Swapping the SIM is a full transfer of all credentials and the phone number itself.
No idea about third-party devices capable of using the Verizon network, though.
All of Verizon's LTE phones use SIM cards. If you upgraded to a 4G phone before the grandfathering of Unlimited plans was revoked (like I did), you can do everything you're talking about and still keep the unlimited 4G plan.
Yep, same boat here. I'll be buying my phones second-hand and just swapping the LTE SIM card over to my "new" ones from now on to keep my unlimited plan.
I did say "almost never," not "never." And that's true. If you look at the preponderance of cases, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by (stand by for the shock!) violent criminals who are already legally barred from having guns. Barring law-abiding citizens from having them ability to protect themselves against people who already are not allowed to possess firearms but do so anyway isn't helping anyone. Except the criminals.
You can't solve a sociological problem by simply stripping rights away from the people who don't contribute to that problem.
I also absolutely agree that a legal gun-owner who does commit a crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But when has that ever been in question?
The Founding Fathers were quite explicit that you should assume members of your government are nefarious by default. Subsequent events have born out their fears.
They set up the government the way it is to minimize the harm any one member or group, even the majority, could do. Have you even read the Constitution?
And defending themselves against other civilians. Firearms are the equalizer that allow the weak to protect themselves from the strong, or simply against the many.
If you look at the documentation of incidents, legal gun-owners are almost never the... "abusers" as you put it.
its not possible to have one with NRA opponents, its like arguing with a drunk or fundamental religionist, pointless as they they wouldn't change their mind in the face of evidence.
Fair enough, and point taken.
But perhaps a reference to my interest rather than my ability would have been more in order and made your point just as well. Quite possibly better.
The complete lack of any thought put into entertaining gameplay for Doom3 makes it hard for me to be interested in the underlying code.
Re: cable and sat don't have the bandwidth for it
on
The Trouble With 4K TV
·
· Score: 1
Actually, that is not AT ALL what they do.
The purpose of a 120Hz TV is to permit viewing of 24fps source material (theatrical films) without the studdering of 3:2 pulldown introduced during the telecine process.
And while the Marketing Departments have pushed for it also to be used for interpolating additional frames to reduce motion artifacts, that is still nothing to dowth "simulating the way scanlines faded on a real CRT."
Re: cable and sat don't have the bandwidth for it
on
The Trouble With 4K TV
·
· Score: 1
Which is relavant how to complaining about people buying progressive scan TVs when there are no alternatives?
Re: cable and sat don't have the bandwidth for it
on
The Trouble With 4K TV
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Show me an interlaced digital display. Seriously. Show me one.
Laws define what's legal and illegal, for everyone. Military regulations define what's permitted and prohibited, for those subject to military justice.
CanHasDIY said "If any of it happened while he was still employed by the Army, then he very much did break some laws, per USMJ Article 134, paragraph 62"
I pointed out that the Uniform Code of Military Justice he was talking about is not laws, so he didn't break any laws. The most that he did was disobey a standing order.
From a legality standpoint, it's a huge difference. From a practical standpoint, not so much. Except that violating one leads to a criminal record, and the other one doesn't. You're not a criminal for violating an order; only for breaking a law.
Looks can be deceiving. While military regulations act with a force similar to laws to those subject to them, they are simply regulations, not laws.
The military does not get to write laws.
Well, no, it's still not a crime. It's a violation of the UCMJ. So, he disobeyed an order, more or less. Yes, it's punishable by confinement, if so ordered by a court martial. Which no longer has jurisdiction over him.
But it's not a criminal offense, either way.
And having an affair is not automatic grounds to revoke a security clearance. It complicates maintaining one, yes, but if the adjudicating authority deems that it does not constitute a security risk through either disclosure of information or compromising the individual via blackmail, they can still hold the clearance.
The lesson is simply to pack your family up and quietly head to safer areas whenever your research indicates that danger may be approaching. You wouldn't want to get in any trouble by trying to help other people.
Slashdot Mirror
In the time it took you to make this post, you could have just done it yourself. :)
Buy low, sell high!
