There are a number of reasons it can't, not the least of which involves the law.
When I purchased my phone, I found out about all of this by actually reading the material available and asking questions. It is the duty of the customer to make sure he is educated and knows what he is buying and what he is agreeing to in the contracts.
You don't even own a cell phone and you obviously have no clue as to how cell phones and wireless data work. Maybe you should stop arguing from ignorance.
In this case, the only reason people would want to hide what they are doing is if they are doing something they know is wrong. After all, in this case, people are to both put something out for consumption by random, possibly anonymous, people which would imply that they want as wide a dispersal as possible and thus imply a desire for widespread knowledge of their activity. Yet, they also don't want certain people knowing what they are doing, which is the only reason for secrecy.
There are other activities that follow this model. Most of them is either illegal and the ones that are legal are looked down on by society at large as being evil or wrong.
Why make the distinction between on-network and roaming? The same thing applies between carriers.
If your phone is set to auto-roam on the best network, you can be in an area where your provider has crappy signal strength and a roaming partner has good signal strength and your phone will prefer to connect to the roaming tower.
The difference between Domestic and International roaming is defined in the roaming agreements and server agreements.
What determines if one is roaming is the tower to which one is connected.
The ship has it's own cellular tower. His phone was connected to that tower. He was roaming.
If the roaming agreement between the operator of the cruise ship's service and his home service has the ships as being "international" roaming, then it doesn't matter where the ship is.
A bunch of assholes decide that if they might lose in court, they should make an attack on their enemies in hopes of scaring or forcing them to stop the prosecution.
Hmm. Attacking them to oppress them. Now, that sounds a lot like terrorism. It is, at best, oppression. Perhaps some white hat hackers should attack the Pirate Bay and other groups supporting them.
But, of course, if some people did that, those that are now on the attack would no doubt cry foul, making them hypocrites as well.
This is why all you people who think copyright should not be respected will never have the support of the government or the courts.
If I were a judge in this case, I would make a summary judgement against the Pirate Bay because of these attacks.
Hmm so, you believe that the presidential election should be decided by less than half the states, most of which are not representative of the whole, eh?
If you don't understand that statement, I suggest you look up states by population and see how things would play out for smaller states, such as Iowa and Vermont.
And, the court ruled that the SCIENCE shows that vaccines don't cause autism. They kind of left that out of the article in the Washington Post, but it was in my local paper.
And, if you believe that vaccines cause autism, then you are a gullible moron who needs someone to blame for misfortune.
And we can ignore the following states because they do not have the population to effect the election: Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, Hawaii, Rhode Island, New Hapshire, Maine, and Idaho. Together, they have less than 5% of the population of the country.
You ignore other inconvenient facts, such as the interior states have much lower populations than the coastal states and thus many may as well not vote as their votes will be a drop in the bucket.
You are obviously ignorant of how the electoral college makes one's vote count MORE.
You are obviously ignorant of why the electoral college exists and how it works.
If a candidate wins one state by 10K votes, they may lose another state by the same amount. Thus, they have to work harder to get as many votes as possible as opposed to the current way of zeroing in on a few states with a high electoral college count.
No. They will only have to work hard to get votes in the 20 most populous states. Those will be the states hold almost 75% of the population. The other 30 states will be mere afterthoughts. Party line voting and special interest voting will result in those 30 states not having a meaningful effect on the outcome.
Either you are ignorant of American geography and population, or you think that all states have the same concerns, or you just don't give a damn about the people in smaller states.
Yes, because it is a good idea to marginalize those that produce the food in this country. After all, they are the ones who's concerns and values will not be reflected in the vote because they are in the minority and the electoral college amplifies their voting power.
It is different because if one gets enough of the smaller states, then winning those three won't matter. However, with a popular vote election, only California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina should bother to vote because those 10 states hold over 50% of the U.S. population. States like Vermont, Hawaii, Alaska, and, ironically enough, Iowa will be ignored in favor of the top 10, maybe 15 if we are lucky, states.
