A typical Blackberry user, while probably not a technical elite, has more years of experience using a computer than the iPhone user has been alive and has some semblance of an idea how email works, if just enough to become suspicious.
iPhones are fashion accessories and social opiates.
The problem with that term is that you have to possess some degree of intelligence to actually be able to spell it, therefore eliminating almost the entire target market for spam pages.
Then again...*checks common misspellings*...okay. I get it now.
Don't be insulting. Your "unlimited plan" has strings [vzw.com] and strings ("I just wish unlimited data assigned to my account really meant unlimited data!!") and I doubt that you paid $23/m for it.
I really do pay $23/month for it...but it's normally $30. I get a business discount. If they want to throttle me back after 5 gigs or whatever, that's fine...as long as they don't charge me for it. I won't ever hit that anyway.
Verizon is " TESTING [droidinlife.com] unlimited data plans. I currently pay Verizon $72/mo for two cell phones, no texting, no Internet, 1600 minutes. To use the "unlimited" plan for two phones would cost me $160/mo, assuming they aren't lying about being "unlimited" and they throttle my speed when I hit a GB limit.
I pay around $200 for a family plan with 4 Androids and 1 cheapie. 700 minutes (we mostly call each other, so we rarely even approach half that), unlimited texting, unlimited data for me, 150 megs for the other three Androids. I get a business discount. I'm not bullshitting you; I bought my phones online and they asked me what data package I wanted. $23 for me, $15 for the other three.
I'd show you my bill, but the truth is I honestly don't care that much if you believe me or not.
Then I must be the luckiest guy in the world. When I signed up, I had two options: 150 megs or unlimited. I chose the latter. If they throttle me down after 5 gigs or whatever I'm okay with that, as long as they don't charge me for it.
I have absolutely no trust that the price hikes are in any relation to the total increased cost of the bandwidth.
Nobody asks you to trust. Vote with your wallet: Take your business elsewhere, or abstain. Or bitch to your local legislature that private companies needs to open up their financials to public scrutiny.
Network upgrades should have been figured into the subscription already, if they claim now it's not sufficient they either underestimated the rise in bandwidth use or just neglected to upgrade the network accordingly...
Well I'm so glad you know better than the board of directors how to run their company. Has anyone offered you a job yet?
And do you really think the surcharge for overuse is based on any reality of economics besides greed?
Yes. Even the most dark-hearted, bitter liberals have to admit that companies have payrolls, and making more money allows them to employ more people and pay the ones they do have a better wage. Except for unions, of course. Furthermore, if the increases are based on greed, why didn't they use those charges before then? Because it never occurred to them before that people could pay for data? Come on.
When you go over your 'pre-agreed' data limit and use some more it's suddenly gold being burned by 3G... To come back to your fast food analogy it would be like getting a single packet of ketchup with your $1,49 fries, and when you finish that and want more the next packet of ketchup will cost you $100.
Then I guess you'd better use less ketchup. Or go to the other restaurant down the street that gives it to you for free.
Stop acting like a child. Companies have to make profit margins in order to have to be profitable. You don't see a "office janitorial surcharge" on your bill, do you? The total sum of operating expenses for a company are figured into billing, not just solely the use of your device itself. This is why you'll pay $1.19 for a drink at a fast food restaurant that costs them 3 cents to make, but you'll basically pay at cost for your burger and fries.
If you disagree with your cell provider's business practices, you can always go back to a land line.
...or you can pay 23 bucks a month for an unlimited plan like I do at Verizon.
I like the people on this site, but man, when it comes to art and music, you guys are fucking clueless.
Look at my website, dipshit. I run a record review site. I'd bet 50 to 1 I know more about music and art than you ever will. And I know from being a musician, being around musicians, and watching untold hundreds of documentaries that writing music is much, much less than people make it out to be. Improvisational artists can put out tens of records per year because they have the mental discipline to receive inspiration in the moment, rather than spending months crying about their girlfriends in order to shit out three stanzas of heartbreak and loss that can be spoon-fed to a braindead public.
You can't just say to yourself OK, I'm going to write a masterpiece.
You're right. And nobody spends three months on one piece of music and then declares "I have written a masterpiece." Music (and art in general) is entirely subjective; what makes a 'masterpiece' is a confluence of people throwing their support around a particular work. Art is personal expression; the only thing that makes 'great art' is positive response from others.
I could go on but this is the most I'm willing to give to an AC.
but the whole point of having the term is to make the point that what the government calls "minimum wage" is not necessarily a wage that someone can actually live on.
Bullshit. That $600 a month scenario was me, and I was living on my own making minimum wage. If I can do it on $5.15, surely someone can do it on $7.45.
