No, it's using your subordinates properly. If you have to tell them what to do, then why aren't you at one lower job level? You should be able to delegate.
FWIW, I boot my subordinates home when the job becomes pure babysitting. I have to be there; they don't.
Okay. Point taken re: Asda. And re: former presence in Germany (although I don't think those were the equivalent of modern Super Wal-Mart with supermarket and regular supplies). And until you've seen a Super Wal-Mart, you've seen nothing... Wikipedia says there are only 25 full Super Asdas in the UK.
Skip back to my point: Nokia's presence in the US smartphone market is near nil (AT&T sells the E71x; T-mobile sells no Nokia smartphones). The UK computer market, though, includes a great deal more than Acorns running RISCOS. An article that addresses North America would quite reasonably ignore Nokia. I understand that these are frankly pointless articles to non-Americans, but a lot of the suspected Google strategy is focused on the US - they're not bidding on EU spectrum, for example.
There's a blind spot because Nokia isn't a huge brand in the US. It's no different from Europeans having a giant blind spot about Wal-Mart: the major players differ from market to market.
The fact that Nokia is the 800-pound gorilla of the world market means little in North America. I've never even seen a Nokia N series or E series phone in the flesh except one owned by a friend who lives in Switzerland.
T-mobile and AT&T are the two GSM providers in the US. They have different, incompatible 3G data frequencies. A phone from one will at best get EDGE speeds at best on the other's data network. Sprint and Verizon are the two (major) CDMA providers. Only Verizon has promised to activate any device that will work on their network - Sprint's policy is not to activate any device that doesn't have a Sprint logo on it. So parent was correct: an unlocked phone in the US has very few advantages over a locked one. That's different if you need one for overseas use, or if you use only voice, but the first market segment is wealthy enough to buy a cheap GSM phone for travel and the second is shrinking.
Nice elision. Nobody sane enough to come in out of the rain actually believes that a "free market" has no rules at all. And democracy is no guarantee that the law of the jungle is not enforced - the tyranny of the majority is real.
His deeper point is that if you don't trust corporations, whose only motive is money, why do you trust politicians, whose clearly stated goal is telling other people what to do?
They can't do it in the US, either, although/. readers frequently miss that. Verizon has raised the ETF for new subsidized smartphone purchases. I got my Droid on launch day, before the hike, and if I wanted to terminate service it would be $175. My fee has not changed.
How old are you? Old enough to remember how much long distance calls cost before we introduced competition?
I remember twenty years ago that an in-state call to a town 200 miles away cost thirty cents a minute. Calling my parents on a phone card from a ski trip out West was about $1.50 a minute. And those were AFTER competition had started.
There are problems with the American mobile phone market - in particular, the different communication technologies and the different 3G GSM bands fragment the market so that effective competition is greatly reduced. But our market has some significant advantages, too: every plan sold today is nationwide without roaming charges. When you find me a European operator that will cover me from Moscow to Gibraltar for the same price Americans pay, then we'll talk about apples-to-apples.
And now get things like "This movie suggested based on your interest in: A Clockwork Orange and Silence of the Lambs" or "... interest in Secretary, Californication, and Hostel".
I'm pigeonholed, yes my horrorshow droogies, but it's a bolshoi pigeonhole it is.
Be careful what you tell Netflix. When I joined it asked me to rate movies. I went through, rated a few things that showed up. I got some critically acclaimed stuff at first, rated that pretty well, and then I made a crucial mistake. I told it that I loved Strictly Ballroom. Well, apparently that is the gayest movie in existence. Especially if you already like critically-acclaimed films.
Next thing I knew, it was suggesting Philadelphia, The L Word, that (Showtime?) show about gay people, Priscilla Queen of the Desert... it took me a good 20 minutes up-rating stuff like Saw, Seven, Taxi Driver, Pulp Fiction, and Heavy Metal to get it to quit.
Well, I can only hope that this comes to the US, although for reasons I detailed elsewhere it's a stretch (we have a federal government, not a national one, and banks are mostly regulated at the state level). Wire transfers here cost $20-30 on both ends, while checks are processed free of charge.
The US has 50 states plus DC and territories, all of which regulate banks on their own.
It's very difficult to understand unless you've lived here, but the distinction between a national government and a federal government is really apparent in the US, and the little differences between states mean that systems that are already working - however inefficient - often prevail. Any nationwide electronic transfer system, for example, would have to pass at least 50 bank regulatory boards.
You've never carved someone up, have you? I wasn't ever much bothered by it*, but it is rather gruesome - a certain amount of black humor is par for the course. And, let's face it, nobody knows just why you're doing such a good job flaying the skin off with perfect technique.
