After the fact, studying sea sponges seems like a great idea.
Well, we can disagree about that. I'd say that "before the fact", studying a large player in the ocean environment is a good idea. YMMV.
Another Golden Fleece awards was for the study of activities in a Peruvian brothel, the significance of which should be obvious to anyone who heard of AIDS. (Come to think of it, I probably have to spell it out for you: Doctors have to know what sexual activities people participate in,
And to do that they have to spend US dollars studying brothels in Peru. Right. You're stretching things quite a distance here. Peruvian brothels are such a considerable source of the AIDS epidemic, right?
There is no government-funded research on "Why do paperclips interconnect while stored in their box?" Like most anti-government conservatives, you are reduced to making things up.
No, you're right, I didn't have to make things up, I just had to wait for you to provide examples for me.
Every developed country in the world developed their industry with heavy use of government-subsidized research.
That is hardly an excuse to waste limited resources on useless or trivial research. No matter how much the spenders want to pretend, tax revenue will always be a limited resource and wasting it will always be bad.
But that's not the point I replied to. What I was pointing out is that "freedom to do research" doesn't depend on the taxpayer funding that research. You didn't respond to that, so I assume you agree.
It has been several years since I flew domestically within the US, but I personally have never been allowed to board any aircraft larger than a Cessna that I was piloting myself without the holy trinity of passport or acceptable photo ID, ticket, and boarding pass (only issued after presenting ticket plus passport/photoID).
Have you tried? Why would you expect an airline to let you on board without having a ticket? You don't have to show it, but you need to have one. Why don't you just get another boarding pass? I've gotten new boarding passes with nothing more than my frequent flier account number -- there are even kiosks at airports now that will print them out for you without any interaction with an airline person at all. You don't have to present either your ticket or your ID. You can also check in for your flight and never have to show the airline an id of any kind.
The issue is not your airline ticket or pass, where nobody would expect the airline to let you on without them, but ID getting through security. TSA clearly says there is a procedure to do that, and the links I provided were from people who had done it.
A few weeks ago, I was at the gate in Frankfurt when a very Aryan-looking German gentleman was refused leave to board a flight to London Heathrow because he could only find his boarding pass, having lost/misplaced his passport at some point after passing through security.
(Co-incidentally, there was a spare German passport lying on the ground next to the chair he had been sitting in, and luckily it had his picture and name in it, so he was able to board the flight after stressing for 15 minutes... but the "No ID, no flight" thing is a pretty hard and fast rule in Europe, it seems)
International travel requires documents because the destination country requires documents. You don't get on the plane without them because the airline doesn't want to have to deal with taking you back where you started, and I'm guessing you'd be glad because you don't want to wind up living in the arrival area because you can't get through customs at your destination.
I would like a military strong enough to not have to worry about enemies knowing our secrets.
I would rather pay a little to manage secrets than a lot to build a huge military infrastructure.
In other words any hostile action of any type against the US would mean certain elimination of the region issuing the attack.
That's not a statement about the strength of the military, it is a statement about the political willingness to use what military there is to eliminate any enemy. We could disband most of the military today and deal with every threat by simply placing a few nuclear weapons on the target. It would be a lot cheaper and take a lot fewer secrets to accomplish.
Imagine, the first Iraq war would be over in a couple of hours at most. The country would glow at night, but the threat would be gone. But, of course, others might see that as a threat to them, so they'd lob a few bombs our way, and we'd lob a few at them...
Why is this a problem? Research should always be done, however ridiculous your hypothesis may be. The freedom to do such insane research is what has made USA the leader of all sciences.
Yep, freedom is good. You should be free to do such research, barring any potential harm you might do to your subjects and that they are participating voluntarily. That kinda deals with their freedom. So why is the previous statement showing a problem?
And then there was the NIH grant...
Ahhh, taxpayer funded research. There's the problem. You lept from a comment about taxpayers paying for your freedom to do research into a comment about freedom to do research in general.
There is a significant difference between freedom to do research on stupid things and government handing out other people's money to do stupid things. If Bill Gates wants to give you money to do something where the answer is obvious, that's one thing. When it is the money taken from the public being used to do stupid things, that's something different. Your freedom to do something stupid is not dependent upon the government paying you to do it. You need look no further than the first amendment to see an example: you have freedom of speech, but the government doesn't have to pay for you to speak.
