What *is* illegal as of the recent UIGEA act is for banks to provide you the ability to send your money to / receive money from these online gaming sites.
And, so where are the sibling indictments for the card companies and banks?
I notice that Full Tilt was taking deposits by Visa, MasterCard and AMEX. And, they were also allowing international withdrawals at global banks, like Citigroup, Bank of America, Barclays, etc. Then it would be simply a matter of pulling funds from a local U.S. branch to yield the results of the withdrawal to the linked international account.
Please, DHS, don't patronize us. Your buddies at the banks and credit card companies have been giving a blind eye to this supposedly illegal money transfer scheme when they themselves have been part and parcel to it all along, wholesale, the entire time. How does someone from the U.S. get money into a company like Full Tilt Poker to even play if the banks are not complicit?
Let's call this what it is, payback time for monied gambling interests that pull the puppet strings of our government. The Senate Majority Leader happens to harken from Nevada and also happens to have the ear of the President. (Mr. Change, aka Mr. Freedom, who renewed and escalated the Patriot Act and boldly empowered DHS with extra-judicial powers to seize private domain name property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.) There is no justice in a government that issues indictments/prosecutes/punishes based on a corrupt system of graft, nepotism and crony politics.
Anyone seriously interested in this issue should read about the crusades of Ebay seller Tabberone, who singlehandedly defeated many corporate DMCA abusers trying to maliciously end their auctions:
This is not about people who understand science. It's about people who don't understand science and/or choose to ignore science for profit.
Do you think some scientist somewhere looks at a chart and says, "Oh, looks like the temperature line goes up?" Global warming is about time-based observation and scientific inference based on proven mathematics and statistical analysis. Because observations took place over years and in many different parts of the planet, we can say "with a high degree of confidence" that global warming is real. And, "high degree of confidence" is an understatement here. The regression tests, error bars, fitments of the vast majority of data on global warming is way within challenge by anyone with any scientific integrity. Read the papers by NASA scientists, climatologists, geophysicists. I would even go as far as to say the data on global warming is more solid than early data on almost any other major scientific advancement of the past 100 years -- nuclear, electronic, etc.
Science experiments don't require many different Earth's to verify this because science isn't about volume. It's about, well, science and knowing how to break down problems, and analyze measurements for precision and accuracy.
The experiments that break down the atmosphere verifying that increased heat capacity correlates to increased CO2 are done in high school science labs. It is *very disappointing* to see anyone posting here about science education without basically understanding what they were supposed to pick up from educators in the first place!
"Average total body surface area for an adult male is about 2m^2, solar power density near the equator at sea level is around 400W/M^2, average microwave output is about 1000W. Do the math...."
This is not about photon density, the Poynting vector or average power absorption. It's about the effects of *specific* wavelength RF emissions, which incidentally interact differently with different materials. I'd stay away from any average exposure to infrared, cosmic rays (gamma radiation), ultraviolet and -- meaningfully -- microwaves. You might have a point, but your last sentence is totally meaningless.
Your "bumbling junior writer" authored a biography turned into a wildly successful feature-length motion picture, "A Beautiful Mind". Her book by the same name was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize and won a 1998 National Book Critics Circle award, besides being on the New York Times best seller list for weeks. I think YOU owe an apology to author Sylvia Nasar, who was kind enough to assist the New Yorker.
On second thought, troll, your post here should not deserve a response...
Lawyer: Hi, I'm calling from the Law Office representing your esteemed peer Dr. Lau of Harvard University.
Source: Yes... uhh... Hello. What can I do for you?
Lawyer: Did you lie about the good Dr. Yau to a reporter?
Source: Of course not! I would never do that... How absolutely absurd!
Lawyer: Dr. Yau is poised to sue everyone who has said anything bad about him. This is slated to be a *really big* academic scandal.
Source: I'm not involved! IF SOMEONE SAID I SPOKE BADLY OF YAU IT'S A LIE!!!
Lawyer: Well, that's great. We all knew the reporter with no prior connection to him was just trying unreasonably to make him look bad.
Source: (privately) Gawd. That vindictive bastard will stop at nothing to get his way! He goes public with everything in a big way! I hope I can stay on his good side.... I've got to work in this academic community too.
