Iridium didn't have enough bandwidth to work for data, for any commercial pursuits. Satellite Internet is a growing industry. Doing satellite data better than the other guys would be a winning plan. Iridium didn't do satellite data. Just voice, and even that wasn't that good (no coverage in cities, the tall buildings block signal, no coverage indoors or heavy canopy). Great for a handset in the middle of the flat desert. Thankfully, the military needed that, so they kept afloat, after writing off the debt.
Ah, that's called "rent to own" where I'm from (Texas, then on to Alaska). That's not a "purchase". The wiki pages and such others have posted on this indicated it was a self-financed dealer, which is different from the rent-to-own dealers. http://www.akrto.com/ Those places don't hide it's not a purchase agreement, but a contract to purchase. Like the furniture rent-to-own places.
The BH,PH places I found didn't give any terms online, but implied a sale, not a rental agreement. The RTO places make the rent to own agreement explicit.
It's not the same as your normal car dealers, where you actually buy the car by taking out a loan and using the car as collateral.
The Wiki page on it implies that BH,PH is a regular loan, but that it's given by the dealer. There is nothing more to it than that. Dealers can bump up the price and lower the payments with that freedom. High interest, insane long terms, and low payments is something a regular bank wouldn't do, but a dealer-owned finance company can do it. BH,PH is predatory lending. RTO isn't "lending".
You are so paranoid about the federal government that any employee is considered bad. Good to know.
I was clarifying your incorrect statement. You then turned that into a strawman ad hominem. Congratulations. You win the argument. Nobody else will talk to you.
The police are *always* allowed to ask "illegal" questions. You must assert your rights to keep them. The Miranda warning is the only exception, but that's more a symbol of the distinction between being "detained" and being "arrested", rather than an actual enumeration of rights.
The police are free to ask your mother where you are. She is free to decline to answer. If she doesn't, the information obtained wasn't illegally obtained. The same is true of asking a dealer if they know where the car is. The police didn't track the car. They asked a person with knowledge about it. 100% legal under every ruling and law, so long as there wasn't some prior relationship that makes the person asked an agent of the government.
If in one country one is free to marry who they want, and in another, one is free to own and carry firearms (and in each case, the other freedom doesn't apply), would you consider both to be unfree, thus not worthy of consideration? Or can one determine by their own opinion, not yours, which freedoms are more important and agree in principal, but disagree 100% on the application of Ickle's Law?
They also wouldn't consider standing on the street corner looking at people in plain sight as a "search", so the 4th wouldn't apply to surveillance, mass or otherwise.
They also didn't put in any protections of privacy, despite being terrorists who hid their identity on numerous occasions, though also announced their identity and stood by there actions at other times. Arguably the 9th and 10th Amendments are protections on privacy, but the present rulings on privacy are implied from the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments, and the 9th and 10th Amendments are considered meaningless.
I prefer sending them to an exclusive gated community with lots of large males so they can learn how to make friends. You know, opening new doors and all that.
Hahaha, a prison rape joke. The fact that our prisons are full of rape is the real joke. You are just training more lifelong criminals. Or isn't that the point of prison?
But yeah, I didn't go deep enough; the best way I can put it is that 'I didn't want to write a book'.
It isn't about volume, but quality. You quote the part of the Amendment about the standard for a warrant. That's irrelevant to the discussion, which is about when a warrant is required. You are always free of "unreasonable" searches. So the question isn't about the standard for a warrant, but what "reasonable" searches can be made without a warrant. When you ignore the topic, no matter how much you write, your point will mostly be missed.
You are, by the 4th amendment, to be COMPLETELY free of unreasonable searches. Any searches must be deemed reasonable through the issuance of a warrant for the search, by a judge.
Nope. You can't get searched for PC, but can for RS. If the police are outside a house and hear screams for help within, they can "search" the house. No need for a warrant or judge. Your definition of "unreasonable" is unreasonable.
Completely untrue. There has always been screenings when getting on an aircraft.
Prior to 9/11, they were carried out by "airport police" who were employed by the airport. Now they are carried out by federal employees. That's the difference.
