When I had mine installed (twice - I have two ONTs, one for business and one for personal) I had them leave the copper. The guy told me it was no problem. For the second install when I asked I was told that they always leave the copper because MA law requires them to offer E911 service over it. Other co-workers in the area have said the same. There was a 1 year gap between my two installs, so perhaps you got your installed before they stopped pulling the copper? Did you even ask them not to pull the copper?
Summary: They used to pull the copper unless you asked them not to. Now they don't pull it ever because it's against the law (in Massachusetts). If you already had a third-party DSL circuit on your copper before you got FiOS installed, they would leave your copper too, since the existing circuit was being used.
As an aside, the battery they provide only keeps voice online. Data and TV aren't covered. I keep my ONTs hooked up to an APC BackUPS 4500 which keeps it and my underclocked (Athlon 1400+ running at 700mhz) server running for about 36 hours. That way my mail & web server stays online, I can use my laptop to access the internet and my TiVo doesn't miss anything, even if the power is out.
Lastly, if you have FiOS internet, why not get Vonage, or another VoIP phone service? More features, less money, and you already have the battery-backup issue anyway.
Phones with 802.11 networking are a novelty right now. It's hardly a secret that Apple could lose their share of the kickbacks from iPhone service contracts if they don't keep the phone closed like AT&T wants, and the ability to dodge per-minute charges any time you're in a fairly urban area is something AT&T would be scared to death of.
is there any reason -- other than vindictiveness or obsessive interest in control -- that it would want to cut off those developed by the pioneers who figured things out ahead of the official launch?
My guess is that the short answer is "Yes", and the long answer is "Yes, AT&T cut them a big fat check to do exactly that."
The people complaining about the resolution aren't trying to knock Halo 3.... They're taking aim at the platform it runs on. The developers should be applauded for picking playability over raw resolution, but the platform should have handled the graphics at a higher resolution without slowing down the game.
There are other things I'd be concerned about first....
Specifically that your undergraduate tuition is going to fund the school's graduate programs. This should be alarming to people even if the graduate programs were populated by 100% local students. This is especially true in engineering schools, where the graduate projects and labs cost huge amounts of money, and the undergrads don't even get taught by the (expensive) tenured professors, but by said professor's graduate students.
You can live without the Radiohead, but if you're starving and on a budget you may well think "Yeah, but the portions are HUGE!" is an excellent thing to say about a restaurant with terrible food.
3mm is plenty thin for me, as it's thinner than, oh, a piece of sheetrock, for example. I was just making fun of the marketeers. They failed to realize that by combining "only" with the reversal of thick to "thin", they actually inverted the meaning.
As for your watch example, 1.15mm is impressive, but using a quartz movement to achieve it is cheating.
Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is illegal if you intended it as a prank. If there is a fire, it's not illegal, and if you say the word "fire" to a friend in conversation and it is mis-interpreted by somebody else, that's not illegal either.
I don't see how that has to do with either of these two cases. This guy didn't draw intention to himself in order to create public panic, and the girl at the airport wasn't trying to make people think she had a bomb. A poorly educated security guard mistook something she was wearing for a bomb. As such, if anybody created a public panic it was the guard, not the girl.
You're just making excuses for our society that has confused the meanings of "justice" and "vengeance".
But why should she be punished? Because she made somebody nervous? Is that all it takes these days? What happened to freedom of expression? Do we need to have another revolution already?
Haven't you ACLU types done enough to weaken this country?
Oh, spare me the ACLU crap. Yes, that's right, I wrote that original post, and I'm going to say bad shit about the ACLU.
Where is the ACLU on this stuff? They only get involved, it seems, if whoever is involved is a minority, or there's actually a grey area, and the person may have actually broken a law. They push an agenda, and that agenda is a distinct subset of "civil liberties". They're the reason why somebody like me can say what I said, and somebody who *isn't* being sarcastic really can say what you said and be taken seriously. I honestly think the ACLU does more harm than good.
The "fraud" was actually probably another case of prosecuting somebody who should walk because the authority in question feels they need a conviction to justify their investigation.
It's the same stupid reason we're going to try to send a perfectly innocent college student to jail for wearing blinking lights on her shirt to the airport.
The search and investigation were probably justified. The prosecution almost certainly isn't. When did we forget that it's OK to do an investigation which turns up no evidence of guilt?
DOes it bother you when they don't sound like a troll/pirate/dwarf etc...
In every game I've ever played, when voice chat comes into play, role playing essentially ends.