For example, a marine scientist studying sea sponges discovered Adriamycin, which was one of the first drugs that cured cancer, and formed the basis of all of our cancer drugs.
Of course these right-wing Congressmen would have a field day with that. Our government money going to study Spongebob.
Your example is ridiculous, and you're putting words in other people's mouths. Studying sea sponges doesn't even begin to meet the criterion of "something stupid". "Why do paperclips interconnect while stored in their box", that's something stupid.
And if you started you own company, would you be the same asshole your competition is being? Apparently so.
No, if he started his own company, which he could do today, he'd find out that it costs a lot of money to overbuild an existing infrastructure and then compete for every customer with the existing services. He'll probably figure out that the return on investment will be negative for at least the first five years, perhaps longer, so if he's not a company the size of Google he's not going to last.
He'll get the fun of negotiating for a franchise agreement with his municipality, paying low wage workers to string cable or fiber, dealing with upstream providers, hiring out a lot of his support (like email to Google), just so he can say "I was an ISP...".
The problem with your argument isPeople already have a legal right to that information.
And they already have access to that information, they just didn't gather it while it was happening. You know who you call, and your caller-id box shows who called you and when. Oh, you didn't write down every call, and you cleared the caller ID box every so often? You threw the information away and then expect the phone company to give you a copy of their records?
If you read the article, you would see that he specfically referenced an Australian law that says they HAVE to give out the information.
The law refers to "personal information". What is the legal definition of personal information as it applies to that law? Is a phone company's list of who you called "personal information", or is it a billing record belonging to the phone company?
but am sorely disappointed in both your knowledge of Australian law and in failing to read the article.
I could say that I am sorely disappointed that you are trying to apply common English definitions to legal phrases, but that wouldn't be productive or useful.
NPP section 6 says: "Gives individuals a general right of access to their personal information, and the right to have that information corrected if it is inaccurate, incomplete or out-of-date."
Is call usage data "personal information" as defined by law? Or is it billing data collected to bill a customer?
As for the "unlisted" claim, that's not the correct criterion. The correct criterion should be "called ID blocked". That seems obvious to me. The person asking for the data will have the caller ID data already (if they have that service) and they'll know who they called, or they could if they logged their own data.
What they will not have is the name and address of the caller which wouldn't be part of the call records anyway. Telstra would have to verify the setting of the caller's caller-id blocking on the day that the call was made to know if they should release the number or not, and that is going to be very very hard to do.
If so, are they exploiting some vulnerability in XP that is never-to-be-patched?
They are exploiting a vulnerability that is found in almost every operating system, and which has yet to be patched by any vendor. It's called "running a program". As the summary says:
First, they gain physical access to the ATMs and insert a bootable CD to install the Tyupkin malware.
Of course, the stupid and illegal actions of the police might have gotten her killed without any warning to her of any possible threat, so there's that too.
Of course, simply bringing her in for questioning and then letting her go could have gotten her killed without any warning, too. She got involved with drug dealers, and any one of them could have decided she was let go (or in this case, given just probation) for ratting him out. If they are going to kill her for being a snitch on Facebook, then why would they hesitate to kill her for being a snitch while sitting in the interrogation room?
I've experienced rare Internet outages and usually wait 20 minutes or so to call to see if there's a problem and the auto answer will confirm that but also say that one can get more information about outages by going to Comcast's home page.
Dude, you should know, you always get better response from customer support about internet outages if you send them an email instead of calling.
I once had a Comcast call handler try to upsell me to Xfinity voice for my home phone while I was calling about a complete cable outage (no TV, no Internet).
So is there any good reason why Adobe would do this that benefits the customer?
Yes.
"I see you are reading 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. Adobe recommends the following books: 'Mein Kampf' by A. Hitler, 'Banking and Currency and the Money Trust' by C.A. Lindbergh, and 'God is Not Great' by C. Hitchens."
Unfortunately, this also means that you now need DMCA-banned circumvention tools just to read a damn library book without Adobe looking over your shoulder...
Except, as has already been noted, that library book probably came through Overdrive which uses Adobe Digital Editions. Your criminal conspiracy to thwart publisher rights management needs the file that you don't get until ADE downloads it for you.
Now, if you can tell me some other software that will handle the.acsm link and work with Overdrive that isn't ADE, I'm all ears.
or we could just have the nanny state certify drug manufacturers and then people don't have to die nearly so much in the first place. I think that is a better world so that's the one I support.
