get this administration to truly define a 'terrorist'
Let's make that a question in the debates to BOTH Bush and Kerry. Can/will either one put a firm definition on it, or will they both use that term for politcal points?
Fascists would rather regulate the thing to control the masses that they fear will
Amen. When will liberals stop trying to put regulations on everything. After all, we need our liberty. If I want to have my factory outputting mercury into a river upstream of a city, why should there be environment regulations to stop me? I think I'll pay my works 0.05/hour and never install safety systems. I just need to stop those regulations from the Department of Labor.
I agree on property rights too. What is it with all these parks? Why can't I just bring in my dump trucks and big up coal and shoot spotted owls? What do you mean the government or some individual OWNS it. I should have the liberty to use that property as I see fit.
After all, people's lives, freedoms, and families are much safe under communist systems that capitalist systems. We have history as our example. Freedom of speech is much better protected in North Korea and the USSR than in the UK and the USA. Surely there are fewer political prisoners in China than France and Germany.
I have never bought in to this concept of "anything you sign should be enforceable."
Why not? Why shouldn't private parties be allowed to enter freely into contracts, and be allowed judical recourse to enforce them? Developed economies' success centers around contracts and their enforcability. Without contracts, there is chaos.
The height of dishonesty is people who sign contracts that contain clauses they disagree with with the attidude "its unenforcable, so why do I care."
If you don't agree with the contract and agree to abide by its terms, don't sign it.
By the way, I am in a technical field, in a senior position, and I did refuse to sign the non-compete. My reason? Nothing about it appeared in my offer letter, they sprung it on me during the orientation process. So, I didn't sign, and said that it was never part of my employment agreement. They never agreed with my point, but didn't fire me (which they knew would land them on the wrong end of a wrongful termination suit, since the non-compete was never mentioned in my offer letter), and the whole matter dropped (over a year ago).
This makes me think about Babylon 5 and "The First Ones." They evolved, went to the stars in search of other life, only to discover they were, indeed, the very beings to gain sentience (sp?). I've always wondered if that could be us.
Healthcare should be solved, but retirement? Its a pretty new concept, introduced in a big way to shrink the workforce during the depression. Think retirement was the rage in the 1800's? Nope. Why is retirement a right? The thought of suddenly stopping my life is horrifying to me.
Now, financial independance so I don't have to work, that's good. But do you know about life expectancy comparisons between retired and non-retired people of the same age and physical condition? The retired people die first.
Seriously, me and a couple friends sit around marveling at the "retirement culture" we've developed. I used to believe in it, but, if you really start thinking about it, what sense does it make? Why is there a "magic age" when you stop working? What changes about you in a mere 24 hours (as you pass that age) that you suddently go from able bodied contributor, in one swoop, to not working at all?
But the vast majority of guns that are used at all are used to commit crimes. Period.
Wow. Do you really believe that? Whether or not you think guns should be outlawed, the statement about is so obviously untrue, it boggles the mind that anyone would actually believe it.
Here are the things off the top of my head that guns are used for:
1. Shooting Sports
2. Hunting
3. Peace officers in the line of duty, including target practice
4. Defense of self, another, or property
5. Committing crime
The final two, defense and crime, make up an almost undectable portion of gun use (you can track by ammo sales). The first, shooting sports, makes up, by far, the highest use of guns, with each participant firing 100's of rounds of ammo on a given day.
But I wouldn't want to let facts get in the way of "facts."
I explained that he was making a mistake, it was MY spot and I wanted that car in it.
In Texas, a tow-truck driver in this exact situation was arrested and convicted of Grant Theft-Auto. If the driver is present, and protesting, he cannot take the car from private property.
. He is asking to implement them on an open platform, not necessarily calling the actual implementation to be an inherently open one.
If this is written for hire by a defense contractor and sold to the government (instead of writting by the government itself), and it uses GPL'ed code, wouldn't they be obilged to publish? Is the FSF going to file suit?
don't think this is a better world than the one we had before (even though I'm only 18 years old, so I can't really have any memories from those times).