(Also: Can somebody explain the fascination with Ventrilo to me? Why would people flock to some new voice chat thing when it's got less features and a crappier UI than the pre-existing free ones?)
IE they may sell you a cable at the VZ store, especially if you don't use outlook, your patching together something not really supported by the carriers.
You're falling into the trap...
"Supported by the phone" is different from "supported by the carriers". Of course, the less we remember that, the less true it will be.
If you're going to do it interactively, why not use a hash of the URL (or the domain name/port) instead of sending the URL itself? Then even with live checking, google would only know which sites you went to if they were a match in their list of bad guys.
5% is enough to guarantee that they'll keep using ads from Microsoft, and probably enough to get them to embed some technology that Microsoft wants to embrace and extend. We all know that Microsoft is willing to spend billions to buy into new markets with minimal merit, so getting equity for their buy-in is a bonus.
The reason why we lawyers get "rich" (I wish!) is because people make the assumption that they know what the laws is and what the consequences are.
The reason you put "rich" in quotes is probably be cause you're a scrupulous lawyer. The other alternative (but judging by the content of your post, this isn't the case) is that you're a bad lawyer. All the rest of them get rich.
See, you're trying to help people navigate the law safely by doing the right thing... If you want to get rich, you have to be one of those lawyers that helps their clients get away with whatever they possibly can manage, helps clients file outrageous lawsuits, or manages class-actions in a way that funnels money away from people who don't realize they had any rights at all into your pockets.
I've had need to seek the services of a lawyer on several occasions, and it has always been the case that the good lawyers that you seek out before you have a problem are the ones that charge the least. In many cases they charge less that I would consider a fair wage. (So far, bad IP lawyers are the most expensive I've come across. Luckily they're not all bad...)
I ask charities to not call back, (I consider them solicitors also). They honor the requests.
You should.
You probably (maybe) already give to charities you intend to, and the telemarketing company almost certainly takes an unacceptable cut of whatever donation you would have made over the phone.
Slashdot Mirror
When I had mine installed (twice - I have two ONTs, one for business and one for personal) I had them leave the copper. The guy told me it was no problem. For the second install when I asked I was told that they always leave the copper because MA law requires them to offer E911 service over it. Other co-workers in the area have said the same. There was a 1 year gap between my two installs, so perhaps you got your installed before they stopped pulling the copper? Did you even ask them not to pull the copper?
Summary: They used to pull the copper unless you asked them not to. Now they don't pull it ever because it's against the law (in Massachusetts). If you already had a third-party DSL circuit on your copper before you got FiOS installed, they would leave your copper too, since the existing circuit was being used.
As an aside, the battery they provide only keeps voice online. Data and TV aren't covered. I keep my ONTs hooked up to an APC BackUPS 4500 which keeps it and my underclocked (Athlon 1400+ running at 700mhz) server running for about 36 hours. That way my mail & web server stays online, I can use my laptop to access the internet and my TiVo doesn't miss anything, even if the power is out.
Lastly, if you have FiOS internet, why not get Vonage, or another VoIP phone service? More features, less money, and you already have the battery-backup issue anyway.
This guy hit the nail on the head: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=315191&cid=20824251
Phones with 802.11 networking are a novelty right now. It's hardly a secret that Apple could lose their share of the kickbacks from iPhone service contracts if they don't keep the phone closed like AT&T wants, and the ability to dodge per-minute charges any time you're in a fairly urban area is something AT&T would be scared to death of.
My guess is that the short answer is "Yes", and the long answer is "Yes, AT&T cut them a big fat check to do exactly that."
The people complaining about the resolution aren't trying to knock Halo 3.... They're taking aim at the platform it runs on. The developers should be applauded for picking playability over raw resolution, but the platform should have handled the graphics at a higher resolution without slowing down the game.
There are other things I'd be concerned about first....
Specifically that your undergraduate tuition is going to fund the school's graduate programs. This should be alarming to people even if the graduate programs were populated by 100% local students. This is especially true in engineering schools, where the graduate projects and labs cost huge amounts of money, and the undergrads don't even get taught by the (expensive) tenured professors, but by said professor's graduate students.
Where's bad analogy man when you need him?
You can live without the Radiohead, but if you're starving and on a budget you may well think "Yeah, but the portions are HUGE!" is an excellent thing to say about a restaurant with terrible food.
I think my sarcasm missed you a bit...
