And rightfully so. These people were NEVER SOLD unlimited tethering data. They WERE sold unlimited data for their phones, but not for tethering. They're bypassing tethering limits to get more data for themselves, which reduces the network for everyone else. It's not even victimless.
Here’s what’s happening: when customers buy our unlimited 4G LTE plan for their smartphones we include a fixed amount of LTE to be used for tethering (using the “Smartphone Mobile HotSpot” feature), at no extra cost, for the occasions when broadband may not be convenient or available. If customers hit that high-speed tethering limit, those tethering speeds slow down. If a customer needs more LTE tethering, they can add-on more. Simple.
However, these violators are going out of their way with all kinds of workarounds to steal more LTE tethered data.
Like I said in an earlier post: Since the customer was never sold unlimited tethered data, I don't see what the problem is? It's like going to an all you can eat restaurant and complaining that you can't take your leftovers home.
You realize that these are people are sold unlimited data for their phone itself, with metered tethering. The complaint is that they're bypassing the tethering limit, not that they're using unlimited data for the phone itself. Nowhere did T-Mobile ever sell them unlimited tethered data.
Here’s what’s happening: when customers buy our unlimited 4G LTE plan for their smartphones we include a fixed amount of LTE to be used for tethering (using the “Smartphone Mobile HotSpot” feature), at no extra cost, for the occasions when broadband may not be convenient or available. If customers hit that high-speed tethering limit, those tethering speeds slow down. If a customer needs more LTE tethering, they can add-on more. Simple.
However, these violators are going out of their way with all kinds of workarounds to steal more LTE tethered data.
Since the customer was never sold unlimited tethered data, I don't see what the problem is? It's like going to an all you can eat restaurant and complaining that you can't take your leftovers home.
Thanks for the additional information. None of this is readily available in the first links for Ubuntu, zswap, or Linux, and the items I quoted are either current documentation or statements from 6 months ago--so I expected them to be accurate. In addition, the current kernel documentation of zswap STILL lists it as experimental: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Doc...
That said, given this info, many of my earlier points were incorrect. I just enabled it on for my downstairs desktop. It's still not enabled by default on either Ubuntu or Redhat, but at least it's a reasonable effort to turn on--no kernel recompilation, etc.
Awesome! I didn't even know this was in Linux. This would be really useful on my desktop downstairs!
...proceeds to Google "zswap linux ubuntu" http://askubuntu.com/questions/361320/how-can-i-enable-zswap
Oh, so it's not enabled by default in my distro?
According to the kernel documentation, zswap can be enabled by setting zswap.enabled=1 at boot time. Zswap is is still an experimental technology
Oh, great, it's experimental.
It has been enabled and disabled at various times throughout release cycles. – Ken Sharp
Wonderful! If I turn it on, it may suddenly turn itself off when I get a kernel update for 14.04.
You know, I often hear "Linux already has that", but it doesn't work right, isn't enabled by default on basically all distros, or isn't configured such that 99% of Linux users aren't using it. Saying you have something when it's experimental, not enabled by default, enables and disables with updates, and not easily available to the vast majority of your users is silly.
My understanding is that graphics APIs don't specify performance for any particular method (every method should just execute "as quickly as possible"). This means that updated drivers may introduce performance regressions in one code path to optimize another path and this is perfectly acceptable according to the API. As long as no testing covers that code path (no recent games, etc), regressions are often introduced in later driver versions for older or less-used code paths. Testing is focused around the current games and releases, because that's what 99% of people use.
In general, performance regressions and bugs are often introduced in graphics drivers for older games. If you're having performance, glitches, stability, or other problems in an older game, it ALWAYS helps to check to see if a graphics driver update fixes it. If it doesn't, downgrade the driver to an older version--as the older version was much more likely to be tested with your game.
Yes, because the octocopter they plan to use is completely like the Trex 700N 3D aerobatic rc helicopter that killed Pirozek...