Come on! Quality assurance?! Anybody with even rudimentary real-world construction experience knows that you don't hang two ton panels from epoxy systems and expect reliability forever. There are concepts such as fatigue, deformity and composition that dictate the reliability of such hanging methods. Outside of the effects of vibration and the tunnel's humidity, I would guess that installation methods weren't perfect. Epoxy hangers are mounted in hardened concrete, which means that holes have to be drilled. Have you ever tried drilling a hole in concrete with even the best equipment? It's not easy and extremely unlikely to get a symmetric hole. Then there is the whole matter of mixing the epoxy correctly and having it set properly. Epoxy does not do well attaching to wet surfaces in humid conditions, and there is definitely room for the mixtures (which require a two-part chemical combination) to be put together in inacurate quantities -- even with mixing systems. Quality assurance failure. It's a design failure from paper-tiger engineers. Give me a break!
Copying TV shows so that you can watch them later is *NOT* stealing.
It is exercising your rights to use the public airwaves on your own television hardware with the blank media that you yourself purchased in the store.
Why aren't the manufacturers of blank media more upset about this? (Oh yeah... Sony owns the studio, too. Chock another one up for multinational globalisation!)
The theories of Quantum and Relativity are not special case. They are general and could apply to objects on any scale...
True, but wouldn't it be a waste of time to calculate all the relativistic effects of a baseball being smacked. Since we are concerned with 100 mph pitches, I don't think we need to take into account miniscule time shifts or length contractions on the order of 10^-8 inch (very rough est.). My point is that with "real world" Newtonian mechanics relativity, or quantum mechanics for that matter, is just a thought sport.
As for general relativity, it is meaningful only in the special case of extrema in velocity. Whereas Darwinism is applied liberally over all life conditions that I am aware of on this planet.
I should have said: "Quantum mechanical effects become significant in the realm of the extremely super small." Likewise: "Einstein's relativity becomes significant in the realm of extremely large values of velocity."
Look around, and everyone will see that quantum mechanics is not something that happens around us!
What about: "Look around, and everyone will see that quantum mechanics is not tangible."
As for Darwinian proportions, I have not heard about the quantum economic model yet, or social Q.E.D.
This sounds very interesting, but is it just simply a strange twist on words? Mathematics can work out to many wonderful things, but the challenge is how and why the mathematics is applied. Methinks (and remembers as a physics undergrad) that conceptual theories such as quantum and relativity are very different from everyday life because they are special cases. Whereas in biology we learned that Darwin's theory of evolution was a general case.
Let me explain: Quantum mechanics takes place in the realm of the extremely super small. Einstein's relativity takes place in the realm of extremely large values of velocity. There is a disconnect there in reconciling these two theories, thus the epic hunt for TOE, The Theory of Everything. The Holy Grail of physics is to find this super theory that unites relativity, quantum mechanics, electricity and magnetism, gravity, mechanics. Although relativity is used in quantum for calculations, there are some contradictions in reconciling the two theories, thus Einstein's famous quote (during his hunt to reconcile relativity with quantum), "God does not play dice with the universe!"
It is my understanding that Darwinism, whether social, economic or of natural selection, takes place in all biological situations. Look around, and everyone will see that quantum mechanics is not something that happens around us! Do you see quantum wells on your computer screen? As you observe the movement of the train, does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle come into play? No! This uncertainty principle does not conflict with everyday life chiefly because it only applies to the special case of extremely small and extremely fast particles.
So this comparison, extension and exercise of extending quantum mechanics to Darwinian proportions appears to me to be more than anything a philosophical exercise.
Apparently the patent is still pending. If it is granted I would call it an example of how the system is broken. Until then it's just fluff that doesn't mean much.
Anyone can file an application for a retarded patent, but it won't necessarily be granted. More to the point, this is so stupid it makes Microsoft look bad. What kind of company wastes their investment dollars filing this crap?
