Yes technically according to the contract and terms of service they can end service. However nobody I know can remember that ever happening to a paying customer of any wireless carrier. There is a reason. It's ridiculous. We all believed that those clauses were only in the terms in order to allow them to terminate business with a drug dealer or continually negligent bill payer, or some other fault of the subscriber. We never thought a company like Verizon would willingly terminate a customers service for simply using the service as advertised, and further not to help the network (as that's been proven) but to simply charge them more. It's a brazenly dickish move from a PR standpoint. Verizon will never get another penny from me. I'd gladly pay 10x more to another company which isn't managed by complete assholes.
They are not doing it because it is affecting the network, as you incorrectly assume. They are doing it because some people think it's "unfair" that they lost their unlimited data by upgrading their phone or a myriad of other reasons, while I have been able to keep my unlimited plan, which most recently required $850 cash to get my S7, because that was worth it to me as I've been buying them outright for 5 years for this very reason. And I don't like being called a dick by others because I bought a plan as advertised and kept it for obvious reasons. That's called being smart.
There are no restrictions for flying over a few people. You don't need to block off driveways. The same current restrictions stand for highly populated areas, but that has generally been interpreted as, per the FAA, crowded sporting events.
That's incorrect. The Cisco filter does not require javascript. The fault is of your Antivirus incorrectly generalizing Javascript and other scripts into the same single threat option to disable.
Falso.
When you're talking about a stop and search, that only requires reasonable suspicion.
Reasonable suspicion
Probable cause
Beyond reasonable doubt
There are 3 thresholds, and you probably shouldn't spout bs as if you know the law when you don't even know Terry.
Wrong. We younger people are hoping to be lucky enough to get what we paid in, not 8-9 times what we paid in as current retirees are getting. There was never a promise of 8-9x return.
Wrong.
Start with as you said,
"If the people are being overhead from the other end of the block because someone has unobtrusively trained a shotgun microphone on them, that's exceeding reasonable expectations because people who go around with live shotgun mikes are not the norm"
Wrong. Not based on logic. The simple fact that most people don't use the technology has zero bearing on the law. Case precedents have always held that if you are in public view, you can assume that someone can see you with a telephoto lens. That is not intrusive.
Go read case law.
No. Go read case law.
High fences are the standard for viewing from the ground. A roof is the standard for viewing from the air.
The only thing they can't do as of now is use intrusive technology such as thermal and xray imaging - that has been ruled a search.
Go read.
This again... wow... wrong.
US code says she cannot "hold public office" if so much as indicted of a felony. Note cannot hold is different than cannot be elected.
The moment she is indicted of a felony she legally cannot hold the office, so she is not the president anymore.
But lets not be silly, she has more baggage than every president in history combined, there is no way she could be elected.
This is happening now to settle it early.
WHAT evidence that the accounts were being used for official business?
It sounds like youre trying to say the.gov addresses involved proves that there was official business in those emails. Thats not logical.
Skipping the "mostly republicans did this according to my imagination" obvious nonsense,
She was Secretary of State! You obviously have not considered the gravity of that position in this situation. Diplomatic deals! She probably had more damaging information than our top military generals. Probably even Obama, honestly, because he doesnt review every conversation about deals (plausible deniability), he only gets the need to know summary at the end of the email string.
Think.
Sec of State email is probably the single most damaging account to be compromised in the entire country.
Wrong. The moment she is indicted (not convicted) of a felony she is automatically not the president anymore. Us code. "Not eligible to hold office." Period. Try again.
Wrong. There IS such a thing as beyond classified. Its called top secret (a classification) with special access (an official designation, but not a classification). As far as we know, per the FBI, there were at least a dozen such emails designated "special access," meaning our senators on intelligence commitees with top secret clearance arent even allowed to see them. You should try using this thing called google before you make unfounded assumptions publicly.
Exactly the example we needed.
Since nobody here has mentioned it, this concept has a concrete basis in precedent. You've heard of it.
It's called Blackstone's Formulation.
It is better to let 10 guilty men go free than accost one innocent.
In other words, those families can go love themselves. Their anguish holds no sword to my liberty.
The firmware in the secure enclave can only be updated with the key which is a combination of keys from itself and the cpu. In effect apple would have to brute force it, with the standard delays, before they could upload new code. In other words, iPhone 6 or newer, they can actually say nope I can't do it. The only reason we'really having this conversation is because it's a 5c.
The only real problem here is that users had to buy the $150 device to start. Those users bought the device based upon the promise of unlimited data, and now, 2 months later, the device is useless to those users. Those users who only bought the device and signed up for the monthly plan for the unlimited data absolutely have standing to sue. If the company were smart they would offer $150 refunds all around to avoid legal fees.
Huh? Baseless statement.
I've been using my unlimited unthrottled (grandfathered from 5 years ago) plan from Verizon for my only home Internet for 5 years now. I use on average 300gb a month while getting average 25mbps. Don't tell me the 4g technology is the problem. It works great for me. And I cut the cable cord completely so I went from $170/mo to $20/mo and myou Internet works in my truck, in the woods (hunting mapping) etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Not according to SCOTUS. And that's all that matters.