I grew up in a time when full-scale nuclear war appeared likely. We were pretty close during the Cuban Missle Crisis. While I don't like terrorists much, I happen to prefer it to the weekly "duck-and-cover" classroom drills.
A fair and objective comparision between the USA of 1980 and the USSR of 1980 will show that the USA was, indeed, better, and the USSR was more "evil." Both sides broke treaties, but the Soviets broke more, including the conventions on biological weapons. A pre-emptive nuclear war was NOT part of standard American strategic planning, but WAS part of standard USSR planning.
The American government was measurably less corrupt at that point in time. The USA took much, much better care of its environment than the USSR (like that was all that hard to do...). In the USA, the average standard of living was higher, healthcare and education better, and basic human rights like political expression more protected.
America really shined after Chernoble. Even though the USSR was its sworn enemy, Americans felt compassion for them and sent aid. After all, even though they hated the Soviets, those were humans dieing over there. We all thought "There, but for the grace of God, go I." Compare those feelings toward America's sworn enemy, to what some in the world said about 9/11, and then tell me that American's are not a more compassionate and caring people than their enemies. If thats not "better," I don't know what is.
There is a valid argument between a multi-polar vs. a uni-polar world, but, if one side had to eventually lose, I, for one, believe the world is better with the USA as the sole superpower, rather than the USSR as the sole superpower.
It has been ruled that ISPs are simply a carrier, but they can read the email?
Wow, that got me thinking. ISPs are not held liable for piracy, hacking, etc, because they are a "common carrier." Common carriers have no knowledge of the traffic they carry, they are simply moving things from point A to point B. That limits their liability.
Now, though, the court (in those jurisdictions) has ruled it is legal for ISPs to, at the least, read e-mail. Since it is ruled legal, and they are able, does that confer some responsibility to them?
Thinking this through to conslusion, what are the odds that the ISP defending itself in reading the e-mail, has in fact increased its liability in all things its customer's do and have done to them?
Of course Americans would think it was due to their great capitalist system, democracy, enterpreneur spirits, risk-taking characters, individualism or some other great virtues. But if you have lived in a resource deprived country like China, you will finally understand that big, important innovations come from big budgets and unlimited resources.
The USSR had, in many ways, more resources than the US. Why did it not do better in areas of quality of life, innovation, etc, than the US? What about Saudi Arabia, with amazing natural resources (oil)?
Re:yay for legalized bribery!
on
P2P Bits
·
· Score: 1
when do we start enforcing the constitution and putting a stop to legalized political bribery
You should check out the American Constitution party. The fact is, the constitution is blatantly violated every day (especially the 10th Amendment, thanks to intimidation of the Supreme Court by FDR). There are many, many instances of infringing on the constitution and its amendments.
Being a Libertarian myself, I'm against a lot of the anti-P2P laws, but for entirely different reasons. But, to quote the head of the Constitution Party in Colorado, "The American Constitution is a wonderful, well thought out document. We should give it a try sometime."
Didn't Diebold promise to deliver certain states to the Bush camp?
I believe it was the CEO of Diebold speaking on behalf of himself, not the Diebold corporation, taking a position.
Company employees (such as the CEO) should be allowed to have their own opinions, unless you believe being employed by a company means you must agree with the company and only do things they sanction.
People just like rooting for the underdog, even if the underdog would be just as Evile as the top dog if/when given the chance.
Which begs the question: What will community consensus say if Linux continues on its current trajectory and achieves enough market share to be considered a monopoly in certain markets, like service operating systems? Would the community turn against Linux and root for the underdogs, namely *BSD, Apple, and Microsoft?
If you want to get scared, worry about that last part of the article which states that MS wants to start charging for the FAT file system
Well, I may not be popular for saying this, but MS did actually invent the FAT file system (ok, they purchased it, when MS bought rights to the QDOS OS, and renamed it MS-DOS).
So, if they were awarded a patent or copyright or whatever it is on FAT, at least they have a moral leg to stand on.