I've always seen it as simply the minimum hourly wage necessary for an individual to meet basic needs, food, clothing, shelter, etc.
If you've ever supported yourself on a low-wage job, you should know that hours can be extremely erratic and many employers will prevent you from reaching 40 hours a week, lest they be penalized by full-time worker taxes. That means on a given week, depending on scheduling, you'll probably be getting between 30 and 39 hours. This could be the difference between $11,600 a year and $15,000 a year gross based on $7.45 an hour (a huge difference from 5 years ago, when I was making $5.15). That's a 23% difference. The point is, an hourly basis for a "living wage" is meaningless.
Even if we're talking on a monthly basis, there are vast regional differences in cost of living that could not be encompassed by a federal cost of living mandate. Around here, especially in some of the more rural areas, you could eat and have a warm place to live on $600 a month with all utilities paid. Try and pull that off in San Fransisco, Chicago or New York City. Won't fucking happen; not even in the ghetto.
$600 a month will get you a palace in China or India.
My point is that a "living wage" is influenced by so many external factors that it's impossible to standardize, and any attempts to do so smack of corruption and class warfare.
I've never heard it associated with unions or smugness.
A "living wage" as it applies to some smug union lobbyist's idea of how much is appropriate for 'social progress' and a "living wage" as it applies to how much money will actually allow someone to live are two entirely different things. But one implies the other.
Yeah, or maybe people could take government-backed paper notes and give them to the artists as a way of supporting what they do. As they get more of these notes, they can exchange the notes for goods and services that will possibly allow them to gain more public exposure, produce better-sounding music, and collaborate with elite talent that can possibly bring new dynamics to their art.
Oh wait, that's what capitalism is doing right now. Shit; nevermind.
The artists know the drill when they sign up. They could keep a lot more of the money if they started their own labels or even signed to high-tier independents, but they want the bright lights of the stadium.
with almost none of the work behind them.
I fail to see how sitting around while smoking dope and writing poetry qualifies as more "work" than seeking out new talent, managing budgets for studio and tours, organizing promotions and buying ad space, reading the public sentiment towards particular genres and aspects of music, etc., all while employing thousands and providing for their families. The lazy bastards.
I'm no fan of MAFIAA world dominance, but I know a spade when I see one.
Let the people decide what they like by downloading stuff and give those artists a living wage paid for with taxes.
Those of us living on planet earth realize that money is a way to validate what people choose to do with their time. Maybe someone decides what they want to do is bang trash cans together for eight hours a day to no particular end. Is that worth a 'living wage' (a horrible, horrible term that needs to be smashed to pieces, by the way) in your opinion?
I'll answer that for you: Yes, because the government should provide everything for everyone; if they want to work, that's cool, man, but if they don't, that's cool too.
Somebody come up with an algorithm to generate an explanation paragraph for the batch upload. For example:
I think my {son|daughter|neighbor|friend|coworker|ex} is a secret member of {al Qaeda|al Shebab|Taliban in Yemen|Hamas|Hezbollah|Tea Party}. {She|He}'s been saying {scary|frightening|threatening|subversive} things about you guys and I saw {him|her} {make a bomb|pray towards the east} once. Please arrest {him|her} as soon as possible.
Thus, if you're an "intelligent", "free thinker", you go along with the popular media opinion that anything they sprout must be a lie and you're actually an idiot if you believe. Conformity at its finest, all round.
Let's see...if I agree with Fox News, I'm a mindless tool and a lemming. But if I get on the bandwagon and trash them, I'm also a mindless tool and a lemming. Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.
Or, you could have an opinion of your own...of course, 'round these parts, that's known as trolling and flamebait.
How do you define "best?" We've lost all sight (and interest, for that matter) of what's best for the country. We're not even interested in helping our own parties anymore; it's all a game of brinkmanship. Let's see who can fuck the other side over worse.
Slashdot Mirror
My name is Michael Kristopeit. I live in Wisconsin.
Present yourself to me and I will free you of your transgressions.
For great justice.
A typical Blackberry user, while probably not a technical elite, has more years of experience using a computer than the iPhone user has been alive and has some semblance of an idea how email works, if just enough to become suspicious.
iPhones are fashion accessories and social opiates.
Think about it. What percentage of iPhone users even know what an email header is, let alone how to look at it?
"Eight times more iPhone users accessed these phishing websites than Blackberry users."
Nevermind the default mail clients' interfaces; think of the demographics of these devices and the causality will immediately become clear.
The problem with that term is that you have to possess some degree of intelligence to actually be able to spell it, therefore eliminating almost the entire target market for spam pages.