*During gross anatomy, I took a dead woman's leg and half-pelvis over to a sink and washed out the few remaining formaldehyde-laden contents of her rectum. There's a reason they don't have people doing that on Day 1.
wouldn't be surprised if there is a bit in there that allows AT&T to amend certain parts without negating the whole thing
If they do, then the contract has undergone renegotiation - depending on how it's written, you can either choose to conclude the terms of the previous agreement with service to be cancelled at its end (this is what happens, e.g., when your credit card co. changes terms), or you can cancel the contract at this moment without penalty. Even under the relatively weak consumer protection laws of the US, they can't arbitrarily and without consequence change the contract. (Otherwise, why don't they raise everyone's ETF to $1000 and term of contract to 10 years immediately upon signing?)
I'm not sure it proves anything. Every network would collapse if everyone on it started going bandwidth-hog all at once.
Everybody knows that AT&T is full of crap when they try to blame network problems on the iPhone, but since they're not going to release internal data, what difference does it make? A better approach would be for everyone to NOT use data for an hour or two, but to start making phone calls and texts - and then tally up how many dropped calls they had. That will prove that their network just can't handle it.
You know, it's times like this that I'm glad I have Verizon.
Seriously, folks, this is like crazy Berkeley behavior. All you're going to do is make sure that every other AT&T customer - like the ones whose family members are sick in the hospital, or who just got in a massive wreck, or who just got carjacked, or maybe are waiting to hear from a family member overseas - can't get service. All so you can point out that AT&T has a grossly inadequate network, which is something that everyone knows already. The completely nontechnical people I know at work all complain about AT&T service even when they don't have 3G service at all. What's your point?
My professional encounters with officers of the law have been pretty benign. Of course, I'm white, male, and 35, I drive a nice car, and I don't get in drunken fights.
I've encountered enough stories, however, from those who are NOT all of the above (and from off-duty cops who thought they were just chatting with the guys) that I regard the police as just a bunch of petty tyrants until proven otherwise. The fact that they are a necessary evil does not make them less evil.
Still, I know that places vary, and that there in fact may be a place where police do good work. I asked the question because I was curious - is he trying to reform a bad system from within, or does he live somewhere that good people do the job?
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's using your subordinates properly. If you have to tell them what to do, then why aren't you at one lower job level? You should be able to delegate.
FWIW, I boot my subordinates home when the job becomes pure babysitting. I have to be there; they don't.
Okay. Point taken re: Asda. And re: former presence in Germany (although I don't think those were the equivalent of modern Super Wal-Mart with supermarket and regular supplies). And until you've seen a Super Wal-Mart, you've seen nothing... Wikipedia says there are only 25 full Super Asdas in the UK.
Skip back to my point: Nokia's presence in the US smartphone market is near nil (AT&T sells the E71x; T-mobile sells no Nokia smartphones). The UK computer market, though, includes a great deal more than Acorns running RISCOS. An article that addresses North America would quite reasonably ignore Nokia. I understand that these are frankly pointless articles to non-Americans, but a lot of the suspected Google strategy is focused on the US - they're not bidding on EU spectrum, for example.
There's a blind spot because Nokia isn't a huge brand in the US. It's no different from Europeans having a giant blind spot about Wal-Mart: the major players differ from market to market.
The fact that Nokia is the 800-pound gorilla of the world market means little in North America. I've never even seen a Nokia N series or E series phone in the flesh except one owned by a friend who lives in Switzerland.
T-mobile and AT&T are the two GSM providers in the US. They have different, incompatible 3G data frequencies. A phone from one will at best get EDGE speeds at best on the other's data network. Sprint and Verizon are the two (major) CDMA providers. Only Verizon has promised to activate any device that will work on their network - Sprint's policy is not to activate any device that doesn't have a Sprint logo on it. So parent was correct: an unlocked phone in the US has very few advantages over a locked one. That's different if you need one for overseas use, or if you use only voice, but the first market segment is wealthy enough to buy a cheap GSM phone for travel and the second is shrinking.
Even if we'd maintained the bell system as a regulated monopoly, the falling operating costs would have similarly resulted in falling phone bills.
Then why were the competitors' prices so much cheaper than Ma Bell's? Do you really think that Sprint and MCI had no effect whatsoever?
You show 'em! Did you drop it on the floor, or did you throw it on the ground ?
Nice elision. Nobody sane enough to come in out of the rain actually believes that a "free market" has no rules at all. And democracy is no guarantee that the law of the jungle is not enforced - the tyranny of the majority is real.
His deeper point is that if you don't trust corporations, whose only motive is money, why do you trust politicians, whose clearly stated goal is telling other people what to do?
They can't do it in the US, either, although /. readers frequently miss that. Verizon has raised the ETF for new subsidized smartphone purchases. I got my Droid on launch day, before the hike, and if I wanted to terminate service it would be $175. My fee has not changed.
How old are you? Old enough to remember how much long distance calls cost before we introduced competition?