Swapping the SIM is a full transfer of all credentials and the phone number itself. No idea about third-party devices capable of using the Verizon network, though.
Nope, the entire "activation" of the phone is on the SIM. Phone number and everything swaps when you swap cards.
All of Verizon's LTE phones use SIM cards. If you upgraded to a 4G phone before the grandfathering of Unlimited plans was revoked (like I did), you can do everything you're talking about and still keep the unlimited 4G plan.
Yep, same boat here. I'll be buying my phones second-hand and just swapping the LTE SIM card over to my "new" ones from now on to keep my unlimited plan.
I did say "almost never," not "never." And that's true. If you look at the preponderance of cases, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by (stand by for the shock!) violent criminals who are already legally barred from having guns. Barring law-abiding citizens from having them ability to protect themselves against people who already are not allowed to possess firearms but do so anyway isn't helping anyone. Except the criminals.
You can't solve a sociological problem by simply stripping rights away from the people who don't contribute to that problem.
I also absolutely agree that a legal gun-owner who does commit a crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But when has that ever been in question?
Are you suggesting that the police did a better job protecting her? At least the guns were actually there and gave her the possibility of protection.
Right. That's why US soil was occupied by a hostile nation in the 20th century.
The Founding Fathers were quite explicit that you should assume members of your government are nefarious by default. Subsequent events have born out their fears. They set up the government the way it is to minimize the harm any one member or group, even the majority, could do. Have you even read the Constitution?
And defending themselves against other civilians. Firearms are the equalizer that allow the weak to protect themselves from the strong, or simply against the many. If you look at the documentation of incidents, legal gun-owners are almost never the... "abusers" as you put it.
its not possible to have one with NRA opponents, its like arguing with a drunk or fundamental religionist, pointless as they they wouldn't change their mind in the face of evidence.
FTFY
Fair enough, and point taken. But perhaps a reference to my interest rather than my ability would have been more in order and made your point just as well. Quite possibly better.
An insult is not simple criticism. Perhaps you are not able to comprehend your own words.
You can stick your snotty remarks right back up in your ass.
The complete lack of any thought put into entertaining gameplay for Doom3 makes it hard for me to be interested in the underlying code.
Actually, that is not AT ALL what they do. The purpose of a 120Hz TV is to permit viewing of 24fps source material (theatrical films) without the studdering of 3:2 pulldown introduced during the telecine process. And while the Marketing Departments have pushed for it also to be used for interpolating additional frames to reduce motion artifacts, that is still nothing to dowth "simulating the way scanlines faded on a real CRT."
Which is relavant how to complaining about people buying progressive scan TVs when there are no alternatives?
Show me an interlaced digital display. Seriously. Show me one.
We're now using parenthetical bracketry.
Laws define what's legal and illegal, for everyone. Military regulations define what's permitted and prohibited, for those subject to military justice.
CanHasDIY said "If any of it happened while he was still employed by the Army, then he very much did break some laws, per USMJ Article 134, paragraph 62"
I pointed out that the Uniform Code of Military Justice he was talking about is not laws, so he didn't break any laws. The most that he did was disobey a standing order.
From a legality standpoint, it's a huge difference. From a practical standpoint, not so much. Except that violating one leads to a criminal record, and the other one doesn't. You're not a criminal for violating an order; only for breaking a law.
Looks can be deceiving. While military regulations act with a force similar to laws to those subject to them, they are simply regulations, not laws. The military does not get to write laws.
The UCMJ is not a book of laws, it's a list of regulations. Breaking them is not criminal action.
Well, no, it's still not a crime. It's a violation of the UCMJ. So, he disobeyed an order, more or less. Yes, it's punishable by confinement, if so ordered by a court martial. Which no longer has jurisdiction over him. But it's not a criminal offense, either way. And having an affair is not automatic grounds to revoke a security clearance. It complicates maintaining one, yes, but if the adjudicating authority deems that it does not constitute a security risk through either disclosure of information or compromising the individual via blackmail, they can still hold the clearance.
The lesson is simply to pack your family up and quietly head to safer areas whenever your research indicates that danger may be approaching. You wouldn't want to get in any trouble by trying to help other people.