You don't have to accept the phone subsidization. If you pay full price for the phone then you don't have to sign the contract. The salesperson will still flop it down for you to sign, but you don't have to sign it if you pay full price for the phone.
Verizon is CDMA, but sprint is a GSM/iDEN hybrid. The phones don't cross because they are different formats. As for T-moblie/ATT, they are both GSM. If your phone is capable of the full GSM spectrum then you shouldn't have any trouble moving back and forth. The cheap pay-as-you-go phones are intentionally designed to only be capable of the spectrum owned by the carrier selling them. That's why they are so cheap.
It's an expression used to express options that give short term relative boot to an individual by causing damage to his neighbors. You'll hear to expression a lot if you look into the great depression economic and trade policies. Most beggar-thy-neighbor actions can be taken by all individuals and thus come back on those who implement them. As it applies to the cell companies: The first one to embrace the data pipe only model would gain significant market-share and revenue initially, but when the other companies responded with the same cheap data only plans every cell company would end up higher capital costs and lower revenue. The first mover company would see a short term spike in revenue and then it would collapse to lower than before they made the change.
Apple depends on the "walled garden" approach to sell apps and music. When the mobile telcos go the way of AOL, apple's walled garden goes to the same place AOLs walled garden went. Oblivion.
They see a couple of towelheads shooting an AK-47 in the air or guarding someone with an RPG (really, what are you going to do Einstein, shoot your prisoner with an explosive grenade from 2 meters away?)
Have you dealt with any of the locals over there? That Einstein will shoot the prisoner with an explosive grenade from 2 meters. Good odds he will manage to burn his buddy to a crisp with the back blast while he is at it.
You are seriously lacking in knowledge of military capability. Artillery was quite useful in the jungle and was used by both sides. The US used it more because we had the helicopters to move it around, but is was used by both sides. Your knowledge of Afghanistan is just as lacking as your Vietnam history.
The afghans only defeated the Russians because of massive aid and antiaircraft weapons provided by the US. As long as the Russians could move by air they crushed the Afghans. The only reason the US is having trouble is our aversion to civilian causalities.
Not exactly. The Nazis left Switzerland alone because there was no benefit to taking it and the natural terrain is very favorable to defense. Since the Nazis planned to control everything around it, and it wasn't an immediate threat, why spend the time.
I agree that just following orders is not an acceptable defense.
I'm questioning what they would need to defend themselves against. What is the spirit of international law? Do you mean the norms of acceptable behavior in the western world? I would like to point out that the majority of all the international institutions are made up of countries that do not accept western norms.
What international law? Can you point me to the international equivalent of the us code and federal register? If you want to point to the Geneva convention, you might want to pay attention to the clauses that specifically exclude those not wearing uniforms of an organized army. You know, how spies and those not wearing uniforms have been historically subject to summary execution.
Asbestos is a mineral. Actually a group of six similar minerals with specific similar properties. If you want more information, google "asbestos composition".
Nobody in there right mind intentionally reads a book written by an English major. Do you have any idea how boring it is for every character to speak in perfectly proper English?
Bus service was competitive in the early part of the 20th century. Most cities with successful bus service took it over, along with the subways. What no one seems to be able to answer, is why do governments think they have to provide the service? Why do so many people think that if the government isn't doing it then it isn't happening? Why do people think that something that no private person will invest in, is somehow a good investment if the government does it?
If bus services are so good, why are they all run by governments? If there are really enough riders to made the buses efficient and cover costs, why would the city counsel be voting on it at all. Hell, you think it's so great, buy a bus are start driving it around. If your right about the need for mass transit you'll get rich.
Why do so many people think that if the government doesn't fund it then it doesn't happen? The only things the government needs to fund are those that no private person or group thinks is worth the investment. Most of those, are of course, not worth the investment.
Because most low margin, extremely high volume commodity items are made in China. What is made in the US tends to be some mixture of the following: high margin, relatively low volume(compared to volumes of Wal-Mart crap anyway), high precision, high engineering, etc.. stuff. Caterpillar is a good example. The real CATs are made in the USA. The cheap plastic toy CAT your kid plays with is made in China.
Throwing out bulk numbers without the volume associated with them is disingenuous. ExxonMobils profit of $40.6 billion was only about a 3% profit. Getting a 3% ROI for investors is pretty measly.
I wasn't clear. I meant to say that anyone who will compare a person to body builders, will do that comparison if they see you in the mall or anywhere else. I'm trying to point out that avoiding the gym due to embarrassment doesn't accomplish anything, and being in the gym with people who have been working out for years doesn't cost anything. No comparisons will be made that wouldn't be made anyway.
Here's the thing. They are comparing you to them even if you never get in the same building with them. Your problem is your problem. You fix it, or accept yourself the way you are. My wife drives me crazy with this stupidity. She whines constantly about here weight but won't let anybody help her, or see her, so she does nothing. The problem never gets fixed and she stays constantly miserable.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to accept the phone subsidization. If you pay full price for the phone then you don't have to sign the contract. The salesperson will still flop it down for you to sign, but you don't have to sign it if you pay full price for the phone.
