They were roaming. The tower the cell connected to was not an ATT tower.
Period. No question, no argument.
You are absolutely incorrect. Roaming has NOTHING to do, technically or legally, with where you happen to be. It has to do with one thing, and one thing only: what network is the phone connecting to.
If your phone connects to something other than your provider, thats how it is designed. It happens all the time. There are lots of places in the US where I will roam off ATT onto T-Mobile. Thats how the system works. I'm in the US, I'm physically in an area with ATT coverage but I end up on T-Mobile. It happens. As much as you may wish your beliefs have any bearing in the real world, what you wish "roaming" means pretty much doesn't matter in the slightest.
Everyone else in the thread seems to get that distinction. My response was flippant because you're either trolling or an idiot and it made very little sense to have this discussion with you whichever bucket you are in.
Wrong. He was roaming, and its not ATT's fault he was roaming. It was nice of them to do something for him, but he should've gone after the cruise line when he found out it was *their* fault.
ATT still has an obligation to pay the provider that's billing him.
So yes, I'm saying its not random. If you believe otherwise, you're the naive one. If an entire department is let go it means the department wasn't strategic anymore *and* none of the employees in it were deemed worth transferring.
And, to be even more clear, damn near every company can lose 5-10% of its workforce without impact.
Layoffs are the perfect opportunity to get rid of the people who you don't really want there but don't want to go through the hassle of actually firing.
Anyone who has gone through the process of making the list knows that its not random, not last hired-first-fired... when its individuals in a group and not the whole group, its "who have we wanted to get rid of and actually can now without giving them multiple warnings and dragging it out for months?".
Poor means you can't choose to change a behavior to alleviate the problems you have.
The poor in the US is not poor. They have access to food. They have access to shelter. They choose to buy Nikes. They choose to have an XBox. They choose to buy an iPod or a cell phone while on welfare.
Poor is having *nothing*. No chance, no opportunity, no choice you can change. Its *not* "I don't have as much as the people around me".
No one in the US is poor. Period. If you believe otherwise, you should do some travel in parts of the world that are truly poor. I have.
If you think there is a single person in the US, in an inner city, in rural Kentucky, in the middle of nowhere Alaska... an single one who is living in any sort of poverty, you need to visit the rest of the world.
There's no true poverty in the US. There is manufactured poverty (I can't feed my kids, but I just bought this new XBox), there's no real lack of healthcare. Not like the truly poor parts of the world.
As someone who wrote some of the early pattern identification software for detecting fraudulent charges, I think I'm substantially more familiar than someone who swipes cards.
What you do on your end doesn't matter. Back to back, ten transactions in between, it all doesn't matter. Its the pattern of activity on that single account that does.
A hundred authorizations from even a hundred DIFFERENT terminals in that short of a timespan would disable that account.
You say drive down wages worldwide like thats a bad thing.
There's not productivity and resources worldwide to cover the wages world-wide as it is. For people to live at even a fraction of the wealth the average American has, someone else has to be living in absolute poverty *and still be productive*. Every bit of resources any of us consume above this hypothetical level has to be made up for by someone who isn't getting the full benefits of their labor.
Now, living vastly above my share, I'm okay with that. But talking about wage fairness out of one side of your mouth while talking about wages staying up on the other is being unrealistic. You'll get fair wages globally when people in the US and the rest of the "1st world" are living on 10% of what they do now. Then everyone can share equally.
If it makes the laptop smaller and lighter, some poeple (myself included) happily will give up a replaceable battery.
Thinking back over the last 15 years for the seven or eight laptops I've owned (two Mac, the rest various brands of Linux/Windows laptops) I've bought a new battery I believe twice, both as replacements not secondary batteries.
I've never carried two at a time so I could swap one when it was dead.
Apple isn't a stupid company. They wouldn't make that change if they didn't believe that loud-mouth-whiners-aside, it would impact sales in the least.
Case in point -- they dropped Firewire from the MacBook. That means you can't use your family's DV or HDV camcorder anymore with a MacBook to use the new iMovie to edit your videos... and yet sales took off of the new laptop. That feature excluded that laptop from my consideration, but the fact that I don't like it doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision for them.
Just because you don't like a fixed battery doesn't mean "people want it" or it was a bad decision.
Slashdot Mirror
They were roaming. The tower the cell connected to was not an ATT tower.
Period. No question, no argument.
You are absolutely incorrect. Roaming has NOTHING to do, technically or legally, with where you happen to be. It has to do with one thing, and one thing only: what network is the phone connecting to.
If your phone connects to something other than your provider, thats how it is designed. It happens all the time. There are lots of places in the US where I will roam off ATT onto T-Mobile. Thats how the system works. I'm in the US, I'm physically in an area with ATT coverage but I end up on T-Mobile. It happens. As much as you may wish your beliefs have any bearing in the real world, what you wish "roaming" means pretty much doesn't matter in the slightest.
Everyone else in the thread seems to get that distinction. My response was flippant because you're either trolling or an idiot and it made very little sense to have this discussion with you whichever bucket you are in.
You do realize that writing something in capital letters doesn't make it true, right?
Just checking.
Yes, that's what lawsuits are for.
Someone clearly didn't read the link.
Wrong. He was roaming, and its not ATT's fault he was roaming. It was nice of them to do something for him, but he should've gone after the cruise line when he found out it was *their* fault.
