They don't need more spectrum. Additionally, there's a new antenna design that allows an order of magnitude increase in the amount of information that can be sent over the same radio wavelength (don't have the article in front of me, but it's basically a compressed spiral that allows waves to propagate in multiple orientations and still be coherently received), which will likely shortly eliminate the current spectrum bottleneck for a relatively minor amount of capital investment.
This isn't about spectrum or buying customers, it's about eliminating the only other major GSM carrier in the US. With this, AT&T will have a hardware lock much more similar to the non-GSM carriers in that there will be no other major source for GSM phones but AT&T (in the US, anyway). Much like other carriers won't activate a phone they didn't originally sell, they won't have to worry about people taking their phones to another network or not being able to sell new phones to new customers coming from TMobile (if there is such a person who would do that).
My nomination, at least for the current generation, would be Richard Branson. Jobs doesn't hold a candle to him for visionary. Consumer crap doesn't mean anything but money, and that's not really all that admirable.
I'd say that if he was as egomaniacal as Jobs, Branson would've been the world's corporate overlord long ago.
Case in point, Logitech's Trackman series of trackballs. They only sell a single cordless variety now, but the Marble FX+ and the successor now sell used for what they used to sell new for. The FX+ has been discontinued for nearly 10 years and they still sell for the new price when they come up on eBay. New ones sell for double what they did when they were still being manufactured, if you can actually find one still in the box.
It's legally and factually correct to resist, even if the results aren't likely to turn out very well.
They've got you pretty well conditioned if it's your opinion you have no right to resist being abused illegally by someone in a uniform. What police academies teach is irrelevant.
Hadn't you heard? Only criminals and cops can use firearms effectively. Anyone else is a moron who has absolutely no idea what they're doing, and will more than likely kill their entire family and themselves accidentally the first time they attempt to use their firearm.
If you're not a cop and own a firearm, you are obviously completely deranged and a danger to everyone around you. It doesn't matter if you are the most responsible person in the world prior; picking up a firearm instantly turns you into an indiscriminate killer. Except if you have to defend yourself. Then you will lose any ability to effectively operate said firearm. It must be true, because millions of people believe it.
Also, criminals have better guns because, well, they do. That's why we need to ban cheap guns, because they're obviously better. After all, a Saturday night special wouldn't be the firearm of choice for the common criminal if it weren't superior to anything else on the market. In addition, they will likely have a case of assault rifles in their trunk, because everyone knows you can walk into any gun store or show and pick up an assault rifle. I mean, assault weapon, which is not actually an automatic weapon, but one that I want other people to believe is automatic because it helps my emotional argument. It looks scary, so it must be more deadly than a standard rifle even though it has identical ballistic characteristics. Yes, looks really do kill when it comes to firearms. True story.
I didn't respond to it because it has zero relevance to the intentional nature of the US response to native populations. Convenience had nothing to do with it. It was unintentional, and that is much easier to ignore from a cultural aspect than the intentional acts of a systematic genocide campaign. The only reason there are any natives left in the US is because they were pushed so far to the margins that nobody wanted what they had anymore.
Disease may have killed 100s of millions, but that doesn't excuse the culture of violence created in response to removing the remaining natives from their land through forced relocation or outright murder. The violence with which the Americas were colonized is still a part of the culture of most of the nations in existence here today. Canada is probably the largest exception, both because of the remoteness of many of the First Nations and the relatively early and comprehensive nature of the European-First Nations reconciliation efforts.
I take it you don't understand anything about how cultural psychology is perpetuated. It doesn't require that anyone alive has participated in genocide. I'm also not going to waste my time explaining why. You either care enough to learn about it yourself or you wouldn't listen to an explanation from me. Either way, anything I say is unlikely to sink in given your response.
No, physical violence isn't almays necessary, but your situation is far from normal (at least in my experience).
I would have to say it's actually unique among all the bullying stories I've ever heard. I'm glad that worked for you though.
My favorite non-violent bully-cessation incident was actually in 5th grade. That was by far the most violent time I had in school ( as in, having it inflicted on me). It finally stopped when one of them had nearly broken my nose. He was wearing an almost completely white brand-name Starter jacket. I don't know current prices, but at the time they were about the most expensive sports apparel a kid could own. Anyway, standing there bleeding into my hands, I wiped both down the front of his jacket. He never touched me again, though I'd say his parents gave him the beating I couldn't.