Then again...*checks common misspellings*...okay. I get it now.
$23/month with business discount. It's normally 30 with my Android. See my response to "Jerry" for details.
I have a Motorola Droid X, for the record.
Don't be insulting. Your "unlimited plan" has strings [vzw.com] and strings ("I just wish unlimited data assigned to my account really meant unlimited data!!") and I doubt that you paid $23/m for it.
I really do pay $23/month for it...but it's normally $30. I get a business discount. If they want to throttle me back after 5 gigs or whatever, that's fine...as long as they don't charge me for it. I won't ever hit that anyway.
Verizon is " TESTING [droidinlife.com] unlimited data plans. I currently pay Verizon $72/mo for two cell phones, no texting, no Internet, 1600 minutes. To use the "unlimited" plan for two phones would cost me $160/mo, assuming they aren't lying about being "unlimited" and they throttle my speed when I hit a GB limit.
I pay around $200 for a family plan with 4 Androids and 1 cheapie. 700 minutes (we mostly call each other, so we rarely even approach half that), unlimited texting, unlimited data for me, 150 megs for the other three Androids. I get a business discount. I'm not bullshitting you; I bought my phones online and they asked me what data package I wanted. $23 for me, $15 for the other three.
I'd show you my bill, but the truth is I honestly don't care that much if you believe me or not.
Then I must be the luckiest guy in the world. When I signed up, I had two options: 150 megs or unlimited. I chose the latter. If they throttle me down after 5 gigs or whatever I'm okay with that, as long as they don't charge me for it.
I have absolutely no trust that the price hikes are in any relation to the total increased cost of the bandwidth.
Nobody asks you to trust. Vote with your wallet: Take your business elsewhere, or abstain. Or bitch to your local legislature that private companies needs to open up their financials to public scrutiny.
Network upgrades should have been figured into the subscription already, if they claim now it's not sufficient they either underestimated the rise in bandwidth use or just neglected to upgrade the network accordingly...
Well I'm so glad you know better than the board of directors how to run their company. Has anyone offered you a job yet?
And do you really think the surcharge for overuse is based on any reality of economics besides greed?
Yes. Even the most dark-hearted, bitter liberals have to admit that companies have payrolls, and making more money allows them to employ more people and pay the ones they do have a better wage. Except for unions, of course. Furthermore, if the increases are based on greed, why didn't they use those charges before then? Because it never occurred to them before that people could pay for data? Come on.
When you go over your 'pre-agreed' data limit and use some more it's suddenly gold being burned by 3G... To come back to your fast food analogy it would be like getting a single packet of ketchup with your $1,49 fries, and when you finish that and want more the next packet of ketchup will cost you $100.
Then I guess you'd better use less ketchup. Or go to the other restaurant down the street that gives it to you for free.
Stop acting like a child. Companies have to make profit margins in order to have to be profitable. You don't see a "office janitorial surcharge" on your bill, do you? The total sum of operating expenses for a company are figured into billing, not just solely the use of your device itself. This is why you'll pay $1.19 for a drink at a fast food restaurant that costs them 3 cents to make, but you'll basically pay at cost for your burger and fries.
If you disagree with your cell provider's business practices, you can always go back to a land line.
...or you can pay 23 bucks a month for an unlimited plan like I do at Verizon.
I like the people on this site, but man, when it comes to art and music, you guys are fucking clueless.
Look at my website, dipshit. I run a record review site. I'd bet 50 to 1 I know more about music and art than you ever will. And I know from being a musician, being around musicians, and watching untold hundreds of documentaries that writing music is much, much less than people make it out to be. Improvisational artists can put out tens of records per year because they have the mental discipline to receive inspiration in the moment, rather than spending months crying about their girlfriends in order to shit out three stanzas of heartbreak and loss that can be spoon-fed to a braindead public.
You can't just say to yourself OK, I'm going to write a masterpiece.
You're right. And nobody spends three months on one piece of music and then declares "I have written a masterpiece." Music (and art in general) is entirely subjective; what makes a 'masterpiece' is a confluence of people throwing their support around a particular work. Art is personal expression; the only thing that makes 'great art' is positive response from others.
I could go on but this is the most I'm willing to give to an AC.
but the whole point of having the term is to make the point that what the government calls "minimum wage" is not necessarily a wage that someone can actually live on.
Bullshit. That $600 a month scenario was me, and I was living on my own making minimum wage. If I can do it on $5.15, surely someone can do it on $7.45.
I've always seen it as simply the minimum hourly wage necessary for an individual to meet basic needs, food, clothing, shelter, etc.