The Trex 700N is an aerobatic flying lawnmower, with no shield or guard to prevent you from hitting the blade. They are extremely dangerous and are not toys.
The octocopter's blades are much smaller and have way less momentum. Unless the octocopter hit you in the eye or fell from an extreme height, there's virtually no way to cause permanent damage with the octocopter. Many quad/octo copters have guards to prevent contact with the blade. A final version for the USPS might include some safety guards.
OOOOHH, so not just some random person walking down the street, you're actually referring to someone operating a public business, and that person being allowed to decide that they don't want to deal with an entire group of people, even though they deal with everyone else, and the government saying that it's ok for them to do that if that's what God told them to do.
Specifically, that's NOT what they do. From my linked article:
the Huguenins' photography business does serve gay and lesbian clients, just not same-sex weddings.[1]
So it's actually very close to what you say. They provide photographs to all classes of people, but they don't provide photography services for certain events: Gay Marriages, Photographs depicting violence, and nude maternity photos.[1]
In other words, the Huguenins are being sued for being required, by law, to attend and participate in a gay wedding.
As for the photographer, if he is freelance, he should be able to pick and choose, but if he works in a wedding chapel and sells wedding pictures, well he should photograph anyone who gets married in his place of work.
The photographer linked in my original post here was a freelance photographer being sued for "picking and choosing".
By "participate in a homosexual wedding", do you mean "take pictures of the wedding and then charge for the service?" If the photographer doesn't want to offer their services to the public then they have every right to stop being a public business.
How exactly would you be able to offer photographic services to people without being a public business? It sounds to me like their options are:
a) Can't work as a photographer
b) Be required to violate their religion
I have a problem with forcing them to do it either way. And if I was a gay couple, I sure as hell wouldn't want them photographing my wedding anyway--their heart wouldn't be in it, and they'd probably do a terrible job.
It's not like they have a monopoly. Find another photographer who cares to do your wedding.
It's not clear whether by "gay person" you mean someone attracted to the same gender or someone who has sexual relations with the same gender. In either case, Jesus would interact with them like he would interact with anyone else--with love.
The story of the woman caught in adultery shows his actions clearly:
John 8:11: “Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
But this law isn't just about dealing with, talking to, or being friendly toward any group of people. It's about forcing people to participate in activities that they view as evil. http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
If I owned a printing shop, I would refuse to produce material for the Westboro Baptist Church. Similarly, it seems reasonable to me that a evangelical Christian photographer should be able to politely decline to participate in a homosexual wedding.
You should have the right to decline work that compromises your morals. I have a friend who is vegan, and he turned down a website job at a hunting magazine. That was his right.
Why Intel, why? We can all discuss whether the device should prematurely fail by some arbitrary software limit, but why BRICK it, as it can cause complete data loss!?
Instead, just set the drive to always boot in read-only mode, with secure erase being the only other allowed command. Then someone can recover their data and wipe the drive for good.
Intel doesn't have confidence in the drive at that point, so the 335 Series is designed to shift into read-only mode and then to brick itself when the power is cycled. Despite suffering just one reallocated sector, our sample dutifully followed the script. Data was accessible until a reboot prompted the drive to swallow its virtual cyanide pill.
The grandparent's post made no statements about the first amendment. He stated an argument that higher education should be about growing knowledge and that free speech is an essential component of it.
He actually made a rather compelling argument that suppressing that speech may be more harmful than refuting it. After all, if willingness to challenge fundamental axioms of knowledge isn't allowed in a college setting, then where would it be?
Racism is incredibly harmful. Suppression of ideas is harmful. The 1st protects our ideas and speech from congress, and the 14th protects us from racism.
We the people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"--the 1st amendment is not required for the right of free speech to exist.
So if you rent a car, and then it breaks down, and you call for repair, and they:
1) Arrive within 3 days to give you a new one
2) Charge you 20-30 dollars for a "car tech visit"
3) Break it on the way out the door (yes, it happened to me)
This is OK?...because, they had to incur employee, vehicle, and gas costs to replace the device they rented you which was faulty?