Yes technically according to the contract and terms of service they can end service. However nobody I know can remember that ever happening to a paying customer of any wireless carrier. There is a reason. It's ridiculous. We all believed that those clauses were only in the terms in order to allow them to terminate business with a drug dealer or continually negligent bill payer, or some other fault of the subscriber. We never thought a company like Verizon would willingly terminate a customers service for simply using the service as advertised, and further not to help the network (as that's been proven) but to simply charge them more. It's a brazenly dickish move from a PR standpoint. Verizon will never get another penny from me. I'd gladly pay 10x more to another company which isn't managed by complete assholes.
They are not doing it because it is affecting the network, as you incorrectly assume. They are doing it because some people think it's "unfair" that they lost their unlimited data by upgrading their phone or a myriad of other reasons, while I have been able to keep my unlimited plan, which most recently required $850 cash to get my S7, because that was worth it to me as I've been buying them outright for 5 years for this very reason. And I don't like being called a dick by others because I bought a plan as advertised and kept it for obvious reasons. That's called being smart.
There are no restrictions for flying over a few people. You don't need to block off driveways. The same current restrictions stand for highly populated areas, but that has generally been interpreted as, per the FAA, crowded sporting events.
99.99% of these are less than 3 pounds. Cute exaggeration, though. Besides the 500 feet which is still illegal.
Or passes it to the windows API which does it - the same as dragging it to your desktop.
At least put all of them on a no-drive list so they can't buy a car.
No. The windows API would be red flagged a multitude of ways including UAC.
That's incorrect. The Cisco filter does not require javascript. The fault is of your Antivirus incorrectly generalizing Javascript and other scripts into the same single threat option to disable.
Falso. When you're talking about a stop and search, that only requires reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion Probable cause Beyond reasonable doubt There are 3 thresholds, and you probably shouldn't spout bs as if you know the law when you don't even know Terry.
Wrong. We younger people are hoping to be lucky enough to get what we paid in, not 8-9 times what we paid in as current retirees are getting. There was never a promise of 8-9x return.
Why do grammar Nazis always show their ignorance of sentence structure by using a closing quote before a comma, which is incorrect?
Wrong. Start with as you said, "If the people are being overhead from the other end of the block because someone has unobtrusively trained a shotgun microphone on them, that's exceeding reasonable expectations because people who go around with live shotgun mikes are not the norm" Wrong. Not based on logic. The simple fact that most people don't use the technology has zero bearing on the law. Case precedents have always held that if you are in public view, you can assume that someone can see you with a telephoto lens. That is not intrusive. Go read case law.
No. Go read case law. High fences are the standard for viewing from the ground. A roof is the standard for viewing from the air. The only thing they can't do as of now is use intrusive technology such as thermal and xray imaging - that has been ruled a search. Go read.
Correct. Anso upheld by SCOTUS.
This again... wow... wrong. US code says she cannot "hold public office" if so much as indicted of a felony. Note cannot hold is different than cannot be elected. The moment she is indicted of a felony she legally cannot hold the office, so she is not the president anymore. But lets not be silly, she has more baggage than every president in history combined, there is no way she could be elected. This is happening now to settle it early.
WHAT evidence that the accounts were being used for official business? It sounds like youre trying to say the .gov addresses involved proves that there was official business in those emails. Thats not logical.
Skipping the "mostly republicans did this according to my imagination" obvious nonsense, She was Secretary of State! You obviously have not considered the gravity of that position in this situation. Diplomatic deals! She probably had more damaging information than our top military generals. Probably even Obama, honestly, because he doesnt review every conversation about deals (plausible deniability), he only gets the need to know summary at the end of the email string. Think. Sec of State email is probably the single most damaging account to be compromised in the entire country.
Wrong. The moment she is indicted (not convicted) of a felony she is automatically not the president anymore. Us code. "Not eligible to hold office." Period. Try again.
Wrong. There IS such a thing as beyond classified. Its called top secret (a classification) with special access (an official designation, but not a classification). As far as we know, per the FBI, there were at least a dozen such emails designated "special access," meaning our senators on intelligence commitees with top secret clearance arent even allowed to see them. You should try using this thing called google before you make unfounded assumptions publicly.
Exactly the example we needed. Since nobody here has mentioned it, this concept has a concrete basis in precedent. You've heard of it. It's called Blackstone's Formulation. It is better to let 10 guilty men go free than accost one innocent. In other words, those families can go love themselves. Their anguish holds no sword to my liberty.
Exactly. Why cant we mod the entire article as flamebait (at best) or at least stupid?
The firmware in the secure enclave can only be updated with the key which is a combination of keys from itself and the cpu. In effect apple would have to brute force it, with the standard delays, before they could upload new code. In other words, iPhone 6 or newer, they can actually say nope I can't do it. The only reason we'really having this conversation is because it's a 5c.
The only real problem here is that users had to buy the $150 device to start. Those users bought the device based upon the promise of unlimited data, and now, 2 months later, the device is useless to those users. Those users who only bought the device and signed up for the monthly plan for the unlimited data absolutely have standing to sue. If the company were smart they would offer $150 refunds all around to avoid legal fees.
Huh? Baseless statement. I've been using my unlimited unthrottled (grandfathered from 5 years ago) plan from Verizon for my only home Internet for 5 years now. I use on average 300gb a month while getting average 25mbps. Don't tell me the 4g technology is the problem. It works great for me. And I cut the cable cord completely so I went from $170/mo to $20/mo and myou Internet works in my truck, in the woods (hunting mapping) etc.