The patent on various ways of clicking a mouse? I don't care if its for PDAs, or what it selects, or whatever. Every possible way of clicking a mouse as been thought of, and there is no original, patentable work to do.
If you are on business travel and you are charged a "tax" of 7.5% on your hotel room, it's because the state and/or local government requires it. If the hotel makes up a fictitious "tax", they can face criminal prosecution.
What about airline fuel surcharges? Security fees? They are not quoted as part of the fare, appear along with other Tax, Fees, and Surcharges, and go directly to the airline.
I'm not defending the practice, because I do believe it is deceptive. I'm only pointing out that it is not only the phone industry doing it, as the original poster claimed.
FYI, Southwest airlines just raised fares to compensate for fuel, where other airlines added a "surcharge." Southwest CEO said he did it to be clear and honest with customers, and, "Call it what it is: a fare increase."
Isn't it beneficial to the companies if their customers feel they're safe buying a product?
Onerous contract terms and hidden charges do not appear to have stifled growth in the mobile industry.
If this were indeed happening, the mobile careers themselves would have one of these "Bills of Rights." If consumers want it, they should vote with their feet (wallet), and the free market will work its magic. I have little faith in government regulation as a wise hand.
Let's remember, mobile phones are not a critical service. They have only been in serious use for 10 years, after all, and true widespread use in the US for 5 years. Why should the government be regulating things other than "right to life" services?
But Schwarzenegger believes these new regulations will harm California's already tenuous relationship with high tech industries, giving them yet another reason to take their business elsewhere.
anyone want to put money down that the number of cellphone companies that are going to pack up and leave CA at any number greater than 0? Its not a bet i woudl take.
They would obviously not leave such a large market. But would they continue "voluntary compliance" programs? There are several of those, such as portions of CALEA on wireless. Would they keep the customers, but move the jobs to another state?
If a carrier moves its R&D or engineering, its suppliers may follow. High-tech requires an ecosystem. CA succeeds with its amazingly high cost due to the existance of that ecosystem. Start pushing companies away (like with high workers comp premiums), and the ecosystem goes away, to form in another state.
They also have juristiction to regulate television cable (which is *not* a critical service).
Cable is regulated because it is a licensed monopoly (it least it used to be). With the advent of "overbuilders" such as RCN and satellite TV such as DirecTV and Dish Network, perhaps cable should be deregulated. You do make the very valid point that cable is far from a critical service, so let the free market work its magic.
I'm always frustrated that somehow these existing laws somehow don't apply to the cell phone companies as well.
The problem is that these are often considered to be national services, putting them out of reach in some ways for state PUC/PSC. This is a similar argument made in support of VOIP. The FCC, obviously, has jurisdiction. Let's say I live in one state, on the state line, so my mobile service is coming from another state. Who has jurisdiction?
With that said, the PUC is applying many things to mobile carriers. They have been required to support 911 (they didn't used to be). Mobile carriers are looking more and more like traditional carriers, and they can expect to get the same regulatory treatment in the future.
If I go to a regular store to purchase anything, the store is required to disclose fees up front
Thats not entirely accurate. As someone who travels alot, let me tell you, taxes and what they apply to are not clear until you check out. Take the example of a newspaper: in some places its taxed, others not; if it is, the tax rates are different. I can usually just pull out a dollar for a WSJ, but not always. Taxes, fees, and surcharges are generally not disclosed in any industry until time or sale or invoicing (also see: buying a car, closing a mortgage, buying a plane ticket).
Some companies that do this offer an option to pay a bit extra to receive the full detail
I hate replying to my own message, but I just checked SunCom's Web site, and under the FAQ for Billing, it says you can get a detailed bill for $2/month. Instead of having all customers pay the extra even if they don't want detail, just the ones that want it pay.
They do seem to require that even if you only want to view online. That probably tells you they cannot seperate what appears online from what gets printed (they must be using a their invoice system for Web presentment).
My girlfriend's provider (SunCom) refuses to provide an itemized bill.