Yeah, it doesn't work like that. In fact, that suggestion is probably a violation both the Constitution and election law. Electoral college votes are supposed to represent the people of the individual states and strengthen the votes of smaller states. By using the national election results, Iowa would be effectively disenfranchising it's own citizens and diluting their votes to nothing. The Iowa electoral college votes would not reflect Iowans concerns and values, but rather those of the citizens of New York, California, Florida, etc.
Except for the fact that in order for your system to work, the tax has to be hire than 30% and the payout level would have to be extremely low, otherwise income will not cover expense and the government will go even further into debt, and things will only get worse.
The so-called "Fair Tax" isn't, and it is a regressive tax, far more so than a simple flat rate income tax. What makes the unfair is that it shifts the tax burden down on to the lower earning populace, while rewarding the highest income people with lower taxes. One can only spend so much; just look at the bank accounts of the multi-millionaires for proof. In the end, people who make less will end up paying a greater amount of their earning in taxes because they will end up paying out more of said earning just to live.
A better system would be a flat rate income tax combined with a luxury tax and an excess income tax which would be based on multiples of the average worker income. This would encourage lower executive salaries, higher worker salaries, would encourage saving and more reasonable spending.
That US$13 trillion, if it exist, will be worth about what the paper it is printed on is worth if foreign investors decide to dump their U.S. securities and notes.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a number of reasons it can't, not the least of which involves the law.
When I purchased my phone, I found out about all of this by actually reading the material available and asking questions. It is the duty of the customer to make sure he is educated and knows what he is buying and what he is agreeing to in the contracts.
You don't even own a cell phone and you obviously have no clue as to how cell phones and wireless data work. Maybe you should stop arguing from ignorance.
It is not sarcasm, dumb ass. It is the truth.
In this case, the only reason people would want to hide what they are doing is if they are doing something they know is wrong. After all, in this case, people are to both put something out for consumption by random, possibly anonymous, people which would imply that they want as wide a dispersal as possible and thus imply a desire for widespread knowledge of their activity. Yet, they also don't want certain people knowing what they are doing, which is the only reason for secrecy.
There are other activities that follow this model. Most of them is either illegal and the ones that are legal are looked down on by society at large as being evil or wrong.
Why make the distinction between on-network and roaming? The same thing applies between carriers.
If your phone is set to auto-roam on the best network, you can be in an area where your provider has crappy signal strength and a roaming partner has good signal strength and your phone will prefer to connect to the roaming tower.
The difference between Domestic and International roaming is defined in the roaming agreements and server agreements.
I work for the company that makes a lot of that possible. None of that correlation and billing takes place in real time, especially the data side.
And, the cost of this roaming is spelled out in his terms of service and his contract.
Therefore, he has been told and has agreed to pay the cost.
Therefore, he is obligated to pay for the service.
Thanks for playing, you lose.
His physical location is irrelevant. What matters is what cell tower he is connected to.
No, it isn't. This is the fault of the cruise ship company and the customer.
There is a roaming indicator on all cell phones.
As the rate varies depending on contract, location, home service provider, and roaming service provider, it would be very hard to provide that.
What determines if one is roaming is the tower to which one is connected.
The ship has it's own cellular tower. His phone was connected to that tower. He was roaming.
If the roaming agreement between the operator of the cruise ship's service and his home service has the ships as being "international" roaming, then it doesn't matter where the ship is.
Then you have no reason to hide what you are doing.
Now, explain why he should and how it would help the American economy.
FLOSS does not create jobs or do anything else to stimulate the economy, therefore, no.
yeah, you don't know how it works in Sweden, so shut the fuck up.
A bunch of assholes decide that if they might lose in court, they should make an attack on their enemies in hopes of scaring or forcing them to stop the prosecution.