(Ignoring the statement in the parent where he suggested breaking the cablemodem--that's a different issue entirely).
Full Disclosure: In my case, I was able to get the fee removed each time by calling in, because it's not my fault that their tech refused to follow clear instructions (both written on his form and from my wife), and it's not my fault that the modem was faulty.
Also, Alstrup did not rule that she had to be removed from the list. The ruling only meant that they had to inform her whether she was still on the list and correct the clerical error from all databases which originally put her on the list. Nothing stops the government from putting her back on the list for other reasons. It also provided her with the ability to apply for a waiver for her visa denial.
In all fairness, asking the tier1 techs to put a router into bridge mode used to be about as fun as burning yourself alive.
But they've updated their training scripts and lately I've had 100% success with tier1 techs enabling bridge mode. They've always done it quickly and known exactly what I wanted.
Agreed. That's what I was trying to do. But they don't let you use plain cable modems anymore (at least with my plan). So the trick is to call them and ask them to put it in "bridge mode", which basically turns it into a dumb modem.
Then you can use your own router.
Unless you have a DPC3939, which will cause it to reboot every 3-8 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
Won't someone please think of the CHILDREN?
Yes, it was a real quote:
http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/i...
"I won't let a few thieves ruin things for anyone else."
And rightfully so. These people were NEVER SOLD unlimited tethering data. They WERE sold unlimited data for their phones, but not for tethering. They're bypassing tethering limits to get more data for themselves, which reduces the network for everyone else. It's not even victimless.
Here’s what’s happening: when customers buy our unlimited 4G LTE plan for their smartphones we include a fixed amount of LTE to be used for tethering (using the “Smartphone Mobile HotSpot” feature), at no extra cost, for the occasions when broadband may not be convenient or available. If customers hit that high-speed tethering limit, those tethering speeds slow down. If a customer needs more LTE tethering, they can add-on more. Simple.
However, these violators are going out of their way with all kinds of workarounds to steal more LTE tethered data.
Like I said in an earlier post: Since the customer was never sold unlimited tethered data, I don't see what the problem is? It's like going to an all you can eat restaurant and complaining that you can't take your leftovers home.
You realize that these are people are sold unlimited data for their phone itself, with metered tethering. The complaint is that they're bypassing the tethering limit, not that they're using unlimited data for the phone itself. Nowhere did T-Mobile ever sell them unlimited tethered data.
From the open letter itself:
http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/i...
Here’s what’s happening: when customers buy our unlimited 4G LTE plan for their smartphones we include a fixed amount of LTE to be used for tethering (using the “Smartphone Mobile HotSpot” feature), at no extra cost, for the occasions when broadband may not be convenient or available. If customers hit that high-speed tethering limit, those tethering speeds slow down. If a customer needs more LTE tethering, they can add-on more. Simple.
However, these violators are going out of their way with all kinds of workarounds to steal more LTE tethered data.
Since the customer was never sold unlimited tethered data, I don't see what the problem is? It's like going to an all you can eat restaurant and complaining that you can't take your leftovers home.
It's actually 7 years, but yeah, it's a long time.
https://fiber.google.com/citie...
No contract
Includes service guaranteed at $0/mo for 7 years per address
Yes, if ONLY I had been using "One True Scotsman Distro (TM)", I'm sure it'd all work great.
Fed Troll +1
MSG:
Thanks for the additional information. None of this is readily available in the first links for Ubuntu, zswap, or Linux, and the items I quoted are either current documentation or statements from 6 months ago--so I expected them to be accurate. In addition, the current kernel documentation of zswap STILL lists it as experimental:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Doc...
That said, given this info, many of my earlier points were incorrect. I just enabled it on for my downstairs desktop. It's still not enabled by default on either Ubuntu or Redhat, but at least it's a reasonable effort to turn on--no kernel recompilation, etc.
