To be fair though, sports stadiums have a trickle-down effect that a telecom doesn't have. Sports stadiums bring in numerous visitors from out of town that are then much more likely to patronize local businesses before and after games. The increase in the temporary population also helps to attract new businesses to your city. Footing the bill for a new sports stadium is a great way to invest in your local economy. Unless crime rates are already bad such that the stadium might overstress your police system, a city would be foolish not to accept an offer from a nationally recognized sports team.
All said, I would have to say that building a sports stadium is leagues above a telecom merger such as this. The effects are far more reaching than a simple 5000 people. Though you are correct in that the base arguments are the same; "'Give' us money and we'll create jobs". The difference is that the sports team's argument actually holds water.
No, but the fact that they were willing to pay ten billion more sure as hell does. If they wanted it for legitimate business purposes they would have had a bidding war with Sprint and paid as little as possible. Instead they leap over Sprint by ten billion fucking dollars to discourage counter-bids and just win outright. Any company that wants a competitor that badly cannot possibly be thinking of using the acquisition in a way that would actually benefit anyone but themselves. The only reason they would consider over-bidding by such a ludicrous amount is if they genuinely think they can make all of that back and more. You don't recoup ten billion dollars off of an increased user base. You make it back by stifling competition and jacking up prices. Call me cynical, but that's my opinion.
No, Prepaid is indeed No Contract. However No Contract doesn't necessarily have to be Prepaid, it can simply be "Unsubsidized". The GGP doesn't make a distinction as to whether they mean Unsubsidized plans or all No Contract plans. Scottbomb was correct in pointing out No Contract plans still exist, in the form of prepaid plans.
I believe you have been moderately misled. I cannot confirm or deny if the no-contract plans are indeed gone, though a sibling poster claims they are still available to new customers. I can confirm however, as a user on a pre-paid no contract plan, that I was not shunted into a contract. My phone still works just the same as it ever has. Between my experience and that of the sibling, it sounds like the disappearance of these no-contract plans was either a temporary and second guessed decision, or you were outright lied to in the first place.
Excellent idea. Then they could name their wifi access points "G-Spots". Of course that would work out poorly for them since 90% of the population wouldn't be able to find them.
Months? They must not be sleeping much. I work with an Indian woman who has lived here in the US for nearly two decades and I still can't understand a fucking thing she says.
Yep, pass the buck and wash your hands of the situation. That's the American way.
Being passive-aggressive never solved anything. 'Lead' by helping them to find economical ways to tighten up their environmental regulations, not turning a blind eye to the situation. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.
It's actually very accurate. Rare simply means that something doesn't occur very often or is not found in large numbers. The common misconception with 'Rare Earth Metals' is that the described scope is the planet, which couldn't be further from the truth. Rare earth metals are called such because they are almost never found in large deposits. Instead they are commonly found in thin veins running through another substrate. So rather than mining out large chunks of rare earth metals and refining them straight away they instead need to be smelted out of their substrate first. So here, rare is referring to the fact that the metal is not found in large consolidated deposits, which is indeed an accurate usage of the term rare, albeit not the common usage everyone is familiar with. Which I suppose I must admit is unfortunate in a way. Blame the general ambiguity of the English language, not whoever decided to name the finding accurately.
Please, no. Let us quash all ideas of mining the moon right here and now. Decreasing the mass, and subsequently the gravity of the moon is just a terrible idea. The tides and other effects we have down here on earth are too important to be disrupted. While I agree with you that the moon is certainly a more convenient place to acquire resources, mining it is just a really really bad idea.
I bet if you looked at satelite photos zoomed in to about street level it would look like one writhing mass of yellow. I mean, the population density over there is pretty high.
Why does it have to be a limited amount of time? If we're capable enough to push it into orbiting the earth, what's to stop us from keeping it there indefinitely? I'm no astrophysicist, but it seems to me that it would be trivial to just make adjustments to the asteroid's orbit every month or so to make sure it's around to stay long enough for us to finish mining it.
So don't give your consent to be photographed. I could be wrong and it may only apply to professional photographers, but I'm of the understanding that a person needs your signed written consent to use/publish an image bearing your likeness. If they didn't have your consent you should be able to legally get it taken down or at least untagged and disassociated from you.
Or you could just take the proactive approach and just not get into inappropriate situations where it is possible you will be photographed. I understand that shit happens, but a little due diligence goes a long way sometimes.