"Strongly encourage" is very far from "mandate".
So health insurance isn't mandated, just strongly encouraged?
That is a very different situation as airlines have no control over how searches are done.
In most cases, those companies are brokers for the 3 approved companies in your area. Being able to buy Nike from 10 different stores doesn't imply choice.
There have been undeniable lies presented by AGW supporters,
Proof someone lied isn't proof they are wrong. The two are orthogonal. You still need to prove them wrong, even if you think the standard of proof is lower because of their past behavior.
This is also why a lien holder can't just report the car as stolen if they want it back, they have the right to repo it back, but they can't just file a police report and say the car hasn't been paid for and therefore is stolen. If they could, I'm sure they would do this as it would be easier and cheaper for them to have the police track it down as a stolen car then hire repo men to find it and get it back. But they don't.
That's why the lowest tier of ownership in the US is "rent to own" whether it's furniture or cars.
They aren't the owner. As the owner, I can replace the engine, paint it a new color, and the dealer has no say in the matter. They only have say in the matter if I sell it, in which case I must pay them off before I can transfer title to the next owner.
So, yes, if we can change the definition of nothing, then anything is possible, include division by zero.
Division by zero is possible. You've obviously never taken calculus. Most of my advanced calculus was doing division by zero. Mostly 0/0=1 or 0/0=pi or other things. Though the answer is "as x approaches 0, the answer tends towards" rather than 0/0=X.
So your definition of "nothing" and "impossible" don't match mine, so there's little point in discussing things with such unusual definitions of words (whether that's me or you, neither of us can prove, but I don't have such problems with 99.99999% of people, generally just the ones that are so hell bent on proving a point that they don't care about accuracy).
Slashdot Mirror
Iridium didn't have enough bandwidth to work for data, for any commercial pursuits. Satellite Internet is a growing industry. Doing satellite data better than the other guys would be a winning plan. Iridium didn't do satellite data. Just voice, and even that wasn't that good (no coverage in cities, the tall buildings block signal, no coverage indoors or heavy canopy). Great for a handset in the middle of the flat desert. Thankfully, the military needed that, so they kept afloat, after writing off the debt.
That's why these and others like it are LEO. The latency is not much different from DSL.
The BH,PH places I found didn't give any terms online, but implied a sale, not a rental agreement. The RTO places make the rent to own agreement explicit.
It's not the same as your normal car dealers, where you actually buy the car by taking out a loan and using the car as collateral.
The Wiki page on it implies that BH,PH is a regular loan, but that it's given by the dealer. There is nothing more to it than that. Dealers can bump up the price and lower the payments with that freedom. High interest, insane long terms, and low payments is something a regular bank wouldn't do, but a dealer-owned finance company can do it. BH,PH is predatory lending. RTO isn't "lending".
You are so paranoid about the federal government that any employee is considered bad. Good to know.
I was clarifying your incorrect statement. You then turned that into a strawman ad hominem. Congratulations. You win the argument. Nobody else will talk to you.
Many times the customer is not told at all. It's still a grey area if this is legal since the car is property of the dealer.
The car is not the property of the dealer. The only owner of the car is the buyer. The dealer has a lien. But the sole owner is the buyer.
He was making payments. He owned it. He didn't go to a rent-to-own place. Those are even lower than "BH,PH" places.
The police are *always* allowed to ask "illegal" questions. You must assert your rights to keep them. The Miranda warning is the only exception, but that's more a symbol of the distinction between being "detained" and being "arrested", rather than an actual enumeration of rights.
The police are free to ask your mother where you are. She is free to decline to answer. If she doesn't, the information obtained wasn't illegally obtained. The same is true of asking a dealer if they know where the car is. The police didn't track the car. They asked a person with knowledge about it. 100% legal under every ruling and law, so long as there wasn't some prior relationship that makes the person asked an agent of the government.
If in one country one is free to marry who they want, and in another, one is free to own and carry firearms (and in each case, the other freedom doesn't apply), would you consider both to be unfree, thus not worthy of consideration? Or can one determine by their own opinion, not yours, which freedoms are more important and agree in principal, but disagree 100% on the application of Ickle's Law?