I used to own a 1985 Honda CRX that got somewhere in the high 40 mpg range on the freeway. And this was a carbureted vehicle, not fuel injected where the engine is helped by computer control of the fuel-air mixture. What people here would have you believe is that my 1985 car was not possible to manufacture. It's almost 20 years later and the average efficiency of gas powered cars has not improved but declined. This is absolutely absurd, and it goes to one point and one point only: The automotive industry is not ruled by technology but by economics.
It is cheaper for companies to produce cars with low mileage efficiency, and people buy them because gas is cheap. Yes, compared to inflation, gas is cheap. Let it rise to US $5 per gallon or US $10 per gallon, and let's see how fuel efficient cars can become.
Think about how much more we know than we knew in 1985, and think how absurd is this conversation. I am certain that -- outside of hybrids and using conventional fuels -- automotive manufactures could market and mass produce a safe, consumer grade vehicle that gets about 100 miles per gallon. They could do this with advances over the last 20 years in computer control technologies, advances in fuel injection valving, advances in materials, improvements in lubricants, etc.
Since 1985, the average fuel efficiency for cars has plummeted. It is now higher than just a few years ago, not counting SUVs. (Check the EPA site for more info.) There are many reasons for this, few of which I think can be blamed on safety equipment. One reason, I am sure is that the car companies do not make as much money per vehicle with fuel efficient cars. Further, there are other ways to influence the mileage debate, including convincing regular people that it is not possible to get the mileage that my car got in 1985.
Coverage gaps and a pending lawsuit ...
on
Where's Your 'D-Spot?'
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Coverage is a major problem with AT&T Wireless in the Los Angeles area. So bad, in fact, that there is a pending lawsuit about the matter, Petrove, Wireless Consumers Alliance, et. al. v. AT&T Wireless. The page has not been updated recently, but it's a live case that is working its way through the courts here. I believe they are trying for class action status if they have not been granted it already.
Basically, the case centers around alleged false advertising claims made about coverage area. I can personally tell you after being stuck with a bad contract that the AT&T coverage area sucks, as I can't drive on the freeway for more than five minutes without losing (or "dropping") a call. The page talks about one lady who was carjacked and got shot in the face after she tried to call 911 but her cell phone didn't work. About two months ago I saw an accident on the 210 Freeway where the driver was bleeding and knocked unconscious. Over the course of a few miles I must have called 911 like five times on hold, then getting cut off, then finally dialing the operator. Instead of the local city the cell operator transfered me to San Bernardino County, which is about 30 miles away, and the dispatcher asked me to try again. I had to tell him that my cell phone wasn't working so he had to make the call for me, oh, and by the way, I might get cut off again.
My whole experience with the calling areas here has been bad, but I'm not sure quite as bad as my experiences with the cellular contract that got me here in the first place. Luckily, it just expired, and I am switching carriers ASAP -- that is if AT&T has gotten its number portability together. Bad AT&T Wireless service is a common theme in the L.A. area.
Let me make a correction... AT&T Wireless CLAIMS to know when there are dropped calls. They CLAIM to offer "automatic" credit. However, this credit is based on particular behavior by the user and on a restrictive definition of the problem.
In order for the user to get dropped call credit the call must be reported as ended on the user's phone and the user then must redial within a specified time, which I've been told is one minute.
The process really begs the point of what is a dropped call. Apparently, AT&T only defines a restrictive subset of call failures as "dropped calls". For instance, a call that loses audio but remains connected is not considered a dropped call. Nor is an unsuccessful call that is dialed (reporting "connected") but simply never rings. My experience is that I have had numerous one minute calls on my phone bill separated from one another by repeat attempts to get through. Seldom if ever are these dropped calls credited by AT&T Wireless. (Incidentally, I am only discussing a small subset of conditions here that constitute call failures.)
In some irate calls to AT&T I've pointed out flaws in their algorithm for determining dropped calls. I've been told that it's not done otherwise because "customers would just end up making lots of one-minute calls to get free air time." With this service I've literally lost hundreds of dollars in uncredited minutes.
Now that the contract's over I'm switching to a new provider as fast as possible. I just hope by buying AT&T that Cingular helps them improve. By the way my experiences have been with TDMA service in the greater Los Angeles area. Let me know if you need a map of the five absolute dead spots along just 15 miles of the 210 freeway that I drive every day.
