Because AT&T and Verizon are trying to do something about that pesky "UnCarrier" making then look bad in the public's eye. Time to start calling in some campaign donation favors and derail the Sprint merger before T-Mobile becomes a real competitor to them.
I'm not saying I support CenturyLink's actions here. I still think blocking your service until you view an acknowledge an ad very scummy. I'm just saying, to be all OMGWTFBBQ that third-party phone services were not working is ignoring a very fundamental distinction here in communication services. You're trying to assign liabilities to the provider they never agreed to when they signed you up.
What if one of the affected customers had VoIP (eg. Obi) and was attempting to call 911 to save someone's life? The call would be blocked, and the attached phone would give no indication as to why.
CenturyLink should burn for this.
Hello. I work at a provider support helpdesk.
Consumer internet service is not considered an "emergency communication" service in that manner. Carriers are not liable in a life-or-death way for the performance/reliability of data services. This is why if you get behind in your bill most providers will shut off your pay-TV and home internet, but keep the phone service active for while after that. Or if you're on fiber optic services and there is a power outage in your home usually only the (telco provided) phone service will be backed up by the UPS your provider installs. Data and IPTV are left unpowered. Consumer home internet is sold as an "entertainment service". If people choose to run phone services over it with a Ooma, or Vonage, etc, that's on them, but it's not our problem if you can't call out, have poor audio, or dropped calls, as long as the service is being delivered as sold. Are your speeds good? Are your ping times within acceptable standards? Then you're getting the "dumb pipe" you wanted.
The same goes for streaming services, too. That's the thing about net neutrality. If you don't want providers to discriminate and treat OTT video streaming differently, that means the streams gets treated as just any other type of data. If your speeds are good, and you're not getting packet loss/latency issues it's not our job to figure out why your Netflix is buffering all the time.
I've personally been using a phone without a headphone jack for several months now and haven't missed it. I never used it on my previous phone - I went Bluetooth "everything" quite awhile ago.
Why are the people in the "Bluetooth" camp always making this out as though we have to choose one or the other? There's no reason you can't continue to ignore the headphone jack for the Bluetooth you find more convenient. Removing the headphone jack has no impact on your use, so why can't they just leave it and give the consumer more choice.
The cost of the jack is a non-issue in a device costing as much as a major appliance. We don't need to remove the jack because it is "hampering the thinness of the phone's design" -- because they don't need to be thinner. People are already complaining about phones being too thin to be structurally resilient depending on the material. The waterproofing argument is bogus, too. Handset makers are not making the phones more water-resistant after removing the jack than they were before they removed it.
What is an actual legitimate reason that it is necessary the jack be removed?
Designing phones that are thin and waterproof is difficult and expensive when you have ports to the outside.
The headphone jack is a prime candidate to cut. Not that I approve of the measure.
Sony seemed to have no issues making phones for years that were IP68 rated but had headphone jacks (and didn't have a special plug or anything else on them to keep the water out).
Are these new phones we're getting now that headphone jacks have been removed a higher water-resistance rating? I haven't heard of any that are.
I guess I am doomed, we have lousy internet, only one cable carrier available and they won't or can't deliver better than 25 Mbps....With me working from the house, the GF watching Amazon and her kid streaming music the net connection is choppy and unreliable.
People have already said you should be applying prioritizing to your network so your work machine gets the best service. 25 mbps sounds like it should be enough if you're not trying to stream 4k at the same time. I know of people who have half your speed and can still work from home.
I've bought a few items from them. But only like "amazing deal"-level online specials. Like got a Banana Republic polo for $12, to add to my workplace wardrobe, and a couple pairs of GAP slacks at similarly discounted levels. I'd never pay their full pricing.
Marcus (Goldman Sachs) and Empower (J.P. Morgan) are really just large megabanks in disguise. Marketing at its finest!
Marcus:
- In Google Search results "Marcus by Goldman Sachs"
- On the home page right under the name: "by Goldman Sachs"
- Security Cert indicator on Firefox before the URL: "Goldman Sachs Bank USA (US)"
I don't know whether Amazon owns the building (maybe they're renting it) but that doesn't mean they are immune to a lawsuit. Amazon has a presence at the site of the accident, so it's not a stretch to sue them.