That's true in the USA only if you count "literacy" as being able to sound out words without a functional understanding or ability to make simple inferences.
If you discount those who have limited understanding of anything past basic English, and a lack of ability to answer more than basic questions about any text utilizing moderately complex language, the rate falls to about 70%.
A family member of mine can't get professional employment using her college degree because of a drug charge that is more than 20 years old, despite a recommendation from the presiding judge, the prosecutor, and the arresting officer.
I second this 100%, having been bullied in school until the day I pounded someone's head into the gym floor. Backing down when you're already a target makes you more of a target. You can believe otherwise, but you would be wrong.
Bullies do not stop until the drawbacks of bullying outweigh the rush they feel from tormenting someone who can't or won't do anything to stop them.
I applaud you for doing what you did. The combination of athletics programs and schools academics is one of the most corrupting practices in US education.
Depends on the school. Up until very recently, many Southern schools still had corporal punishment policies that could be opted into by parents (of course, even further back it was mandatory).
My mother went to school with a boy who died as a direct result of a corporal punishment session. The principle hit him so hard that he drove his head into the wall (this was a bend-down-and-grab-your-ankles sort of punishment, utilizing a wooden paddle), resulting in a cerebral hemorrhage. The principle was never charged, though he was eventually driven to retire as a result of the continuing student backlash.
Slashdot Mirror
It's designed to target cell types, not the genome itself.
Like, you could kill everyone with, say, a heart, liver, or lungs.
If you find them immoral in most cases, but not in all, you are actually agreeing that the microtransactions themselves are amoral.
They don't need more spectrum. Additionally, there's a new antenna design that allows an order of magnitude increase in the amount of information that can be sent over the same radio wavelength (don't have the article in front of me, but it's basically a compressed spiral that allows waves to propagate in multiple orientations and still be coherently received), which will likely shortly eliminate the current spectrum bottleneck for a relatively minor amount of capital investment.
This isn't about spectrum or buying customers, it's about eliminating the only other major GSM carrier in the US. With this, AT&T will have a hardware lock much more similar to the non-GSM carriers in that there will be no other major source for GSM phones but AT&T (in the US, anyway). Much like other carriers won't activate a phone they didn't originally sell, they won't have to worry about people taking their phones to another network or not being able to sell new phones to new customers coming from TMobile (if there is such a person who would do that).
No, this one will be a disc with squared sides.
My nomination, at least for the current generation, would be Richard Branson. Jobs doesn't hold a candle to him for visionary. Consumer crap doesn't mean anything but money, and that's not really all that admirable.
I'd say that if he was as egomaniacal as Jobs, Branson would've been the world's corporate overlord long ago.
Blackholing something actually isn't an imposition. It's exactly the opposite.
It would seem like Marketing 101, but it's not.
Case in point, Logitech's Trackman series of trackballs. They only sell a single cordless variety now, but the Marble FX+ and the successor now sell used for what they used to sell new for. The FX+ has been discontinued for nearly 10 years and they still sell for the new price when they come up on eBay. New ones sell for double what they did when they were still being manufactured, if you can actually find one still in the box.
It's too bad you were afraid to log in so you won't get a notification of this response.
Quoting myself:
even if the results aren't likely to turn out very well.
You're a moron who can't read, or chooses not to in order to feel like you've gotten one over on someone.
It's legally and factually correct to resist, even if the results aren't likely to turn out very well.
They've got you pretty well conditioned if it's your opinion you have no right to resist being abused illegally by someone in a uniform. What police academies teach is irrelevant.
Absolutely, 100% I would prefer them dead to abusing due process.
Hadn't you heard? Only criminals and cops can use firearms effectively. Anyone else is a moron who has absolutely no idea what they're doing, and will more than likely kill their entire family and themselves accidentally the first time they attempt to use their firearm.
If you're not a cop and own a firearm, you are obviously completely deranged and a danger to everyone around you. It doesn't matter if you are the most responsible person in the world prior; picking up a firearm instantly turns you into an indiscriminate killer. Except if you have to defend yourself. Then you will lose any ability to effectively operate said firearm. It must be true, because millions of people believe it.