BTW, the "free-trade advocate" I discussed earlier is not really for free trade. They are for fixed trade, where everything is fixed in one party's best interest. This point is missed by the free-trade advocates. Because with true free trade monetary policies are not artificially propped up and people can go work in whatever countries they want!
Total exports from US companies to India have grown from $2.5 billion in 1990 to $4.1 billion in 2002....
So it looks stellar! Let's think about that. The difference between $4.1 billion and $2.5 billion is $1.6 billion. In 1990 our trade deficit with India was about $700 million. In 2004, our trade deficit ballooned to $8,066 million. (That's $8.1 billion, folks!)
Plug those numbers into your trusty calculator free-trade advocate, and you will find that our exports are up a whopping 64 percent. However, our trade deficit has shot up 1,152 percent. And, what you say, you didn't think percentages could go above 100?!?
So, maybe this experience with India is anomalous. Lets take a look at China, the other major player in outsourcing. In 1990 our exports to China were $4.8 billion, while our trade deficit was a measly $10 billion. After years of outsourcing, by 2004, our exports have shot up to $28.4 billion. However, the trade deficit has enlarged to $124 billion. These respective percentages are 591 percent for exports, but 1240 percent for the trade deficit.
The truly bad part about all this, as has been pointed out earlier, is that our "exports" really may not be anything but paper goods. Apparently, these exports largely are value that American companies derive from selling products to India and China, whether the products are actually made in the U.S. or not!
Does any of this mean that outsourcing works? I think clearly not. The countries that have gotten all the American jobs are clearly benefitting in gross disproportion to the benefits we receive from sending them all our jobs.
This is not a strategy for success free-trade advocate, but it is a stellar strategy for FAILURE!
NO! Email is not anonymous by definition. Headers contain a lot of information, including IP addresses. It can be made hard to track if the sender spoofs their identity or uses a third party email service. This is what spammers do.
The difference between email and postal mail is that email is FREE! Oh, and postal mail is easier to send anonymously because there aren't computers recording header information. (It's up to the sender to put their return address.) Now imagine how much junk mail you'd receive if postal mail was free, too.
Slashdot Mirror
What *is* illegal as of the recent UIGEA act is for banks to provide you the ability to send your money to / receive money from these online gaming sites.
And, so where are the sibling indictments for the card companies and banks?
I notice that Full Tilt was taking deposits by Visa, MasterCard and AMEX. And, they were also allowing international withdrawals at global banks, like Citigroup, Bank of America, Barclays, etc. Then it would be simply a matter of pulling funds from a local U.S. branch to yield the results of the withdrawal to the linked international account.
Please, DHS, don't patronize us. Your buddies at the banks and credit card companies have been giving a blind eye to this supposedly illegal money transfer scheme when they themselves have been part and parcel to it all along, wholesale, the entire time. How does someone from the U.S. get money into a company like Full Tilt Poker to even play if the banks are not complicit?
Let's call this what it is, payback time for monied gambling interests that pull the puppet strings of our government. The Senate Majority Leader happens to harken from Nevada and also happens to have the ear of the President. (Mr. Change, aka Mr. Freedom, who renewed and escalated the Patriot Act and boldly empowered DHS with extra-judicial powers to seize private domain name property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.) There is no justice in a government that issues indictments/prosecutes/punishes based on a corrupt system of graft, nepotism and crony politics.
Welcome to the Banana Republic of America.
Anyone seriously interested in this issue should read about the crusades of Ebay seller Tabberone, who singlehandedly defeated many corporate DMCA abusers trying to maliciously end their auctions:
...
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/OurFight.shtml
It's a wealth of information for the self litigator.
~ f
Of course, global warming is disputed science. That's why the Pentagon prepared a special report on dealing militarily with the changed climate. It's also why the world's second largest insurer Swiss Re commissioned a special task force to prepare for the impending financial catastrophe in the insurance industry.
This is not about people who understand science. It's about people who don't understand science and/or choose to ignore science for profit.