Hmm. Attacking them to oppress them. Now, that sounds a lot like terrorism. It is, at best, oppression. Perhaps some white hat hackers should attack the Pirate Bay and other groups supporting them.
But, of course, if some people did that, those that are now on the attack would no doubt cry foul, making them hypocrites as well.
This is why all you people who think copyright should not be respected will never have the support of the government or the courts.
If I were a judge in this case, I would make a summary judgement against the Pirate Bay because of these attacks.
Were you there?
No?
Then shut the fuck up.
For all you know, the stupid, little cunt got violent
This is not a jetpack. It is a device for riding a firehose.
Hmm so, you believe that the presidential election should be decided by less than half the states, most of which are not representative of the whole, eh?
If you don't understand that statement, I suggest you look up states by population and see how things would play out for smaller states, such as Iowa and Vermont.
And, the court ruled that the SCIENCE shows that vaccines don't cause autism. They kind of left that out of the article in the Washington Post, but it was in my local paper.
And, if you believe that vaccines cause autism, then you are a gullible moron who needs someone to blame for misfortune.
They were purchased with a grant specifically for doing this. If they remove them, they may have to pay back the grant money.
Um, no.
And we can ignore the following states because they do not have the population to effect the election:
Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, Hawaii, Rhode Island, New Hapshire, Maine, and Idaho. Together, they have less than 5% of the population of the country.
You ignore other inconvenient facts, such as the interior states have much lower populations than the coastal states and thus many may as well not vote as their votes will be a drop in the bucket.
You are obviously ignorant of how the electoral college makes one's vote count MORE.
You are obviously ignorant of why the electoral college exists and how it works.
No. They will only have to work hard to get votes in the 20 most populous states. Those will be the states hold almost 75% of the population. The other 30 states will be mere afterthoughts. Party line voting and special interest voting will result in those 30 states not having a meaningful effect on the outcome.
Either you are ignorant of American geography and population, or you think that all states have the same concerns, or you just don't give a damn about the people in smaller states.
Yes, because it is a good idea to marginalize those that produce the food in this country. After all, they are the ones who's concerns and values will not be reflected in the vote because they are in the minority and the electoral college amplifies their voting power.
It is different because if one gets enough of the smaller states, then winning those three won't matter. However, with a popular vote election, only California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina should bother to vote because those 10 states hold over 50% of the U.S. population. States like Vermont, Hawaii, Alaska, and, ironically enough, Iowa will be ignored in favor of the top 10, maybe 15 if we are lucky, states.
Yeah, it doesn't work like that. In fact, that suggestion is probably a violation both the Constitution and election law. Electoral college votes are supposed to represent the people of the individual states and strengthen the votes of smaller states. By using the national election results, Iowa would be effectively disenfranchising it's own citizens and diluting their votes to nothing. The Iowa electoral college votes would not reflect Iowans concerns and values, but rather those of the citizens of New York, California, Florida, etc.
This is a very bad idea and will hurt Iowans.
Except for the fact that in order for your system to work, the tax has to be hire than 30% and the payout level would have to be extremely low, otherwise income will not cover expense and the government will go even further into debt, and things will only get worse.
But, using credit and printing money is not "digging a ramp", it is "digging straight down".
The so-called "Fair Tax" isn't, and it is a regressive tax, far more so than a simple flat rate income tax. What makes the unfair is that it shifts the tax burden down on to the lower earning populace, while rewarding the highest income people with lower taxes. One can only spend so much; just look at the bank accounts of the multi-millionaires for proof. In the end, people who make less will end up paying a greater amount of their earning in taxes because they will end up paying out more of said earning just to live.
A better system would be a flat rate income tax combined with a luxury tax and an excess income tax which would be based on multiples of the average worker income. This would encourage lower executive salaries, higher worker salaries, would encourage saving and more reasonable spending.
That US$13 trillion, if it exist, will be worth about what the paper it is printed on is worth if foreign investors decide to dump their U.S. securities and notes.