Also, criminals have better guns because, well, they do. That's why we need to ban cheap guns, because they're obviously better. After all, a Saturday night special wouldn't be the firearm of choice for the common criminal if it weren't superior to anything else on the market. In addition, they will likely have a case of assault rifles in their trunk, because everyone knows you can walk into any gun store or show and pick up an assault rifle. I mean, assault weapon, which is not actually an automatic weapon, but one that I want other people to believe is automatic because it helps my emotional argument. It looks scary, so it must be more deadly than a standard rifle even though it has identical ballistic characteristics. Yes, looks really do kill when it comes to firearms. True story.
I didn't respond to it because it has zero relevance to the intentional nature of the US response to native populations. Convenience had nothing to do with it. It was unintentional, and that is much easier to ignore from a cultural aspect than the intentional acts of a systematic genocide campaign. The only reason there are any natives left in the US is because they were pushed so far to the margins that nobody wanted what they had anymore.
Disease may have killed 100s of millions, but that doesn't excuse the culture of violence created in response to removing the remaining natives from their land through forced relocation or outright murder. The violence with which the Americas were colonized is still a part of the culture of most of the nations in existence here today. Canada is probably the largest exception, both because of the remoteness of many of the First Nations and the relatively early and comprehensive nature of the European-First Nations reconciliation efforts.
I take it you don't understand anything about how cultural psychology is perpetuated. It doesn't require that anyone alive has participated in genocide. I'm also not going to waste my time explaining why. You either care enough to learn about it yourself or you wouldn't listen to an explanation from me. Either way, anything I say is unlikely to sink in given your response.
That's what happens when you write an IOU to yourself, spend the money on bills, and call it an investment. >.
And then there's all the non-budgeted defense spending, such as the entirety of the cost of the 3 wars we're currently engaged in.
No, physical violence isn't almays necessary, but your situation is far from normal (at least in my experience).
I would have to say it's actually unique among all the bullying stories I've ever heard. I'm glad that worked for you though.
My favorite non-violent bully-cessation incident was actually in 5th grade. That was by far the most violent time I had in school ( as in, having it inflicted on me). It finally stopped when one of them had nearly broken my nose. He was wearing an almost completely white brand-name Starter jacket. I don't know current prices, but at the time they were about the most expensive sports apparel a kid could own. Anyway, standing there bleeding into my hands, I wiped both down the front of his jacket. He never touched me again, though I'd say his parents gave him the beating I couldn't.
I'm really not sure what to make of this comment. If by it you mean -'m against the concept of "specialness," then I'll freely agree.
Too many little bastards who are carbon copies in any way that counts for much.
Save the inevitable Slashdot "we only have your side of the story!" speech for someone who cares.
What's really sad is that this is actually frequently a necessary statement to make.
That's true in the USA only if you count "literacy" as being able to sound out words without a functional understanding or ability to make simple inferences.
If you discount those who have limited understanding of anything past basic English, and a lack of ability to answer more than basic questions about any text utilizing moderately complex language, the rate falls to about 70%.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf
A family member of mine can't get professional employment using her college degree because of a drug charge that is more than 20 years old, despite a recommendation from the presiding judge, the prosecutor, and the arresting officer.
I second this 100%, having been bullied in school until the day I pounded someone's head into the gym floor. Backing down when you're already a target makes you more of a target. You can believe otherwise, but you would be wrong.
Bullies do not stop until the drawbacks of bullying outweigh the rush they feel from tormenting someone who can't or won't do anything to stop them.
You were apparently never a target of violence in school. Or you are a moron.
I applaud you for doing what you did. The combination of athletics programs and schools academics is one of the most corrupting practices in US education.
Well, it depends on the level of cocaine dissolved in whatever fluid you're using. It could be only enough for personal use...
Depends on the school. Up until very recently, many Southern schools still had corporal punishment policies that could be opted into by parents (of course, even further back it was mandatory).
My mother went to school with a boy who died as a direct result of a corporal punishment session. The principle hit him so hard that he drove his head into the wall (this was a bend-down-and-grab-your-ankles sort of punishment, utilizing a wooden paddle), resulting in a cerebral hemorrhage. The principle was never charged, though he was eventually driven to retire as a result of the continuing student backlash.