On the other side of that coin are the people who die because the nanny state hasn't gotten around to, or simply won't, certify drugs that would save their lives, or who decertify other drugs because a few people with good lawyers suffered negative side effects.
I don't understand your comments about the 500 texts per month fee. Mine are unlimited.
You are on a different plan. Mine were not. I got fifty, except they never counted the texts that came through the email-SMS gateway. That's until they shut down the gateway that dealt with aliases instead of just nnnnnnnnnn@tmomail.com, then they started counting, and that's when I started asking about "no overages" and why I was paying extra for more texts. Three different CS agents told me of course I was covered so I stopped paying extra. One customer relations person from Seattle told me I was not. Nobody told me that the international texts I've never paid for before were also covered by having that 500 texts service.
It's clearly unlimited in the US per the contract.
What contract? I haven't had one for ten years. I thought you said you were also off-contract. Now, I would expect it would be clearly unlimited based on the public statements of the CEO when he announced "no overages", and three CS thought it was clearly unlimited for me, but customer relations says otherwise. Now, she didn't talk about "clear", she just said I didn't have unlimited texts but couldn't explain why my online usage that said I had used "5 of unlimited" didn't mean "unlimited."
I believe this is a new feature that just started last summer, but maybe that's just when I found out about it.
I don't know when it started, but I've never paid for a text while international, until maybe this last trip. I'll have to see how they ding me when the bill comes out. According to the online information I was pointed to, it has to do with how many texts are in your plan's "bucket", and for awhile I had zero.
T-Mobile's standard plan has unlimited data, plain and simple.
Like I said, you're on a different plan.
I'm not paying to get more data - that's a misnomer. I'm merely paying to get more data delivered at a higher speed.
I'm paying to get any at all. If I didn't pay to get some, then I'd get charged a transient fee, which means anything over 0.
And, because T-Mobile is a worldwide company and not just US based, they allow us to use their services in specified foreign countries for free as long as we have the right type of phone (for the right frequencies in those countries).
It has nothing to do with T-Mobile being an international company, because were that the prime consideration, I wouldn't have to pay $15/Mb for international roaming data. It's based on your plan.
If you're annoyed at overage fees, then get off the old grandfathered plans and get the new plan where everything is included.
At $50/line, you're paying almost twice what I am and domestic for me is now unlimited. I could get by international now by using texts if I could figure out some way to get them without my phone registering on the network so all my US calls get forwarded at outrageous $ per minute until I get back to the US.
I can't find a $40/month plan like you say you're getting. The cheapest Simple Choice is $50 and goes up from there. The "Simple Starter" is $45 with 2GB, and it has "no overages" for data because you get only 2GB/month -- data is shut off at the limit. An interesting definition of "unlimited" and "no overages".
Being able to successfully make the first move takes courage, self-confidence, communication skills, at least a pretense of extroversion, and charisma.
Apparently women like men with those skills, to the point that they'll date them and then complain when the men keep using those skills to find other women to date at the same time.
Note to women: if you dated and then married a guy who is charming and able to approach a strange woman (you) with self-confidence, do you really have any right to complain when he continues to exhibit those characteristics after you are married?
That's why I've never understood why some men whine about "always having to make the first move." It puts us in the driver's seat.
To continue the stereotypical car analogy here, it puts us in the driver's seat, but it means we get to deal with the rejection when we see someone along the side of the road we want to offer a lift to, and lose big time when we miss seeing the perfect passenger.
Why is it better to be "in the driver's seat" than to share driving responsibility and expect the woman to stop and offer us a ride if she's interested in doing so?
Forgetting the analogy -- complaining about "always having to make the first move" doesn't mean there is a desire to NEVER make the first move. Men being expected to always make the first move means we lose out on all the opportunities where we didn't notice them but the other person did and was waiting for us to do something about it. Why that would be called "good" and not a "lose/lose situation" is a mystery.
$45 unlimited. Poor coverage where I am. A phone that constantly rebooted all by itself every five minutes or so. Customer support that was almost impossible to reach. Returns department that loses phones. Customer support where it took more than an hour to cancel service after they could be reached.
There's more to a good company than just cut-rate pricing. Nuff said.
Seemingly every year or two T-Mobile actually lowers their price.