Have you ever worked in a factory or warehouse? I have. And there was more than one company having work done within it. I was not an employee of any of these companies. The work was being carried out by the contractor. But I was not an employee of the contractor either. I was hired by a temp agency whose office was literally at the front door of the factory. Their office was inside the building but the office and I'm pretty sure the surrounding building were not owned by any of the companies I've mentioned so far.
I worked for them twice. The second time, I got laid off soon after starting due to issues with business (nothing in my control/fault). I tried to apply for unemployment and the contractor told the state I was fired for attendance issues to get me denied. Obviously untrue. I got that overturned by referring the state to the temp agency, who was on my side. See, since the contractor was not my employer they had no authority to speak about my work performance or otherwise fuck with my unemployment benefits.
When work is done by a contractor, the people who hired them are not in direct control of operations. If things are mishandled or done poorly, the most the hiring company can do is get them for breach of contract terms. It's the same here. Amazon can't be held responsible for some mishap at a factory they do not own or operate (the contractor is the one operating the warehouse, Amazon is simply a client).
I'm not employed by Amazon, but if one of their buildings drops a wall on me, you better believe I'm suing.
That's the point. It's likely not Amazon's building. It's probably not even owned by the company that hired all the workers. It's owned and leased from a third party.
Bullshit. The families of the people that died can sue anyone directly or indirectly involved in the tragedy. It's up to the court to decide who's liable and to what degree.
Yeah, but Amazon has better lawyers than those families will, and with no direct link between the victims and Amazon you're naive if you think this is going to go anywhere close to them. Most likely the actual (sub-contractor) employer, and the structure's insuring company. And this was a damaging storm that effected other buildings in the area, so the insurance company is just handling it as their normal "Act of God" procedure. The real issue is more likely to be if the contractor took steps to ensure employee safety during the storm. Were they evacuated to storm shelters, or told to just work through the event?
The summary makes a big point that they were contractors (working for a 3rd party) and not Amazon employees. Why does that matter?
People injured in the event and next-of-kin for the fatalities can't sue Amazon over this, because they aren't technically employed by Amazon, they work for a much much smaller company that can declare bankruptcy at the drop of a hat.
Pedestrians shouldn't be walking in the street to begin with.
If they're following the rules, there shouldn't be any scenarios where the vehicle has to make the choice to begin with. Perhaps once folks start getting mowed down, they'll quit walking out in front of traffic. . ..
It's a good thing it's impossible for a car to operate anyplace besides on a road. Yup, we got this issue all locked up here, boys!
The Mac mini will have new processors and features for professional users.
If anything, this shows how out of touch Apple is. The Mac Mini by its very design goals is not meant to be a pro machine. It's small size it supposed to appeal to consumers who don't want a large tower, and that means considerations for thermal output at the expense of performance. It's not made to be easily user serviceable, does not offer discrete graphics, and it does not have any advanced expandability.
Judging by the current Macbook Pro, I don't think Apple understands what "a machine made for professional use" is. Apparently in a non-portable machine it's "any computer that requires a separate monitor".
Oh, we gave you a patch that will slow down your machine because of Spectre. Did we mention we're getting a much better patch now? You have to update to 10 to get it, though.
The interface is somewhat simpler than the desktop version, and although the same Photoshop code is running under the hood to ensure there's no loss of fidelity, not every feature will be available in the mobile version. The first release will contain the main tools while Adobe plans to add more in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
I expected Apple to tell us we're looking at the device "wrong"...
"It's not the iPad that's bent. That oak table you're putting it on to demonstrate must be warped!"
Why single out T-Mobile?
Because AT&T and Verizon are trying to do something about that pesky "UnCarrier" making then look bad in the public's eye. Time to start calling in some campaign donation favors and derail the Sprint merger before T-Mobile becomes a real competitor to them.
We'll build bid, fat, beautiful new rings.
Eh, like other large-scale pork projects, I expect it will be a no-bid contract.
Just a small addendum.