I have never worked with SunCom, but there are several legitamite reasons they may not send an itemized bill. (FYI, I've been working in telecom billing a while now).
1. Their system cannot do it. Some telecom billing systems use an external rating/pricing engine to compute charges, and then forward the final (summarized) charges to the billing system for print/mail/track. The actual billing system may have limitations that prevent it from having all the actual calls (I just got through an implementation using one of those, and the result is that the paper bill cannot have detail). Is detail available on the Web? (that is the usual alternative)
2. Wireless is highly competative, and everyone wants to keep their cost down. Every page of print adds cost (both in paper and postage). Some companies that do this offer an option to pay a bit extra to receive the full detail, giving most consumers a lower price by forgoing this (again, check the Web for detail).
3. SunCom may not actually be a wireless provider (as in owning the network), but a reseller or an MVNO. MVNO's have much lighter systems infrastructure which may leave them incapable for a full detailed bill.
I know its easy to hate the phone company, and usually they deserve it, but billing is one of those things that is terribly important and often screwed up, often in spite of efforts by the carrier.
I'm one of the guys who always says I can run faster scared than anyone else mad.
However, it is Memorial Day in the US. Its been 3 years since my father, who won a Purple Heart fighting on some God-forsaken hill in Korea, passed on. He didn't run. He was always smiling, humble, and, in his later years, just plain nuts (seriously, I mean the clinically diagnosed kind of crazy... maybe from the war... who knows).
Anyway, every right we have was won on the backs of many that came before us. They stood up against great enemies and huge personal risk. Maybe standing up and saying not this time to a thug gives tribute to that. Maybe after you do that, they won't be so quick to attack the next would-be victim.
I am against basically every law that restricts freedom, because I believe once liberties go away, they don't come back, and they were all paid for with blood. Why would I hand over my basic right to my own property to some thug?
But don't come and tell us that deadly weapons such as guns make for a more secure, less violent city
It is impossible to have a meaning conversation on this topic in this forum. In fact, I have no facts in front me, but, if you seriously wanted to learn, and not seek information to back up a pre-concieved notion, I would suggest a couple sources.
1. Crime statistics per capita of the various US states that allow concealed weapons, looking at periods before and after allowing concealed weapons.
2. Releative freemdom and corruption levels of countries as compared to private citizens rights and practical ability to own guns (if you look this up, please reply, as I would be seriously interested in the answer.
3. In countries that have outlawed gun ownership successfully, obviously gun crime goes down, because there are less guns. But what about assults with other weapons, other violent and non-violent crimes, looking for any not-so-predictable effects (for instance, to burglers feel safer robbing houses, and so rob more, because they know the owners can't shoot them?).
Anyway, I've always been curious about this topic, and I have yet to find a single study done by a group without some agenda (either pro-gun or anti-gun).
Slashdot Mirror
Let's make that a question in the debates to BOTH Bush and Kerry. Can/will either one put a firm definition on it, or will they both use that term for politcal points?
Amen. When will liberals stop trying to put regulations on everything. After all, we need our liberty. If I want to have my factory outputting mercury into a river upstream of a city, why should there be environment regulations to stop me? I think I'll pay my works 0.05/hour and never install safety systems. I just need to stop those regulations from the Department of Labor.
I agree on property rights too. What is it with all these parks? Why can't I just bring in my dump trucks and big up coal and shoot spotted owls? What do you mean the government or some individual OWNS it. I should have the liberty to use that property as I see fit.
After all, people's lives, freedoms, and families are much safe under communist systems that capitalist systems. We have history as our example. Freedom of speech is much better protected in North Korea and the USSR than in the UK and the USA. Surely there are fewer political prisoners in China than France and Germany.
But, then again, maybe I don't understand...
Why not? Why shouldn't private parties be allowed to enter freely into contracts, and be allowed judical recourse to enforce them? Developed economies' success centers around contracts and their enforcability. Without contracts, there is chaos.
The height of dishonesty is people who sign contracts that contain clauses they disagree with with the attidude "its unenforcable, so why do I care." If you don't agree with the contract and agree to abide by its terms, don't sign it.