ATT still has an obligation to pay the provider that's billing him.
People who can get rehired want layoffs, even if they are among them. Severance turns into a payed vacation and then you pick something else up.
People who are overemployed want pay cuts because they can't.
The answer is the same for children as it is for your cat -- you are still responsible for their actions.
Dog bites someone? You get sued.
Kid bites someone? You get sued.
Kid steals music? You get sued.
Cat steals Word? You get sued.
TrueCrypt can't do full-drive encryption on OS X.
You have to go commercial for that.
The OLPC screen really rocks. Only device I can comfortably surf on sun bathing on the deck.
I have to admit I have a bit prejudiced view of who the average Slashdotter is and what they likely look like...
And that vision just turns my stomach! ;-)
Who keeps funding these companies?
It amazes me that someone thinks that would be viable outside the Linux hacker market (which isn't big enough to sustain a product like that).
I've done it before.
So yes, I'm saying its not random. If you believe otherwise, you're the naive one. If an entire department is let go it means the department wasn't strategic anymore *and* none of the employees in it were deemed worth transferring.
That's because a pro-marijuana group via Digg astroturfed the website on several occasions.
And, to be even more clear, damn near every company can lose 5-10% of its workforce without impact.
Layoffs are the perfect opportunity to get rid of the people who you don't really want there but don't want to go through the hassle of actually firing.
Anyone who has gone through the process of making the list knows that its not random, not last hired-first-fired... when its individuals in a group and not the whole group, its "who have we wanted to get rid of and actually can now without giving them multiple warnings and dragging it out for months?".
States can't override federal law where drugs are concerned.
California constantly has problems with it -- because even with a medical waiver, people can be arrested by federal agents.
Massachusetts took a slightly better path by not pretending they can make it legal, but rather by choosing to not file criminal charges.
In either case, picking that out as even a top-100 issue in the US is so rediculous its hardly worth even getting into.
No one with a clue about the world around them would.
It doesn't stream onto an abacus, either.
Poor means you can't choose to change a behavior to alleviate the problems you have.
The poor in the US is not poor. They have access to food. They have access to shelter. They choose to buy Nikes. They choose to have an XBox. They choose to buy an iPod or a cell phone while on welfare.
Poor is having *nothing*. No chance, no opportunity, no choice you can change. Its *not* "I don't have as much as the people around me".
No one in the US is poor. Period. If you believe otherwise, you should do some travel in parts of the world that are truly poor. I have.
Feel free to believe what you want, clearly I'm not going to open your eyes.
If you think there is a single person in the US, in an inner city, in rural Kentucky, in the middle of nowhere Alaska... an single one who is living in any sort of poverty, you need to visit the rest of the world.
There's no true poverty in the US. There is manufactured poverty (I can't feed my kids, but I just bought this new XBox), there's no real lack of healthcare. Not like the truly poor parts of the world.
Its not even remotely close.
Just goes to show, live life well until the end because odds are you'll be remembered for the last thing you did, not the first.
As someone who wrote some of the early pattern identification software for detecting fraudulent charges, I think I'm substantially more familiar than someone who swipes cards.
What you do on your end doesn't matter. Back to back, ten transactions in between, it all doesn't matter. Its the pattern of activity on that single account that does.
A hundred authorizations from even a hundred DIFFERENT terminals in that short of a timespan would disable that account.
You say drive down wages worldwide like thats a bad thing.
There's not productivity and resources worldwide to cover the wages world-wide as it is. For people to live at even a fraction of the wealth the average American has, someone else has to be living in absolute poverty *and still be productive*. Every bit of resources any of us consume above this hypothetical level has to be made up for by someone who isn't getting the full benefits of their labor.
Now, living vastly above my share, I'm okay with that. But talking about wage fairness out of one side of your mouth while talking about wages staying up on the other is being unrealistic. You'll get fair wages globally when people in the US and the rest of the "1st world" are living on 10% of what they do now. Then everyone can share equally.
Funny story, however unless this was back in the 80's, your card would've been disabled for the suspicious transaction pattern.
Just as an FYI, so you don't look like you're talking out your ass among people who know the subject you're talking about:
HDV and HV have exactly the same bitrate.
HDV doesn't push FW400 any more than DV does. Why? HDV1080i is 25mbit MPEG2 -- the exact same bitrate as DV.
But nice try. I'm sure every other point you made in your rant is accurate.
Have you tried it?
The vast majority of them (such as my HV20) have USB but its used *only* for still images, not for pulling off the DV/HDV stream.
If it makes the laptop smaller and lighter, some poeple (myself included) happily will give up a replaceable battery.
Thinking back over the last 15 years for the seven or eight laptops I've owned (two Mac, the rest various brands of Linux/Windows laptops) I've bought a new battery I believe twice, both as replacements not secondary batteries.
I've never carried two at a time so I could swap one when it was dead.
Apple isn't a stupid company. They wouldn't make that change if they didn't believe that loud-mouth-whiners-aside, it would impact sales in the least.
Case in point -- they dropped Firewire from the MacBook. That means you can't use your family's DV or HDV camcorder anymore with a MacBook to use the new iMovie to edit your videos... and yet sales took off of the new laptop. That feature excluded that laptop from my consideration, but the fact that I don't like it doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision for them.
Just because you don't like a fixed battery doesn't mean "people want it" or it was a bad decision.