If you've ever supported yourself on a low-wage job, you should know that hours can be extremely erratic and many employers will prevent you from reaching 40 hours a week, lest they be penalized by full-time worker taxes. That means on a given week, depending on scheduling, you'll probably be getting between 30 and 39 hours. This could be the difference between $11,600 a year and $15,000 a year gross based on $7.45 an hour (a huge difference from 5 years ago, when I was making $5.15). That's a 23% difference. The point is, an hourly basis for a "living wage" is meaningless.
Even if we're talking on a monthly basis, there are vast regional differences in cost of living that could not be encompassed by a federal cost of living mandate. Around here, especially in some of the more rural areas, you could eat and have a warm place to live on $600 a month with all utilities paid. Try and pull that off in San Fransisco, Chicago or New York City. Won't fucking happen; not even in the ghetto.
$600 a month will get you a palace in China or India.
My point is that a "living wage" is influenced by so many external factors that it's impossible to standardize, and any attempts to do so smack of corruption and class warfare.
I've never heard it associated with unions or smugness.
Union Pushes Living Wage Bill
Chicago Airport Workers Seek Living Wage
Ottawa Endorses Living Wage for All Its Employees
Local Unions Demand Living Wage
I could go on.
The smugness is inherent in anything to do with unions.
I refudiate you for your attempt to impersonate Ms. Palin, who does not live within 3500 miles of California.
A "living wage" as it applies to some smug union lobbyist's idea of how much is appropriate for 'social progress' and a "living wage" as it applies to how much money will actually allow someone to live are two entirely different things. But one implies the other.
Yeah, or maybe people could take government-backed paper notes and give them to the artists as a way of supporting what they do. As they get more of these notes, they can exchange the notes for goods and services that will possibly allow them to gain more public exposure, produce better-sounding music, and collaborate with elite talent that can possibly bring new dynamics to their art.
Oh wait, that's what capitalism is doing right now. Shit; nevermind.
The artists know the drill when they sign up. They could keep a lot more of the money if they started their own labels or even signed to high-tier independents, but they want the bright lights of the stadium.
with almost none of the work behind them.
I fail to see how sitting around while smoking dope and writing poetry qualifies as more "work" than seeking out new talent, managing budgets for studio and tours, organizing promotions and buying ad space, reading the public sentiment towards particular genres and aspects of music, etc., all while employing thousands and providing for their families. The lazy bastards.
I'm no fan of MAFIAA world dominance, but I know a spade when I see one.
Let the people decide what they like by downloading stuff and give those artists a living wage paid for with taxes.
Those of us living on planet earth realize that money is a way to validate what people choose to do with their time. Maybe someone decides what they want to do is bang trash cans together for eight hours a day to no particular end. Is that worth a 'living wage' (a horrible, horrible term that needs to be smashed to pieces, by the way) in your opinion?
I'll answer that for you: Yes, because the government should provide everything for everyone; if they want to work, that's cool, man, but if they don't, that's cool too.
Fucking hippie.
Well, um...well...
Yeah. That's it.
I could imply that she's gay, too. Lolerz.
Somebody come up with an algorithm to generate an explanation paragraph for the batch upload. For example:
I think my {son|daughter|neighbor|friend|coworker|ex} is a secret member of {al Qaeda|al Shebab|Taliban in Yemen|Hamas|Hezbollah|Tea Party}. {She|He}'s been saying {scary|frightening|threatening|subversive} things about you guys and I saw {him|her} {make a bomb|pray towards the east} once. Please arrest {him|her} as soon as possible.
Thanks,
{John|James|Michael} Smith
An emergency patch was successfully uploaded, ensuring that the conditions which caused it to 'go rogue' will not occur again.
If only the same feat could be accomplished with Sarah Palin...
Thus, if you're an "intelligent", "free thinker", you go along with the popular media opinion that anything they sprout must be a lie and you're actually an idiot if you believe. Conformity at its finest, all round.
Let's see...if I agree with Fox News, I'm a mindless tool and a lemming. But if I get on the bandwagon and trash them, I'm also a mindless tool and a lemming. Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.
Or, you could have an opinion of your own...of course, 'round these parts, that's known as trolling and flamebait.
I suspect some at Fox News might disagree with that.
As opposed to MSNBC, who would be afraid of using the word "race" lest they offend somebody. They'll refer to it as a 'species unit.'
How do you define "best?" We've lost all sight (and interest, for that matter) of what's best for the country. We're not even interested in helping our own parties anymore; it's all a game of brinkmanship. Let's see who can fuck the other side over worse.
This was the first thing that came to my mind when I read the article.