "I go to the hospital in Windsor and two hours later, I'm done having angioplasty in Detroit," he said, noting the Ontario health ministry covered his $38,000 bill.
The articles I read generally paited a picture of Canadians seeking more technically advanced services from Detroit hospitals. If they are medically needed, then Canada pays for them. Perhaps this relates to another commentors opinion (bigby),
One model has incentive to innovate; the other stagnates.
I wasn't aware of this distinction, and I appreciate the comment. I did some searching and found that there are strong connections between the use of the Caduceus in modern medicine and Freemasonry regarding the symbolism. Feel free to share anymore insight you have regarding these symbols.
The United States runs a "for profit" model. Canada runs a "for better society" model. In one model the fundamental design of one system dictates that consumers spend as much as possible and receive as little as possible. The fundamentals of the other design dictate that consumers all receive adequate care, and the only reason to spend more is to get more.
No, at best in 2005 it would have had two intel dual core xeon procs for a total of four cores and 16 gigs of RAM.
Because the TSA workers would steal them.
Wow... first time I won the troll award. Awesome! Even though I'm a troll, my post was rather informative. ; )