Well, in their defense, on Windows, we pretty much consider every other version of the whole OS crap...
...fixed that for you :)
It's like the star trek movies!
Awesome! I didn't even know this was in Linux. This would be really useful on my desktop downstairs!
...proceeds to Google "zswap linux ubuntu"
http://askubuntu.com/questions/361320/how-can-i-enable-zswap
Oh, so it's not enabled by default in my distro?
According to the kernel documentation, zswap can be enabled by setting zswap.enabled=1 at boot time. Zswap is is still an experimental technology
Oh, great, it's experimental.
It has been enabled and disabled at various times throughout release cycles. – Ken Sharp
Wonderful! If I turn it on, it may suddenly turn itself off when I get a kernel update for 14.04.
You know, I often hear "Linux already has that", but it doesn't work right, isn't enabled by default on basically all distros, or isn't configured such that 99% of Linux users aren't using it. Saying you have something when it's experimental, not enabled by default, enables and disables with updates, and not easily available to the vast majority of your users is silly.
My understanding is that graphics APIs don't specify performance for any particular method (every method should just execute "as quickly as possible"). This means that updated drivers may introduce performance regressions in one code path to optimize another path and this is perfectly acceptable according to the API. As long as no testing covers that code path (no recent games, etc), regressions are often introduced in later driver versions for older or less-used code paths. Testing is focused around the current games and releases, because that's what 99% of people use.
In general, performance regressions and bugs are often introduced in graphics drivers for older games. If you're having performance, glitches, stability, or other problems in an older game, it ALWAYS helps to check to see if a graphics driver update fixes it. If it doesn't, downgrade the driver to an older version--as the older version was much more likely to be tested with your game.
HTH
Yes, because the octocopter they plan to use is completely like the Trex 700N 3D aerobatic rc helicopter that killed Pirozek...
The Trex 700N is an aerobatic flying lawnmower, with no shield or guard to prevent you from hitting the blade. They are extremely dangerous and are not toys.
The octocopter's blades are much smaller and have way less momentum. Unless the octocopter hit you in the eye or fell from an extreme height, there's virtually no way to cause permanent damage with the octocopter. Many quad/octo copters have guards to prevent contact with the blade. A final version for the USPS might include some safety guards.
Note: I fly RC helicopters and planes.
OOOOHH, so not just some random person walking down the street, you're actually referring to someone operating a public business, and that person being allowed to decide that they don't want to deal with an entire group of people, even though they deal with everyone else, and the government saying that it's ok for them to do that if that's what God told them to do.
Specifically, that's NOT what they do. From my linked article: the Huguenins' photography business does serve gay and lesbian clients, just not same-sex weddings.[1]
So it's actually very close to what you say. They provide photographs to all classes of people, but they don't provide photography services for certain events: Gay Marriages, Photographs depicting violence, and nude maternity photos.[1]
In other words, the Huguenins are being sued for being required, by law, to attend and participate in a gay wedding.
Sources:
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
As for the photographer, if he is freelance, he should be able to pick and choose, but if he works in a wedding chapel and sells wedding pictures, well he should photograph anyone who gets married in his place of work.
The photographer linked in my original post here was a freelance photographer being sued for "picking and choosing".
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
By "participate in a homosexual wedding", do you mean "take pictures of the wedding and then charge for the service?" If the photographer doesn't want to offer their services to the public then they have every right to stop being a public business.
This is the biggest strawman I've ever seen. If you were the photographer here: http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
How exactly would you be able to offer photographic services to people without being a public business? It sounds to me like their options are:
a) Can't work as a photographer
b) Be required to violate their religion
I have a problem with forcing them to do it either way. And if I was a gay couple, I sure as hell wouldn't want them photographing my wedding anyway--their heart wouldn't be in it, and they'd probably do a terrible job.
It's not like they have a monopoly. Find another photographer who cares to do your wedding.
would Jesus refuse to deal with a gay person?