In all the years I've been with them, they've never once lowered their price to me. Not once. And I started with VoiceStream, that's how long I've been with them in the US.
They include 1GB of 4G LTE data per line per month, and then I pay an extra $10 per line per month to bump both of them up to 3GB of LTE each.
So the "no overages fees" claim doesn't apply to you, either. You shouldn't have to pay more to get more. That's T-Mobile's marketing. That it doesn't apply to everyone is one downside to T-Mobile.
I traveled to another country over the summer, and I was even able to use my phone for free over there. It was awesome!
Yes, isn't it? I found out that by cancelling the extra 500 texts/month for $2.99 I was paying for, based on T-Mobile service reps swearing up and down multiple times that I didn't need it because "no overages, ever!" and "it doesn't matter how many texts, you won't pay for them", I wound up being subject to 50 cents EACH for texts while I travel internationally.
There's no contract, no overage fees, no nonsense.
I haven't had a T-Mobile contract for, ummm, ten years? There are overage fees -- for some of their plans. (I'd say a plan that has 50 texts/month, that is shown on the website as "N out of unlimited" for usage, where you have to pay for every text you send counts as having an "overage fee".) And nonsense? they've got that in spades. (Ditto for the "N of unlimited" having any fee for texts.)
But as you could read in the other sources, a citizen's arrest is legally recognized in most of the world in cases of a felony.
And as you could read in the source I spoke about, flight crew other than the aircraft commander have no special arrest authority. That means flight attendants don't have the power to arrest someone just because they are flight attendants.
And I don't recall the statement about them being able to arrest someone was specific to felonies. But that's moot.
because cockpits have magic LCD screens that are totally different from LCD screens mere commoners use
Because cockpits have instrumentation that very few commoners have access to, and those LCD screens are built into systems that are different than the LCD monitor you are probably looking at now. When you talk about RFI and ingress, you need to consider not only the component part (the LCD) but the entire design and implementation.
You should have read the link from google that you provided concerning the "Tokyo Convention". It says the aircraft commander has the power of arrest but then continues to say that his power is to turn someone over to the ground authorities. It makes no special provisions for flight attendants, and does not say that they can arrest anyone.
They don't work for free but they do have the power to arrest.
No, they don't. They have the power to tell the captain, and the captain has the power to tell the authorities on the ground who do have the power to arrest.
"Enjoy the rest of your flight, sir. It will be your last for a few years."
We all are in a position to observe such a phenomenon if it existed,
That must be a pretty big airplane if the entire readership of/. is able to squeeze into the cockpit to observe the effects of WiFi on a cockpit instrument.
Okay, how many "good ones" dismiss anything said by the "bad scientists" because of who they work for?
Do you really think I keep a running count of the number of different people, much less the number of times, I hear the statement "don't pay any attention to that scientist, he works for a big oil/coal/etc company..."? Really? It was the kind of statement that I replied to in this discussion, and nobody seems to have thought it was unusual for anyone to say such a thing. That's how common and commonly accepted it is.
Everybody is free to submit papers with the evidence they can scrape up,
"Submit" is not "publish". Your use of the perjorative phrase "scrape up" demonstrates a bias.
and it's essentially impossible to keep a good paper from being published at all.
You're right. I get spam almost every day now from some new "journal" looking for my submissions, none of which have any publishing history or any weight in any community. Yeah, publish in scam journals is easy. Publish in a journal where the reviewers have a dog in the fight, not so much.
Thing is, the evidence is pretty convincing if you look at it skeptically and intelligently.
You know, none of what I wrote has anything to do with who is right and who is wrong. If you want to argue that the intelligent people believe one thing (with the obvious implications) then do it with someone else. I'm pointing out that by painting part of a group as dishonest you splatter a lot of paint on yourself. That has nothing to do with whose science will wind up proven correct in the long run. It has everything to do with calling someone else's ethics into question (because they're being PAID to do that research, OMG!) and then being surprised when others doubt yours.
Science, as a discipline, works with egotistic and sometimes petty individuals who are as fallible as anybody else. It works pretty well.
Science, as a discipline, doesn't care who works for what, but science as practiced today often does. Science worked pretty well for the geocentrists in their day, too, at least in their humble opinion. When your argument for a position comes down to "if you look at it intelligently", you're not practicing science as it ought to be.
Slashdot Mirror
After the fact, studying sea sponges seems like a great idea.