Seems rather trivial to find out who their friends are and then check their profiles for pictures of the person you're looking for. Sounds like this only makes it a skosh harder to find said pictures.
I really like your idea here. Now all we need is for someone to flesh it out into actual numbers instead of theory to see if it could actually pan out. Realistically though it would never be accepted. We've been measuring temperatures for over 1000 years (which may be underestimated, I didn't bother to dig too deeply) and still can't agree with each other on a single system to use. I actually like the Kelvin system simply because it uses a very nice zero point (albeit moderately estimated) and has a not-too-outrageous granularity to it; room temperature is right around 300K. But as you say, the system (any temperature system for that matter) needs to be relevant to humans, not just scientists. I honestly could see the debate over a standard, globally accepted temperature scale outlasting the heat death of the Universe.
LWATCDR is most likely referencing 180 degrees as it is half of a circle. In this respect, 180 makes 'more' sense than 100 degrees. 100 degrees was (likely) chosen due to it being 'metric' (since we don't talk in deci or centigrees) and 100 has the most reasonable granularity among the factors normally chosen for metric measurements; 10 would have required too many decimals, and 1000 would have been comically high for the boiling point of water.
Objectively, neither 100 or 180 are 'good' or 'bad' math. Both are based on the amount of energy a chosen substance contains when it crosses over a particular phase change boundary. However both also assume a 'standard' in altitude and atmospheric pressure to arrive at those calibrated points. Lower the atmospheric pressure and water begins to boil lower than 100C/212F. Both are rather piss poor standards if you ask me.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair though, sports stadiums have a trickle-down effect that a telecom doesn't have. Sports stadiums bring in numerous visitors from out of town that are then much more likely to patronize local businesses before and after games. The increase in the temporary population also helps to attract new businesses to your city. Footing the bill for a new sports stadium is a great way to invest in your local economy. Unless crime rates are already bad such that the stadium might overstress your police system, a city would be foolish not to accept an offer from a nationally recognized sports team.
All said, I would have to say that building a sports stadium is leagues above a telecom merger such as this. The effects are far more reaching than a simple 5000 people. Though you are correct in that the base arguments are the same; "'Give' us money and we'll create jobs". The difference is that the sports team's argument actually holds water.
No, but the fact that they were willing to pay ten billion more sure as hell does. If they wanted it for legitimate business purposes they would have had a bidding war with Sprint and paid as little as possible. Instead they leap over Sprint by ten billion fucking dollars to discourage counter-bids and just win outright. Any company that wants a competitor that badly cannot possibly be thinking of using the acquisition in a way that would actually benefit anyone but themselves. The only reason they would consider over-bidding by such a ludicrous amount is if they genuinely think they can make all of that back and more. You don't recoup ten billion dollars off of an increased user base. You make it back by stifling competition and jacking up prices. Call me cynical, but that's my opinion.
No, Prepaid is indeed No Contract. However No Contract doesn't necessarily have to be Prepaid, it can simply be "Unsubsidized". The GGP doesn't make a distinction as to whether they mean Unsubsidized plans or all No Contract plans. Scottbomb was correct in pointing out No Contract plans still exist, in the form of prepaid plans.
I believe you have been moderately misled. I cannot confirm or deny if the no-contract plans are indeed gone, though a sibling poster claims they are still available to new customers. I can confirm however, as a user on a pre-paid no contract plan, that I was not shunted into a contract. My phone still works just the same as it ever has. Between my experience and that of the sibling, it sounds like the disappearance of these no-contract plans was either a temporary and second guessed decision, or you were outright lied to in the first place.
Excellent idea. Then they could name their wifi access points "G-Spots". Of course that would work out poorly for them since 90% of the population wouldn't be able to find them.
Months? They must not be sleeping much. I work with an Indian woman who has lived here in the US for nearly two decades and I still can't understand a fucking thing she says.
If it was there wouldn't be an EPA, minimum wage, women rights, black voters, and so on.
Bread and Circuses my friend. Bread and Circuses.
Yep, pass the buck and wash your hands of the situation. That's the American way.
Being passive-aggressive never solved anything. 'Lead' by helping them to find economical ways to tighten up their environmental regulations, not turning a blind eye to the situation. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.