By the way, I am in a technical field, in a senior position, and I did refuse to sign the non-compete. My reason? Nothing about it appeared in my offer letter, they sprung it on me during the orientation process. So, I didn't sign, and said that it was never part of my employment agreement. They never agreed with my point, but didn't fire me (which they knew would land them on the wrong end of a wrongful termination suit, since the non-compete was never mentioned in my offer letter), and the whole matter dropped (over a year ago).
Brave posting lawsuit-bait as an AC.
This makes me think about Babylon 5 and "The First Ones." They evolved, went to the stars in search of other life, only to discover they were, indeed, the very beings to gain sentience (sp?). I've always wondered if that could be us.
Healthcare should be solved, but retirement? Its a pretty new concept, introduced in a big way to shrink the workforce during the depression. Think retirement was the rage in the 1800's? Nope. Why is retirement a right? The thought of suddenly stopping my life is horrifying to me.
Now, financial independance so I don't have to work, that's good. But do you know about life expectancy comparisons between retired and non-retired people of the same age and physical condition? The retired people die first.
Seriously, me and a couple friends sit around marveling at the "retirement culture" we've developed. I used to believe in it, but, if you really start thinking about it, what sense does it make? Why is there a "magic age" when you stop working? What changes about you in a mere 24 hours (as you pass that age) that you suddently go from able bodied contributor, in one swoop, to not working at all?
Retirement: you can keep it.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequatly explained by stupidity.
In Texas, you can use force, up to and including deadly force, to defend yourself, a third person, your property, or the property of a third person.
Wow. Do you really believe that? Whether or not you think guns should be outlawed, the statement about is so obviously untrue, it boggles the mind that anyone would actually believe it.
Here are the things off the top of my head that guns are used for:
1. Shooting Sports
2. Hunting
3. Peace officers in the line of duty, including target practice
4. Defense of self, another, or property
5. Committing crime
The final two, defense and crime, make up an almost undectable portion of gun use (you can track by ammo sales). The first, shooting sports, makes up, by far, the highest use of guns, with each participant firing 100's of rounds of ammo on a given day.
But I wouldn't want to let facts get in the way of "facts."
In Texas, a tow-truck driver in this exact situation was arrested and convicted of Grant Theft-Auto. If the driver is present, and protesting, he cannot take the car from private property.
If this is written for hire by a defense contractor and sold to the government (instead of writting by the government itself), and it uses GPL'ed code, wouldn't they be obilged to publish? Is the FSF going to file suit?
I grew up in a time when full-scale nuclear war appeared likely. We were pretty close during the Cuban Missle Crisis. While I don't like terrorists much, I happen to prefer it to the weekly "duck-and-cover" classroom drills.
A fair and objective comparision between the USA of 1980 and the USSR of 1980 will show that the USA was, indeed, better, and the USSR was more "evil." Both sides broke treaties, but the Soviets broke more, including the conventions on biological weapons. A pre-emptive nuclear war was NOT part of standard American strategic planning, but WAS part of standard USSR planning.
The American government was measurably less corrupt at that point in time. The USA took much, much better care of its environment than the USSR (like that was all that hard to do...). In the USA, the average standard of living was higher, healthcare and education better, and basic human rights like political expression more protected.
America really shined after Chernoble. Even though the USSR was its sworn enemy, Americans felt compassion for them and sent aid. After all, even though they hated the Soviets, those were humans dieing over there. We all thought "There, but for the grace of God, go I." Compare those feelings toward America's sworn enemy, to what some in the world said about 9/11, and then tell me that American's are not a more compassionate and caring people than their enemies. If thats not "better," I don't know what is.
There is a valid argument between a multi-polar vs. a uni-polar world, but, if one side had to eventually lose, I, for one, believe the world is better with the USA as the sole superpower, rather than the USSR as the sole superpower.
Wow, that got me thinking. ISPs are not held liable for piracy, hacking, etc, because they are a "common carrier." Common carriers have no knowledge of the traffic they carry, they are simply moving things from point A to point B. That limits their liability.