Well, we can disagree about that. I'd say that "before the fact", studying a large player in the ocean environment is a good idea. YMMV.
Another Golden Fleece awards was for the study of activities in a Peruvian brothel, the significance of which should be obvious to anyone who heard of AIDS. (Come to think of it, I probably have to spell it out for you: Doctors have to know what sexual activities people participate in,
And to do that they have to spend US dollars studying brothels in Peru. Right. You're stretching things quite a distance here. Peruvian brothels are such a considerable source of the AIDS epidemic, right?
There is no government-funded research on "Why do paperclips interconnect while stored in their box?" Like most anti-government conservatives, you are reduced to making things up.
No, you're right, I didn't have to make things up, I just had to wait for you to provide examples for me.
Every developed country in the world developed their industry with heavy use of government-subsidized research.
That is hardly an excuse to waste limited resources on useless or trivial research. No matter how much the spenders want to pretend, tax revenue will always be a limited resource and wasting it will always be bad.
But that's not the point I replied to. What I was pointing out is that "freedom to do research" doesn't depend on the taxpayer funding that research. You didn't respond to that, so I assume you agree.
It has been several years since I flew domestically within the US, but I personally have never been allowed to board any aircraft larger than a Cessna that I was piloting myself without the holy trinity of passport or acceptable photo ID, ticket, and boarding pass (only issued after presenting ticket plus passport/photoID).
Have you tried? Why would you expect an airline to let you on board without having a ticket? You don't have to show it, but you need to have one. Why don't you just get another boarding pass? I've gotten new boarding passes with nothing more than my frequent flier account number -- there are even kiosks at airports now that will print them out for you without any interaction with an airline person at all. You don't have to present either your ticket or your ID. You can also check in for your flight and never have to show the airline an id of any kind.
The issue is not your airline ticket or pass, where nobody would expect the airline to let you on without them, but ID getting through security. TSA clearly says there is a procedure to do that, and the links I provided were from people who had done it.
A few weeks ago, I was at the gate in Frankfurt when a very Aryan-looking German gentleman was refused leave to board a flight to London Heathrow because he could only find his boarding pass, having lost/misplaced his passport at some point after passing through security. (Co-incidentally, there was a spare German passport lying on the ground next to the chair he had been sitting in, and luckily it had his picture and name in it, so he was able to board the flight after stressing for 15 minutes... but the "No ID, no flight" thing is a pretty hard and fast rule in Europe, it seems)
International travel requires documents because the destination country requires documents. You don't get on the plane without them because the airline doesn't want to have to deal with taking you back where you started, and I'm guessing you'd be glad because you don't want to wind up living in the arrival area because you can't get through customs at your destination.
I would like a military strong enough to not have to worry about enemies knowing our secrets.
I would rather pay a little to manage secrets than a lot to build a huge military infrastructure.
In other words any hostile action of any type against the US would mean certain elimination of the region issuing the attack.
That's not a statement about the strength of the military, it is a statement about the political willingness to use what military there is to eliminate any enemy. We could disband most of the military today and deal with every threat by simply placing a few nuclear weapons on the target. It would be a lot cheaper and take a lot fewer secrets to accomplish.
Imagine, the first Iraq war would be over in a couple of hours at most. The country would glow at night, but the threat would be gone. But, of course, others might see that as a threat to them, so they'd lob a few bombs our way, and we'd lob a few at them ...
Would you like to play a nice game of chess?
Why is this a problem? Research should always be done, however ridiculous your hypothesis may be. The freedom to do such insane research is what has made USA the leader of all sciences.
Yep, freedom is good. You should be free to do such research, barring any potential harm you might do to your subjects and that they are participating voluntarily. That kinda deals with their freedom. So why is the previous statement showing a problem?
And then there was the NIH grant ...
Ahhh, taxpayer funded research. There's the problem. You lept from a comment about taxpayers paying for your freedom to do research into a comment about freedom to do research in general.
There is a significant difference between freedom to do research on stupid things and government handing out other people's money to do stupid things. If Bill Gates wants to give you money to do something where the answer is obvious, that's one thing. When it is the money taken from the public being used to do stupid things, that's something different. Your freedom to do something stupid is not dependent upon the government paying you to do it. You need look no further than the first amendment to see an example: you have freedom of speech, but the government doesn't have to pay for you to speak.