Please sir, explain to me how you plan to oxidize the ore to facilitate smelting without... Um... Oxygen?
Hiring Monoglians to mine the asteroid on Earth will be a lot cheaper than sending astronauts to mine it in space.
Good! Put 'em to work! God-damn Mongorians always trying to tear down mah wall!
It's actually very accurate. Rare simply means that something doesn't occur very often or is not found in large numbers. The common misconception with 'Rare Earth Metals' is that the described scope is the planet, which couldn't be further from the truth. Rare earth metals are called such because they are almost never found in large deposits. Instead they are commonly found in thin veins running through another substrate. So rather than mining out large chunks of rare earth metals and refining them straight away they instead need to be smelted out of their substrate first. So here, rare is referring to the fact that the metal is not found in large consolidated deposits, which is indeed an accurate usage of the term rare, albeit not the common usage everyone is familiar with. Which I suppose I must admit is unfortunate in a way. Blame the general ambiguity of the English language, not whoever decided to name the finding accurately.
Please, no. Let us quash all ideas of mining the moon right here and now. Decreasing the mass, and subsequently the gravity of the moon is just a terrible idea. The tides and other effects we have down here on earth are too important to be disrupted. While I agree with you that the moon is certainly a more convenient place to acquire resources, mining it is just a really really bad idea.
I bet if you looked at satelite photos zoomed in to about street level it would look like one writhing mass of yellow. I mean, the population density over there is pretty high.
Why does it have to be a limited amount of time? If we're capable enough to push it into orbiting the earth, what's to stop us from keeping it there indefinitely? I'm no astrophysicist, but it seems to me that it would be trivial to just make adjustments to the asteroid's orbit every month or so to make sure it's around to stay long enough for us to finish mining it.
Alternatively you could just let the corporate firewall block them for you. I mean what? I'm not wasting time at work!
Wow. Don't feel too bad, I did the exact same thing. I didn't realize why you two were 'arguing' until I read your comment. Yikes, needy more sleepy.
Fuck them, and fuck all of you that vote these fuckers into office.
The sad state of things is that the people we vote for aren't the people that get put into office, even if their name is the same...
So don't give your consent to be photographed. I could be wrong and it may only apply to professional photographers, but I'm of the understanding that a person needs your signed written consent to use/publish an image bearing your likeness. If they didn't have your consent you should be able to legally get it taken down or at least untagged and disassociated from you.
Or you could just take the proactive approach and just not get into inappropriate situations where it is possible you will be photographed. I understand that shit happens, but a little due diligence goes a long way sometimes.
Seems rather trivial to find out who their friends are and then check their profiles for pictures of the person you're looking for. Sounds like this only makes it a skosh harder to find said pictures.
They only want in because you're NotSanguine. If you were Sanguine they'd stay the hell out of your underpants.
It came from 'the wild'. RTFS.
Dude, someone has to go to the store to pick up Cheetos and Mountain Dew.
I really like your idea here. Now all we need is for someone to flesh it out into actual numbers instead of theory to see if it could actually pan out. Realistically though it would never be accepted. We've been measuring temperatures for over 1000 years (which may be underestimated, I didn't bother to dig too deeply) and still can't agree with each other on a single system to use. I actually like the Kelvin system simply because it uses a very nice zero point (albeit moderately estimated) and has a not-too-outrageous granularity to it; room temperature is right around 300K. But as you say, the system (any temperature system for that matter) needs to be relevant to humans, not just scientists. I honestly could see the debate over a standard, globally accepted temperature scale outlasting the heat death of the Universe.
Precisely correct MightyYar. You win an internet cookie.
LWATCDR is most likely referencing 180 degrees as it is half of a circle. In this respect, 180 makes 'more' sense than 100 degrees. 100 degrees was (likely) chosen due to it being 'metric' (since we don't talk in deci or centigrees) and 100 has the most reasonable granularity among the factors normally chosen for metric measurements; 10 would have required too many decimals, and 1000 would have been comically high for the boiling point of water.
Objectively, neither 100 or 180 are 'good' or 'bad' math. Both are based on the amount of energy a chosen substance contains when it crosses over a particular phase change boundary. However both also assume a 'standard' in altitude and atmospheric pressure to arrive at those calibrated points. Lower the atmospheric pressure and water begins to boil lower than 100C/212F. Both are rather piss poor standards if you ask me.