3mm is plenty thin for me, as it's thinner than, oh, a piece of sheetrock, for example. I was just making fun of the marketeers. They failed to realize that by combining "only" with the reversal of thick to "thin", they actually inverted the meaning.
As for your watch example, 1.15mm is impressive, but using a quartz movement to achieve it is cheating.
That's too bad. I was hoping for 2mm thin, but this one is only 3mm thin.
Those marketeers are too smart for their own good.
That's a poor comparison.
Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is illegal if you intended it as a prank. If there is a fire, it's not illegal, and if you say the word "fire" to a friend in conversation and it is mis-interpreted by somebody else, that's not illegal either.
I don't see how that has to do with either of these two cases. This guy didn't draw intention to himself in order to create public panic, and the girl at the airport wasn't trying to make people think she had a bomb. A poorly educated security guard mistook something she was wearing for a bomb. As such, if anybody created a public panic it was the guard, not the girl.
You're just making excuses for our society that has confused the meanings of "justice" and "vengeance".
You're right. She was stupid, and lucky.
But why should she be punished? Because she made somebody nervous? Is that all it takes these days? What happened to freedom of expression? Do we need to have another revolution already?
Oh, spare me the ACLU crap. Yes, that's right, I wrote that original post, and I'm going to say bad shit about the ACLU.
Where is the ACLU on this stuff? They only get involved, it seems, if whoever is involved is a minority, or there's actually a grey area, and the person may have actually broken a law. They push an agenda, and that agenda is a distinct subset of "civil liberties". They're the reason why somebody like me can say what I said, and somebody who *isn't* being sarcastic really can say what you said and be taken seriously. I honestly think the ACLU does more harm than good.
The "fraud" was actually probably another case of prosecuting somebody who should walk because the authority in question feels they need a conviction to justify their investigation.
It's the same stupid reason we're going to try to send a perfectly innocent college student to jail for wearing blinking lights on her shirt to the airport.
The search and investigation were probably justified. The prosecution almost certainly isn't. When did we forget that it's OK to do an investigation which turns up no evidence of guilt?
We need the money to pay for social programs and a national prescription drug program.
DOes it bother you when they don't sound like a troll/pirate/dwarf etc...
In every game I've ever played, when voice chat comes into play, role playing essentially ends.
(Also: Can somebody explain the fascination with Ventrilo to me? Why would people flock to some new voice chat thing when it's got less features and a crappier UI than the pre-existing free ones?)
According to my user profile, they don't have my phone number.
Maybe they could get it from my credit card company, but if they did my credit card company would be losing my business.
And all those e-mail messages they are sending out are getting marked as "Scam" by Thunderbird....
You're falling into the trap...
"Supported by the phone" is different from "supported by the carriers". Of course, the less we remember that, the less true it will be.
The also both point to the same host+port, and thus would actually produce the same hash if you did it the way I suggested.
If you're going to do it interactively, why not use a hash of the URL (or the domain name/port) instead of sending the URL itself? Then even with live checking, google would only know which sites you went to if they were a match in their list of bad guys.
Right.
5% is enough to guarantee that they'll keep using ads from Microsoft, and probably enough to get them to embed some technology that Microsoft wants to embrace and extend. We all know that Microsoft is willing to spend billions to buy into new markets with minimal merit, so getting equity for their buy-in is a bonus.
Either that or they're fairly convinced that owning 5% can give them much more than 5% influence.
Who is paying this guy?
The reason you put "rich" in quotes is probably be cause you're a scrupulous lawyer. The other alternative (but judging by the content of your post, this isn't the case) is that you're a bad lawyer. All the rest of them get rich.
See, you're trying to help people navigate the law safely by doing the right thing... If you want to get rich, you have to be one of those lawyers that helps their clients get away with whatever they possibly can manage, helps clients file outrageous lawsuits, or manages class-actions in a way that funnels money away from people who don't realize they had any rights at all into your pockets.
I've had need to seek the services of a lawyer on several occasions, and it has always been the case that the good lawyers that you seek out before you have a problem are the ones that charge the least. In many cases they charge less that I would consider a fair wage. (So far, bad IP lawyers are the most expensive I've come across. Luckily they're not all bad...)
You should.
You probably (maybe) already give to charities you intend to, and the telemarketing company almost certainly takes an unacceptable cut of whatever donation you would have made over the phone.
Ok, maybe the initial reaction was justified... They didn't actually shoot her after all.
But prosecuting her? They checked her out. She didn't have a bomb. So tell her she's an idiot and send her on her way, right?