For example, a marine scientist studying sea sponges discovered Adriamycin, which was one of the first drugs that cured cancer, and formed the basis of all of our cancer drugs. Of course these right-wing Congressmen would have a field day with that. Our government money going to study Spongebob.
Your example is ridiculous, and you're putting words in other people's mouths. Studying sea sponges doesn't even begin to meet the criterion of "something stupid". "Why do paperclips interconnect while stored in their box", that's something stupid.
And if you started you own company, would you be the same asshole your competition is being? Apparently so.
No, if he started his own company, which he could do today, he'd find out that it costs a lot of money to overbuild an existing infrastructure and then compete for every customer with the existing services. He'll probably figure out that the return on investment will be negative for at least the first five years, perhaps longer, so if he's not a company the size of Google he's not going to last.
He'll get the fun of negotiating for a franchise agreement with his municipality, paying low wage workers to string cable or fiber, dealing with upstream providers, hiring out a lot of his support (like email to Google), just so he can say "I was an ISP...".
You can't fly without ID because they won't let you through security without it.
Yes, they will.
The problem with your argument isPeople already have a legal right to that information.
And they already have access to that information, they just didn't gather it while it was happening. You know who you call, and your caller-id box shows who called you and when. Oh, you didn't write down every call, and you cleared the caller ID box every so often? You threw the information away and then expect the phone company to give you a copy of their records?
If you read the article, you would see that he specfically referenced an Australian law that says they HAVE to give out the information.
The law refers to "personal information". What is the legal definition of personal information as it applies to that law? Is a phone company's list of who you called "personal information", or is it a billing record belonging to the phone company?
but am sorely disappointed in both your knowledge of Australian law and in failing to read the article.
I could say that I am sorely disappointed that you are trying to apply common English definitions to legal phrases, but that wouldn't be productive or useful.
NPP section 6 says: "Gives individuals a general right of access to their personal information, and the right to have that information corrected if it is inaccurate, incomplete or out-of-date."
Is call usage data "personal information" as defined by law? Or is it billing data collected to bill a customer?
As for the "unlisted" claim, that's not the correct criterion. The correct criterion should be "called ID blocked". That seems obvious to me. The person asking for the data will have the caller ID data already (if they have that service) and they'll know who they called, or they could if they logged their own data.
What they will not have is the name and address of the caller which wouldn't be part of the call records anyway. Telstra would have to verify the setting of the caller's caller-id blocking on the day that the call was made to know if they should release the number or not, and that is going to be very very hard to do.
If so, are they exploiting some vulnerability in XP that is never-to-be-patched?
They are exploiting a vulnerability that is found in almost every operating system, and which has yet to be patched by any vendor. It's called "running a program". As the summary says:
Of course, the stupid and illegal actions of the police might have gotten her killed without any warning to her of any possible threat, so there's that too.
Of course, simply bringing her in for questioning and then letting her go could have gotten her killed without any warning, too. She got involved with drug dealers, and any one of them could have decided she was let go (or in this case, given just probation) for ratting him out. If they are going to kill her for being a snitch on Facebook, then why would they hesitate to kill her for being a snitch while sitting in the interrogation room?
I've experienced rare Internet outages and usually wait 20 minutes or so to call to see if there's a problem and the auto answer will confirm that but also say that one can get more information about outages by going to Comcast's home page.
Dude, you should know, you always get better response from customer support about internet outages if you send them an email instead of calling.
I once had a Comcast call handler try to upsell me to Xfinity voice for my home phone while I was calling about a complete cable outage (no TV, no Internet).
So is there any good reason why Adobe would do this that benefits the customer?
Yes.
"I see you are reading 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. Adobe recommends the following books: 'Mein Kampf' by A. Hitler, 'Banking and Currency and the Money Trust' by C.A. Lindbergh, and 'God is Not Great' by C. Hitchens."
Unfortunately, this also means that you now need DMCA-banned circumvention tools just to read a damn library book without Adobe looking over your shoulder...
Except, as has already been noted, that library book probably came through Overdrive which uses Adobe Digital Editions. Your criminal conspiracy to thwart publisher rights management needs the file that you don't get until ADE downloads it for you.
Now, if you can tell me some other software that will handle the .acsm link and work with Overdrive that isn't ADE, I'm all ears.
or we could just have the nanny state certify drug manufacturers and then people don't have to die nearly so much in the first place. I think that is a better world so that's the one I support.