Verizon is CDMA, but sprint is a GSM/iDEN hybrid. The phones don't cross because they are different formats. As for T-moblie/ATT, they are both GSM. If your phone is capable of the full GSM spectrum then you shouldn't have any trouble moving back and forth. The cheap pay-as-you-go phones are intentionally designed to only be capable of the spectrum owned by the carrier selling them. That's why they are so cheap.
It's an expression used to express options that give short term relative boot to an individual by causing damage to his neighbors. You'll hear to expression a lot if you look into the great depression economic and trade policies. Most beggar-thy-neighbor actions can be taken by all individuals and thus come back on those who implement them. As it applies to the cell companies: The first one to embrace the data pipe only model would gain significant market-share and revenue initially, but when the other companies responded with the same cheap data only plans every cell company would end up higher capital costs and lower revenue. The first mover company would see a short term spike in revenue and then it would collapse to lower than before they made the change.
Apple depends on the "walled garden" approach to sell apps and music. When the mobile telcos go the way of AOL, apple's walled garden goes to the same place AOLs walled garden went. Oblivion.
Damn, I want an ISP that won't freak out when I stop buy on my way to the range.
Which ISP is this? I want to buy from them.
They see a couple of towelheads shooting an AK-47 in the air or guarding someone with an RPG (really, what are you going to do Einstein, shoot your prisoner with an explosive grenade from 2 meters away?)
Have you dealt with any of the locals over there? That Einstein will shoot the prisoner with an explosive grenade from 2 meters. Good odds he will manage to burn his buddy to a crisp with the back blast while he is at it.
The afghans only defeated the Russians because of massive aid and antiaircraft weapons provided by the US. As long as the Russians could move by air they crushed the Afghans. The only reason the US is having trouble is our aversion to civilian causalities.
Not exactly. The Nazis left Switzerland alone because there was no benefit to taking it and the natural terrain is very favorable to defense. Since the Nazis planned to control everything around it, and it wasn't an immediate threat, why spend the time.
I agree that just following orders is not an acceptable defense. I'm questioning what they would need to defend themselves against. What is the spirit of international law? Do you mean the norms of acceptable behavior in the western world? I would like to point out that the majority of all the international institutions are made up of countries that do not accept western norms.
What international law? Can you point me to the international equivalent of the us code and federal register? If you want to point to the Geneva convention, you might want to pay attention to the clauses that specifically exclude those not wearing uniforms of an organized army. You know, how spies and those not wearing uniforms have been historically subject to summary execution.
Asbestos is a mineral. Actually a group of six similar minerals with specific similar properties. If you want more information, google "asbestos composition".
Not if the democrats get their bill through.
Your concepts are interesting. Do you have a newsletter?
Nobody in there right mind intentionally reads a book written by an English major. Do you have any idea how boring it is for every character to speak in perfectly proper English?
Bus service was competitive in the early part of the 20th century. Most cities with successful bus service took it over, along with the subways. What no one seems to be able to answer, is why do governments think they have to provide the service? Why do so many people think that if the government isn't doing it then it isn't happening? Why do people think that something that no private person will invest in, is somehow a good investment if the government does it?
Ahhh, but if you do it with subsidies you can funnel the money to your supports and buy votes.
If bus services are so good, why are they all run by governments? If there are really enough riders to made the buses efficient and cover costs, why would the city counsel be voting on it at all. Hell, you think it's so great, buy a bus are start driving it around. If your right about the need for mass transit you'll get rich.
Fusion is not 40 years away. It's 20 years away and has been for 40 years.
Why do so many people think that if the government doesn't fund it then it doesn't happen? The only things the government needs to fund are those that no private person or group thinks is worth the investment. Most of those, are of course, not worth the investment.
Because most low margin, extremely high volume commodity items are made in China. What is made in the US tends to be some mixture of the following: high margin, relatively low volume(compared to volumes of Wal-Mart crap anyway), high precision, high engineering, etc.. stuff. Caterpillar is a good example. The real CATs are made in the USA. The cheap plastic toy CAT your kid plays with is made in China.
Throwing out bulk numbers without the volume associated with them is disingenuous. ExxonMobils profit of $40.6 billion was only about a 3% profit. Getting a 3% ROI for investors is pretty measly.
Yea, the people who died, died in the 1950's in an experimental army reactor back when it was still in the "can we even make this work" phase.
I wasn't clear. I meant to say that anyone who will compare a person to body builders, will do that comparison if they see you in the mall or anywhere else. I'm trying to point out that avoiding the gym due to embarrassment doesn't accomplish anything, and being in the gym with people who have been working out for years doesn't cost anything. No comparisons will be made that wouldn't be made anyway.
Here's the thing. They are comparing you to them even if you never get in the same building with them. Your problem is your problem. You fix it, or accept yourself the way you are. My wife drives me crazy with this stupidity. She whines constantly about here weight but won't let anybody help her, or see her, so she does nothing. The problem never gets fixed and she stays constantly miserable.