I remember twenty years ago that an in-state call to a town 200 miles away cost thirty cents a minute. Calling my parents on a phone card from a ski trip out West was about $1.50 a minute. And those were AFTER competition had started.
There are problems with the American mobile phone market - in particular, the different communication technologies and the different 3G GSM bands fragment the market so that effective competition is greatly reduced. But our market has some significant advantages, too: every plan sold today is nationwide without roaming charges. When you find me a European operator that will cover me from Moscow to Gibraltar for the same price Americans pay, then we'll talk about apples-to-apples.
And now get things like "This movie suggested based on your interest in: A Clockwork Orange and Silence of the Lambs" or "... interest in Secretary, Californication, and Hostel".
I'm pigeonholed, yes my horrorshow droogies, but it's a bolshoi pigeonhole it is.
Be careful what you tell Netflix. When I joined it asked me to rate movies. I went through, rated a few things that showed up. I got some critically acclaimed stuff at first, rated that pretty well, and then I made a crucial mistake. I told it that I loved Strictly Ballroom. Well, apparently that is the gayest movie in existence. Especially if you already like critically-acclaimed films.
Next thing I knew, it was suggesting Philadelphia, The L Word, that (Showtime?) show about gay people, Priscilla Queen of the Desert... it took me a good 20 minutes up-rating stuff like Saw, Seven, Taxi Driver, Pulp Fiction, and Heavy Metal to get it to quit.
You obviously need some orgone.
Perhaps some plausible reason why the robots didn't do their little nuclear detonation from the get-go? Why risk all the flying craft?
Well, I can only hope that this comes to the US, although for reasons I detailed elsewhere it's a stretch (we have a federal government, not a national one, and banks are mostly regulated at the state level). Wire transfers here cost $20-30 on both ends, while checks are processed free of charge.
The US has 50 states plus DC and territories, all of which regulate banks on their own.
It's very difficult to understand unless you've lived here, but the distinction between a national government and a federal government is really apparent in the US, and the little differences between states mean that systems that are already working - however inefficient - often prevail. Any nationwide electronic transfer system, for example, would have to pass at least 50 bank regulatory boards.
American orthographic reform as pushed by Noah Webster.
What about paying other individuals?
You've never carved someone up, have you? I wasn't ever much bothered by it*, but it is rather gruesome - a certain amount of black humor is par for the course. And, let's face it, nobody knows just why you're doing such a good job flaying the skin off with perfect technique.
*During gross anatomy, I took a dead woman's leg and half-pelvis over to a sink and washed out the few remaining formaldehyde-laden contents of her rectum. There's a reason they don't have people doing that on Day 1.
Or perhaps they don't want to get sued by the victim's family. "You knew she threatened to kill him and did nothing about it!"
wouldn't be surprised if there is a bit in there that allows AT&T to amend certain parts without negating the whole thing
If they do, then the contract has undergone renegotiation - depending on how it's written, you can either choose to conclude the terms of the previous agreement with service to be cancelled at its end (this is what happens, e.g., when your credit card co. changes terms), or you can cancel the contract at this moment without penalty. Even under the relatively weak consumer protection laws of the US, they can't arbitrarily and without consequence change the contract. (Otherwise, why don't they raise everyone's ETF to $1000 and term of contract to 10 years immediately upon signing?)
I'm not sure it proves anything. Every network would collapse if everyone on it started going bandwidth-hog all at once.
Everybody knows that AT&T is full of crap when they try to blame network problems on the iPhone, but since they're not going to release internal data, what difference does it make? A better approach would be for everyone to NOT use data for an hour or two, but to start making phone calls and texts - and then tally up how many dropped calls they had. That will prove that their network just can't handle it.
You know, it's times like this that I'm glad I have Verizon.
Seriously, folks, this is like crazy Berkeley behavior. All you're going to do is make sure that every other AT&T customer - like the ones whose family members are sick in the hospital, or who just got in a massive wreck, or who just got carjacked, or maybe are waiting to hear from a family member overseas - can't get service. All so you can point out that AT&T has a grossly inadequate network, which is something that everyone knows already. The completely nontechnical people I know at work all complain about AT&T service even when they don't have 3G service at all. What's your point?
My professional encounters with officers of the law have been pretty benign. Of course, I'm white, male, and 35, I drive a nice car, and I don't get in drunken fights.
I've encountered enough stories, however, from those who are NOT all of the above (and from off-duty cops who thought they were just chatting with the guys) that I regard the police as just a bunch of petty tyrants until proven otherwise. The fact that they are a necessary evil does not make them less evil.
Still, I know that places vary, and that there in fact may be a place where police do good work. I asked the question because I was curious - is he trying to reform a bad system from within, or does he live somewhere that good people do the job?
You sound like a decent guy. Why are you a cop?