Now, though, the court (in those jurisdictions) has ruled it is legal for ISPs to, at the least, read e-mail. Since it is ruled legal, and they are able, does that confer some responsibility to them?
Thinking this through to conslusion, what are the odds that the ISP defending itself in reading the e-mail, has in fact increased its liability in all things its customer's do and have done to them?
The USSR had, in many ways, more resources than the US. Why did it not do better in areas of quality of life, innovation, etc, than the US? What about Saudi Arabia, with amazing natural resources (oil)?
You should check out the American Constitution party. The fact is, the constitution is blatantly violated every day (especially the 10th Amendment, thanks to intimidation of the Supreme Court by FDR). There are many, many instances of infringing on the constitution and its amendments.
Being a Libertarian myself, I'm against a lot of the anti-P2P laws, but for entirely different reasons. But, to quote the head of the Constitution Party in Colorado, "The American Constitution is a wonderful, well thought out document. We should give it a try sometime."
I believe it was the CEO of Diebold speaking on behalf of himself, not the Diebold corporation, taking a position.
Company employees (such as the CEO) should be allowed to have their own opinions, unless you believe being employed by a company means you must agree with the company and only do things they sanction.
Which begs the question: What will community consensus say if Linux continues on its current trajectory and achieves enough market share to be considered a monopoly in certain markets, like service operating systems? Would the community turn against Linux and root for the underdogs, namely *BSD, Apple, and Microsoft?
Well, I may not be popular for saying this, but MS did actually invent the FAT file system (ok, they purchased it, when MS bought rights to the QDOS OS, and renamed it MS-DOS).
So, if they were awarded a patent or copyright or whatever it is on FAT, at least they have a moral leg to stand on.
The patent on various ways of clicking a mouse? I don't care if its for PDAs, or what it selects, or whatever. Every possible way of clicking a mouse as been thought of, and there is no original, patentable work to do.
(how is that for a bold statement :)
What about airline fuel surcharges? Security fees? They are not quoted as part of the fare, appear along with other Tax, Fees, and Surcharges, and go directly to the airline.
I'm not defending the practice, because I do believe it is deceptive. I'm only pointing out that it is not only the phone industry doing it, as the original poster claimed.
FYI, Southwest airlines just raised fares to compensate for fuel, where other airlines added a "surcharge." Southwest CEO said he did it to be clear and honest with customers, and, "Call it what it is: a fare increase."
Onerous contract terms and hidden charges do not appear to have stifled growth in the mobile industry.
If this were indeed happening, the mobile careers themselves would have one of these "Bills of Rights." If consumers want it, they should vote with their feet (wallet), and the free market will work its magic. I have little faith in government regulation as a wise hand.
Let's remember, mobile phones are not a critical service. They have only been in serious use for 10 years, after all, and true widespread use in the US for 5 years. Why should the government be regulating things other than "right to life" services?
anyone want to put money down that the number of cellphone companies that are going to pack up and leave CA at any number greater than 0? Its not a bet i woudl take.
They would obviously not leave such a large market. But would they continue "voluntary compliance" programs? There are several of those, such as portions of CALEA on wireless. Would they keep the customers, but move the jobs to another state?
If a carrier moves its R&D or engineering, its suppliers may follow. High-tech requires an ecosystem. CA succeeds with its amazingly high cost due to the existance of that ecosystem. Start pushing companies away (like with high workers comp premiums), and the ecosystem goes away, to form in another state.
Cable is regulated because it is a licensed monopoly (it least it used to be). With the advent of "overbuilders" such as RCN and satellite TV such as DirecTV and Dish Network, perhaps cable should be deregulated. You do make the very valid point that cable is far from a critical service, so let the free market work its magic.
I'm always frustrated that somehow these existing laws somehow don't apply to the cell phone companies as well.