On the other side of that coin are the people who die because the nanny state hasn't gotten around to, or simply won't, certify drugs that would save their lives, or who decertify other drugs because a few people with good lawyers suffered negative side effects.
I don't understand your comments about the 500 texts per month fee. Mine are unlimited.
You are on a different plan. Mine were not. I got fifty, except they never counted the texts that came through the email-SMS gateway. That's until they shut down the gateway that dealt with aliases instead of just nnnnnnnnnn@tmomail.com, then they started counting, and that's when I started asking about "no overages" and why I was paying extra for more texts. Three different CS agents told me of course I was covered so I stopped paying extra. One customer relations person from Seattle told me I was not. Nobody told me that the international texts I've never paid for before were also covered by having that 500 texts service.
It's clearly unlimited in the US per the contract.
What contract? I haven't had one for ten years. I thought you said you were also off-contract. Now, I would expect it would be clearly unlimited based on the public statements of the CEO when he announced "no overages", and three CS thought it was clearly unlimited for me, but customer relations says otherwise. Now, she didn't talk about "clear", she just said I didn't have unlimited texts but couldn't explain why my online usage that said I had used "5 of unlimited" didn't mean "unlimited."
I believe this is a new feature that just started last summer, but maybe that's just when I found out about it.
I don't know when it started, but I've never paid for a text while international, until maybe this last trip. I'll have to see how they ding me when the bill comes out. According to the online information I was pointed to, it has to do with how many texts are in your plan's "bucket", and for awhile I had zero.
T-Mobile's standard plan has unlimited data, plain and simple.
Like I said, you're on a different plan.
I'm not paying to get more data - that's a misnomer. I'm merely paying to get more data delivered at a higher speed.
I'm paying to get any at all. If I didn't pay to get some, then I'd get charged a transient fee, which means anything over 0.
And, because T-Mobile is a worldwide company and not just US based, they allow us to use their services in specified foreign countries for free as long as we have the right type of phone (for the right frequencies in those countries).
It has nothing to do with T-Mobile being an international company, because were that the prime consideration, I wouldn't have to pay $15/Mb for international roaming data. It's based on your plan.
If you're annoyed at overage fees, then get off the old grandfathered plans and get the new plan where everything is included.
At $50/line, you're paying almost twice what I am and domestic for me is now unlimited. I could get by international now by using texts if I could figure out some way to get them without my phone registering on the network so all my US calls get forwarded at outrageous $ per minute until I get back to the US.
I can't find a $40/month plan like you say you're getting. The cheapest Simple Choice is $50 and goes up from there. The "Simple Starter" is $45 with 2GB, and it has "no overages" for data because you get only 2GB/month -- data is shut off at the limit. An interesting definition of "unlimited" and "no overages".
Being able to successfully make the first move takes courage, self-confidence, communication skills, at least a pretense of extroversion, and charisma.
Apparently women like men with those skills, to the point that they'll date them and then complain when the men keep using those skills to find other women to date at the same time.
Note to women: if you dated and then married a guy who is charming and able to approach a strange woman (you) with self-confidence, do you really have any right to complain when he continues to exhibit those characteristics after you are married?
That's why I've never understood why some men whine about "always having to make the first move." It puts us in the driver's seat.
To continue the stereotypical car analogy here, it puts us in the driver's seat, but it means we get to deal with the rejection when we see someone along the side of the road we want to offer a lift to, and lose big time when we miss seeing the perfect passenger.
Why is it better to be "in the driver's seat" than to share driving responsibility and expect the woman to stop and offer us a ride if she's interested in doing so?
Forgetting the analogy -- complaining about "always having to make the first move" doesn't mean there is a desire to NEVER make the first move. Men being expected to always make the first move means we lose out on all the opportunities where we didn't notice them but the other person did and was waiting for us to do something about it. Why that would be called "good" and not a "lose/lose situation" is a mystery.
$45 unlimited. nuff said.
$45 unlimited. Poor coverage where I am. A phone that constantly rebooted all by itself every five minutes or so. Customer support that was almost impossible to reach. Returns department that loses phones. Customer support where it took more than an hour to cancel service after they could be reached.
There's more to a good company than just cut-rate pricing. Nuff said.
Seemingly every year or two T-Mobile actually lowers their price.