I'm not saying I support CenturyLink's actions here. I still think blocking your service until you view an acknowledge an ad very scummy. I'm just saying, to be all OMGWTFBBQ that third-party phone services were not working is ignoring a very fundamental distinction here in communication services. You're trying to assign liabilities to the provider they never agreed to when they signed you up.
What if one of the affected customers had VoIP (eg. Obi) and was attempting to call 911 to save someone's life? The call would be blocked, and the attached phone would give no indication as to why.
CenturyLink should burn for this.
Hello. I work at a provider support helpdesk.
Consumer internet service is not considered an "emergency communication" service in that manner. Carriers are not liable in a life-or-death way for the performance/reliability of data services. This is why if you get behind in your bill most providers will shut off your pay-TV and home internet, but keep the phone service active for while after that. Or if you're on fiber optic services and there is a power outage in your home usually only the (telco provided) phone service will be backed up by the UPS your provider installs. Data and IPTV are left unpowered. Consumer home internet is sold as an "entertainment service". If people choose to run phone services over it with a Ooma, or Vonage, etc, that's on them, but it's not our problem if you can't call out, have poor audio, or dropped calls, as long as the service is being delivered as sold. Are your speeds good? Are your ping times within acceptable standards? Then you're getting the "dumb pipe" you wanted.
The same goes for streaming services, too. That's the thing about net neutrality. If you don't want providers to discriminate and treat OTT video streaming differently, that means the streams gets treated as just any other type of data. If your speeds are good, and you're not getting packet loss/latency issues it's not our job to figure out why your Netflix is buffering all the time.
Calling 611 now connects you to your phone provider's Customer Service line. Dealing with AT&T's billing dept would make me want to kill myself, too.
I've personally been using a phone without a headphone jack for several months now and haven't missed it. I never used it on my previous phone - I went Bluetooth "everything" quite awhile ago.
Why are the people in the "Bluetooth" camp always making this out as though we have to choose one or the other? There's no reason you can't continue to ignore the headphone jack for the Bluetooth you find more convenient. Removing the headphone jack has no impact on your use, so why can't they just leave it and give the consumer more choice.
The cost of the jack is a non-issue in a device costing as much as a major appliance. We don't need to remove the jack because it is "hampering the thinness of the phone's design" -- because they don't need to be thinner. People are already complaining about phones being too thin to be structurally resilient depending on the material. The waterproofing argument is bogus, too. Handset makers are not making the phones more water-resistant after removing the jack than they were before they removed it.
What is an actual legitimate reason that it is necessary the jack be removed?
Designing phones that are thin and waterproof is difficult and expensive when you have ports to the outside.
The headphone jack is a prime candidate to cut. Not that I approve of the measure.
Sony seemed to have no issues making phones for years that were IP68 rated but had headphone jacks (and didn't have a special plug or anything else on them to keep the water out).
Are these new phones we're getting now that headphone jacks have been removed a higher water-resistance rating? I haven't heard of any that are.
*69 is a phone code to dial back the last number to have called.
Thinking about it now I feel like that star code choice is not an accident.
*69 -- giving back what you just received orally.
I guess I am doomed, we have lousy internet, only one cable carrier available and they won't or can't deliver better than 25 Mbps....With me working from the house, the GF watching Amazon and her kid streaming music the net connection is choppy and unreliable.
People have already said you should be applying prioritizing to your network so your work machine gets the best service. 25 mbps sounds like it should be enough if you're not trying to stream 4k at the same time. I know of people who have half your speed and can still work from home.
I've bought a few items from them. But only like "amazing deal"-level online specials. Like got a Banana Republic polo for $12, to add to my workplace wardrobe, and a couple pairs of GAP slacks at similarly discounted levels. I'd never pay their full pricing.
Marcus (Goldman Sachs) and Empower (J.P. Morgan) are really just large megabanks in disguise. Marketing at its finest!
Marcus:
- In Google Search results "Marcus by Goldman Sachs"
- On the home page right under the name: "by Goldman Sachs"
- Security Cert indicator on Firefox before the URL: "Goldman Sachs Bank USA (US)"
I don't see any attempt at deception there.