They also wouldn't consider standing on the street corner looking at people in plain sight as a "search", so the 4th wouldn't apply to surveillance, mass or otherwise.
They also didn't put in any protections of privacy, despite being terrorists who hid their identity on numerous occasions, though also announced their identity and stood by there actions at other times. Arguably the 9th and 10th Amendments are protections on privacy, but the present rulings on privacy are implied from the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments, and the 9th and 10th Amendments are considered meaningless.
I prefer sending them to an exclusive gated community with lots of large males so they can learn how to make friends. You know, opening new doors and all that.
Hahaha, a prison rape joke. The fact that our prisons are full of rape is the real joke. You are just training more lifelong criminals. Or isn't that the point of prison?
A verbal summary of a contract is binding. "Is this the standard form" "yes" then you can sign without reading.
But yeah, I didn't go deep enough; the best way I can put it is that 'I didn't want to write a book'.
It isn't about volume, but quality. You quote the part of the Amendment about the standard for a warrant. That's irrelevant to the discussion, which is about when a warrant is required. You are always free of "unreasonable" searches. So the question isn't about the standard for a warrant, but what "reasonable" searches can be made without a warrant. When you ignore the topic, no matter how much you write, your point will mostly be missed.
You are, by the 4th amendment, to be COMPLETELY free of unreasonable searches. Any searches must be deemed reasonable through the issuance of a warrant for the search, by a judge.
Nope. You can't get searched for PC, but can for RS. If the police are outside a house and hear screams for help within, they can "search" the house. No need for a warrant or judge. Your definition of "unreasonable" is unreasonable.
Completely untrue. There has always been screenings when getting on an aircraft.
Prior to 9/11, they were carried out by "airport police" who were employed by the airport. Now they are carried out by federal employees. That's the difference.
"Strongly encourage" is very far from "mandate".
So health insurance isn't mandated, just strongly encouraged?
That is a very different situation as airlines have no control over how searches are done.
They used to.
In most cases, those companies are brokers for the 3 approved companies in your area. Being able to buy Nike from 10 different stores doesn't imply choice.
Rev Al Gore, a man of farts around in a single person Lear jet,
There is no such thing, but in typical denier style, you aren't letting facts get in your way.
There have been undeniable lies presented by AGW supporters,
Proof someone lied isn't proof they are wrong. The two are orthogonal. You still need to prove them wrong, even if you think the standard of proof is lower because of their past behavior.
This is also why a lien holder can't just report the car as stolen if they want it back, they have the right to repo it back, but they can't just file a police report and say the car hasn't been paid for and therefore is stolen. If they could, I'm sure they would do this as it would be easier and cheaper for them to have the police track it down as a stolen car then hire repo men to find it and get it back. But they don't.
That's why the lowest tier of ownership in the US is "rent to own" whether it's furniture or cars.
They aren't the owner. As the owner, I can replace the engine, paint it a new color, and the dealer has no say in the matter. They only have say in the matter if I sell it, in which case I must pay them off before I can transfer title to the next owner.
On the other hand, if you are financing through the dealer, the RO (registered owner) is the dealer, not you.
Nope, the owner is the buyer, the dealer has a lien. There is a difference.
Nope. They sold it with a lien (based on TFA). They don't own it any more than the bank or the government owns your house.
Put differently, the universe doesn't have to exist, so there must be a reason it does exist.
Why must there be a reason? There must be a cause, but that's different.
So, yes, if we can change the definition of nothing, then anything is possible, include division by zero.
Division by zero is possible. You've obviously never taken calculus. Most of my advanced calculus was doing division by zero. Mostly 0/0=1 or 0/0=pi or other things. Though the answer is "as x approaches 0, the answer tends towards" rather than 0/0=X.
So your definition of "nothing" and "impossible" don't match mine, so there's little point in discussing things with such unusual definitions of words (whether that's me or you, neither of us can prove, but I don't have such problems with 99.99999% of people, generally just the ones that are so hell bent on proving a point that they don't care about accuracy).
Many wireless routers now come with the wireless turned off on delivery. You must configure it to "turn it on".