In all the years I've been with them, they've never once lowered their price to me. Not once. And I started with VoiceStream, that's how long I've been with them in the US.
They include 1GB of 4G LTE data per line per month, and then I pay an extra $10 per line per month to bump both of them up to 3GB of LTE each.
So the "no overages fees" claim doesn't apply to you, either. You shouldn't have to pay more to get more. That's T-Mobile's marketing. That it doesn't apply to everyone is one downside to T-Mobile.
I traveled to another country over the summer, and I was even able to use my phone for free over there. It was awesome!
Yes, isn't it? I found out that by cancelling the extra 500 texts/month for $2.99 I was paying for, based on T-Mobile service reps swearing up and down multiple times that I didn't need it because "no overages, ever!" and "it doesn't matter how many texts, you won't pay for them", I wound up being subject to 50 cents EACH for texts while I travel internationally.
There's no contract, no overage fees, no nonsense.
I haven't had a T-Mobile contract for, ummm, ten years? There are overage fees -- for some of their plans. (I'd say a plan that has 50 texts/month, that is shown on the website as "N out of unlimited" for usage, where you have to pay for every text you send counts as having an "overage fee".) And nonsense? they've got that in spades. (Ditto for the "N of unlimited" having any fee for texts.)
But as you could read in the other sources, a citizen's arrest is legally recognized in most of the world in cases of a felony.
And as you could read in the source I spoke about, flight crew other than the aircraft commander have no special arrest authority. That means flight attendants don't have the power to arrest someone just because they are flight attendants.
And I don't recall the statement about them being able to arrest someone was specific to felonies. But that's moot.
because cockpits have magic LCD screens that are totally different from LCD screens mere commoners use
Because cockpits have instrumentation that very few commoners have access to, and those LCD screens are built into systems that are different than the LCD monitor you are probably looking at now. When you talk about RFI and ingress, you need to consider not only the component part (the LCD) but the entire design and implementation.
Yes they can.
You should have read the link from google that you provided concerning the "Tokyo Convention". It says the aircraft commander has the power of arrest but then continues to say that his power is to turn someone over to the ground authorities. It makes no special provisions for flight attendants, and does not say that they can arrest anyone.
They don't work for free but they do have the power to arrest.
No, they don't. They have the power to tell the captain, and the captain has the power to tell the authorities on the ground who do have the power to arrest.
"Enjoy the rest of your flight, sir. It will be your last for a few years."
We all are in a position to observe such a phenomenon if it existed,
That must be a pretty big airplane if the entire readership of /. is able to squeeze into the cockpit to observe the effects of WiFi on a cockpit instrument.
Okay, how many "good ones" dismiss anything said by the "bad scientists" because of who they work for?
Do you really think I keep a running count of the number of different people, much less the number of times, I hear the statement "don't pay any attention to that scientist, he works for a big oil/coal/etc company..."? Really? It was the kind of statement that I replied to in this discussion, and nobody seems to have thought it was unusual for anyone to say such a thing. That's how common and commonly accepted it is.
Everybody is free to submit papers with the evidence they can scrape up,
"Submit" is not "publish". Your use of the perjorative phrase "scrape up" demonstrates a bias.
and it's essentially impossible to keep a good paper from being published at all.
You're right. I get spam almost every day now from some new "journal" looking for my submissions, none of which have any publishing history or any weight in any community. Yeah, publish in scam journals is easy. Publish in a journal where the reviewers have a dog in the fight, not so much.
Thing is, the evidence is pretty convincing if you look at it skeptically and intelligently.
You know, none of what I wrote has anything to do with who is right and who is wrong. If you want to argue that the intelligent people believe one thing (with the obvious implications) then do it with someone else. I'm pointing out that by painting part of a group as dishonest you splatter a lot of paint on yourself. That has nothing to do with whose science will wind up proven correct in the long run. It has everything to do with calling someone else's ethics into question (because they're being PAID to do that research, OMG!) and then being surprised when others doubt yours.
Science, as a discipline, works with egotistic and sometimes petty individuals who are as fallible as anybody else. It works pretty well.
Science, as a discipline, doesn't care who works for what, but science as practiced today often does. Science worked pretty well for the geocentrists in their day, too, at least in their humble opinion. When your argument for a position comes down to "if you look at it intelligently", you're not practicing science as it ought to be.