I don't know whether Amazon owns the building (maybe they're renting it) but that doesn't mean they are immune to a lawsuit. Amazon has a presence at the site of the accident, so it's not a stretch to sue them.
Have you ever worked in a factory or warehouse? I have. And there was more than one company having work done within it. I was not an employee of any of these companies. The work was being carried out by the contractor. But I was not an employee of the contractor either. I was hired by a temp agency whose office was literally at the front door of the factory. Their office was inside the building but the office and I'm pretty sure the surrounding building were not owned by any of the companies I've mentioned so far.
I worked for them twice. The second time, I got laid off soon after starting due to issues with business (nothing in my control/fault). I tried to apply for unemployment and the contractor told the state I was fired for attendance issues to get me denied. Obviously untrue. I got that overturned by referring the state to the temp agency, who was on my side. See, since the contractor was not my employer they had no authority to speak about my work performance or otherwise fuck with my unemployment benefits.
When work is done by a contractor, the people who hired them are not in direct control of operations. If things are mishandled or done poorly, the most the hiring company can do is get them for breach of contract terms. It's the same here. Amazon can't be held responsible for some mishap at a factory they do not own or operate (the contractor is the one operating the warehouse, Amazon is simply a client).
I'm not employed by Amazon, but if one of their buildings drops a wall on me, you better believe I'm suing.
That's the point. It's likely not Amazon's building. It's probably not even owned by the company that hired all the workers. It's owned and leased from a third party.
Bullshit.
The families of the people that died can sue anyone directly or indirectly involved in the tragedy. It's up to the court to decide who's liable and to what degree.
Yeah, but Amazon has better lawyers than those families will, and with no direct link between the victims and Amazon you're naive if you think this is going to go anywhere close to them. Most likely the actual (sub-contractor) employer, and the structure's insuring company. And this was a damaging storm that effected other buildings in the area, so the insurance company is just handling it as their normal "Act of God" procedure. The real issue is more likely to be if the contractor took steps to ensure employee safety during the storm. Were they evacuated to storm shelters, or told to just work through the event?
The summary makes a big point that they were contractors (working for a 3rd party) and not Amazon employees. Why does that matter?
People injured in the event and next-of-kin for the fatalities can't sue Amazon over this, because they aren't technically employed by Amazon, they work for a much much smaller company that can declare bankruptcy at the drop of a hat.
Pedestrians shouldn't be walking in the street to begin with.
If they're following the rules, there shouldn't be any scenarios where the vehicle has to make the choice to begin with. Perhaps once folks start getting mowed down, they'll quit walking out in front of traffic. . . .
It's a good thing it's impossible for a car to operate anyplace besides on a road. Yup, we got this issue all locked up here, boys!
The passengers have seatbelts, air bags, and crumple zones to lessen their injuries, though. Pedestrians might as well be naked.
The Mac mini will have new processors and features for professional users.
If anything, this shows how out of touch Apple is. The Mac Mini by its very design goals is not meant to be a pro machine. It's small size it supposed to appeal to consumers who don't want a large tower, and that means considerations for thermal output at the expense of performance. It's not made to be easily user serviceable, does not offer discrete graphics, and it does not have any advanced expandability.
Judging by the current Macbook Pro, I don't think Apple understands what "a machine made for professional use" is. Apparently in a non-portable machine it's
"any computer that requires a separate monitor".
Only android device you will get regular updates from
Do you mean "in perpetuity"? Because I get a security patch every month on my Sony.
Oh, we gave you a patch that will slow down your machine because of Spectre.
Did we mention we're getting a much better patch now? You have to update to 10 to get it, though.
It has a valuation of $1,000,000,000! I mean it is worth so much! Why would you lay off people?
Apparently they weren't essential personnel.
The interface is somewhat simpler than the desktop version, and although the same Photoshop code is running under the hood to ensure there's no loss of fidelity, not every feature will be available in the mobile version. The first release will contain the main tools while Adobe plans to add more in the future.
Yeah, and the source is wrong, because they didn't even get figures for over 20% of the population.
The age distribution would actually agree with it quite well if you consider that pretty much everyone over the age of 7 owns a mobile phone.
No, it wouldn't.