The problem is that these are often considered to be national services, putting them out of reach in some ways for state PUC/PSC. This is a similar argument made in support of VOIP. The FCC, obviously, has jurisdiction. Let's say I live in one state, on the state line, so my mobile service is coming from another state. Who has jurisdiction?
With that said, the PUC is applying many things to mobile carriers. They have been required to support 911 (they didn't used to be). Mobile carriers are looking more and more like traditional carriers, and they can expect to get the same regulatory treatment in the future.
If I go to a regular store to purchase anything, the store is required to disclose fees up front
Thats not entirely accurate. As someone who travels alot, let me tell you, taxes and what they apply to are not clear until you check out. Take the example of a newspaper: in some places its taxed, others not; if it is, the tax rates are different. I can usually just pull out a dollar for a WSJ, but not always. Taxes, fees, and surcharges are generally not disclosed in any industry until time or sale or invoicing (also see: buying a car, closing a mortgage, buying a plane ticket).
I hate replying to my own message, but I just checked SunCom's Web site, and under the FAQ for Billing, it says you can get a detailed bill for $2/month. Instead of having all customers pay the extra even if they don't want detail, just the ones that want it pay.
They do seem to require that even if you only want to view online. That probably tells you they cannot seperate what appears online from what gets printed (they must be using a their invoice system for Web presentment).
I have never worked with SunCom, but there are several legitamite reasons they may not send an itemized bill. (FYI, I've been working in telecom billing a while now).
1. Their system cannot do it. Some telecom billing systems use an external rating/pricing engine to compute charges, and then forward the final (summarized) charges to the billing system for print/mail/track. The actual billing system may have limitations that prevent it from having all the actual calls (I just got through an implementation using one of those, and the result is that the paper bill cannot have detail). Is detail available on the Web? (that is the usual alternative)
2. Wireless is highly competative, and everyone wants to keep their cost down. Every page of print adds cost (both in paper and postage). Some companies that do this offer an option to pay a bit extra to receive the full detail, giving most consumers a lower price by forgoing this (again, check the Web for detail).
3. SunCom may not actually be a wireless provider (as in owning the network), but a reseller or an MVNO. MVNO's have much lighter systems infrastructure which may leave them incapable for a full detailed bill.
I know its easy to hate the phone company, and usually they deserve it, but billing is one of those things that is terribly important and often screwed up, often in spite of efforts by the carrier.
I'm one of the guys who always says I can run faster scared than anyone else mad.
However, it is Memorial Day in the US. Its been 3 years since my father, who won a Purple Heart fighting on some God-forsaken hill in Korea, passed on. He didn't run. He was always smiling, humble, and, in his later years, just plain nuts (seriously, I mean the clinically diagnosed kind of crazy... maybe from the war... who knows).
Anyway, every right we have was won on the backs of many that came before us. They stood up against great enemies and huge personal risk. Maybe standing up and saying not this time to a thug gives tribute to that. Maybe after you do that, they won't be so quick to attack the next would-be victim.
I am against basically every law that restricts freedom, because I believe once liberties go away, they don't come back, and they were all paid for with blood. Why would I hand over my basic right to my own property to some thug?
But don't come and tell us that deadly weapons such as guns make for a more secure, less violent city
It is impossible to have a meaning conversation on this topic in this forum. In fact, I have no facts in front me, but, if you seriously wanted to learn, and not seek information to back up a pre-concieved notion, I would suggest a couple sources.
1. Crime statistics per capita of the various US states that allow concealed weapons, looking at periods before and after allowing concealed weapons.
2. Releative freemdom and corruption levels of countries as compared to private citizens rights and practical ability to own guns (if you look this up, please reply, as I would be seriously interested in the answer.
3. In countries that have outlawed gun ownership successfully, obviously gun crime goes down, because there are less guns. But what about assults with other weapons, other violent and non-violent crimes, looking for any not-so-predictable effects (for instance, to burglers feel safer robbing houses, and so rob more, because they know the owners can't shoot them?).
Anyway, I've always been curious about this topic, and I have yet to find a single study done by a group without some agenda (either pro-gun or anti-gun).