It's not clear whether by "gay person" you mean someone attracted to the same gender or someone who has sexual relations with the same gender. In either case, Jesus would interact with them like he would interact with anyone else--with love.
The story of the woman caught in adultery shows his actions clearly:
John 8:11: “Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
But this law isn't just about dealing with, talking to, or being friendly toward any group of people. It's about forcing people to participate in activities that they view as evil. http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
If I owned a printing shop, I would refuse to produce material for the Westboro Baptist Church. Similarly, it seems reasonable to me that a evangelical Christian photographer should be able to politely decline to participate in a homosexual wedding.
You should have the right to decline work that compromises your morals. I have a friend who is vegan, and he turned down a website job at a hunting magazine. That was his right.
Sexual orientation is not a choice.
Sexual behavior is a choice.
Why Intel, why? We can all discuss whether the device should prematurely fail by some arbitrary software limit, but why BRICK it, as it can cause complete data loss!?
Instead, just set the drive to always boot in read-only mode, with secure erase being the only other allowed command. Then someone can recover their data and wipe the drive for good.
Intel doesn't have confidence in the drive at that point, so the 335 Series is designed to shift into read-only mode and then to brick itself when the power is cycled. Despite suffering just one reallocated sector, our sample dutifully followed the script. Data was accessible until a reboot prompted the drive to swallow its virtual cyanide pill.
The grandparent's post made no statements about the first amendment. He stated an argument that higher education should be about growing knowledge and that free speech is an essential component of it.
He actually made a rather compelling argument that suppressing that speech may be more harmful than refuting it. After all, if willingness to challenge fundamental axioms of knowledge isn't allowed in a college setting, then where would it be?
Racism is incredibly harmful. Suppression of ideas is harmful. The 1st protects our ideas and speech from congress, and the 14th protects us from racism.
We the people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"--the 1st amendment is not required for the right of free speech to exist.
So if you rent a car, and then it breaks down, and you call for repair, and they:
...because, they had to incur employee, vehicle, and gas costs to replace the device they rented you which was faulty?
1) Arrive within 3 days to give you a new one
2) Charge you 20-30 dollars for a "car tech visit"
3) Break it on the way out the door (yes, it happened to me)
This is OK?
(Ignoring the statement in the parent where he suggested breaking the cablemodem--that's a different issue entirely).
Full Disclosure: In my case, I was able to get the fee removed each time by calling in, because it's not my fault that their tech refused to follow clear instructions (both written on his form and from my wife), and it's not my fault that the modem was faulty.
It sounds like you're referring to Dr. Ibrahim.
http://papersplease.org/wp/201...
Also, Alstrup did not rule that she had to be removed from the list. The ruling only meant that they had to inform her whether she was still on the list and correct the clerical error from all databases which originally put her on the list. Nothing stops the government from putting her back on the list for other reasons. It also provided her with the ability to apply for a waiver for her visa denial.
See:
http://www.wired.com/images_bl...
(page 38)
If you're a comcast engineer, could you get them to fix the router linked in this article? It doesn't work in bridge mode...
See: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
In all fairness, asking the tier1 techs to put a router into bridge mode used to be about as fun as burning yourself alive.
But they've updated their training scripts and lately I've had 100% success with tier1 techs enabling bridge mode. They've always done it quickly and known exactly what I wanted.
Just don't try it if you have the DPC3939 listed in this article! See: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Agreed. That's what I was trying to do. But they don't let you use plain cable modems anymore (at least with my plan). So the trick is to call them and ask them to put it in "bridge mode", which basically turns it into a dumb modem.
Then you can use your own router.
Unless you have a DPC3939, which will cause it to reboot every 3-8 minutes.
Not on my plan. See: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
They force you to use their (broken) hardware--or pay double.
No can do. See here: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
The technicolor is actually the box I have right now. It's been working great, once I called Comcast and had them put it in bridge mode. :)