Do you think some scientist somewhere looks at a chart and says, "Oh, looks like the temperature line goes up?" Global warming is about time-based observation and scientific inference based on proven mathematics and statistical analysis. Because observations took place over years and in many different parts of the planet, we can say "with a high degree of confidence" that global warming is real. And, "high degree of confidence" is an understatement here. The regression tests, error bars, fitments of the vast majority of data on global warming is way within challenge by anyone with any scientific integrity. Read the papers by NASA scientists, climatologists, geophysicists. I would even go as far as to say the data on global warming is more solid than early data on almost any other major scientific advancement of the past 100 years -- nuclear, electronic, etc.
Science experiments don't require many different Earth's to verify this because science isn't about volume. It's about, well, science and knowing how to break down problems, and analyze measurements for precision and accuracy.
The experiments that break down the atmosphere verifying that increased heat capacity correlates to increased CO2 are done in high school science labs. It is *very disappointing* to see anyone posting here about science education without basically understanding what they were supposed to pick up from educators in the first place!
"Average total body surface area for an adult male is about 2m^2, solar power density near the equator at sea level is around 400W/M^2, average microwave output is about 1000W. Do the math. ..."
This is not about photon density, the Poynting vector or average power absorption. It's about the effects of *specific* wavelength RF emissions, which incidentally interact differently with different materials. I'd stay away from any average exposure to infrared, cosmic rays (gamma radiation), ultraviolet and -- meaningfully -- microwaves. You might have a point, but your last sentence is totally meaningless.
Your "bumbling junior writer" authored a biography turned into a wildly successful feature-length motion picture, "A Beautiful Mind". Her book by the same name was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize and won a 1998 National Book Critics Circle award, besides being on the New York Times best seller list for weeks. I think YOU owe an apology to author Sylvia Nasar, who was kind enough to assist the New Yorker. On second thought, troll, your post here should not deserve a response ...
Lawyer: Hi, I'm calling from the Law Office representing your esteemed peer Dr. Lau of Harvard University.
... uhh ... Hello. What can I do for you?
... How absolutely absurd!
... I've got to work in this academic community too.
Source: Yes
Lawyer: Did you lie about the good Dr. Yau to a reporter?
Source: Of course not! I would never do that
Lawyer: Dr. Yau is poised to sue everyone who has said anything bad about him. This is slated to be a *really big* academic scandal.
Source: I'm not involved! IF SOMEONE SAID I SPOKE BADLY OF YAU IT'S A LIE!!!
Lawyer: Well, that's great. We all knew the reporter with no prior connection to him was just trying unreasonably to make him look bad.
Source: (privately) Gawd. That vindictive bastard will stop at nothing to get his way! He goes public with everything in a big way! I hope I can stay on his good side.
Come on! Quality assurance?! Anybody with even rudimentary real-world construction experience knows that you don't hang two ton panels from epoxy systems and expect reliability forever. There are concepts such as fatigue, deformity and composition that dictate the reliability of such hanging methods. Outside of the effects of vibration and the tunnel's humidity, I would guess that installation methods weren't perfect. Epoxy hangers are mounted in hardened concrete, which means that holes have to be drilled. Have you ever tried drilling a hole in concrete with even the best equipment? It's not easy and extremely unlikely to get a symmetric hole. Then there is the whole matter of mixing the epoxy correctly and having it set properly. Epoxy does not do well attaching to wet surfaces in humid conditions, and there is definitely room for the mixtures (which require a two-part chemical combination) to be put together in inacurate quantities -- even with mixing systems. Quality assurance failure. It's a design failure from paper-tiger engineers. Give me a break!
Copying TV shows so that you can watch them later is *NOT* stealing. It is exercising your rights to use the public airwaves on your own television hardware with the blank media that you yourself purchased in the store. Why aren't the manufacturers of blank media more upset about this? (Oh yeah ... Sony owns the studio, too. Chock another one up for multinational globalisation!)
Finally, absolutely convincing proof that everyone needs a cross-cut shredder: Salvaged Photos
4. Insert additional Mac Minis. 5. Turn them on. 6. Install Xgrid 7. Reboot to turn on your Computer Cluster
The theories of Quantum and Relativity are not special case. They are general and could apply to objects on any scale ...
True, but wouldn't it be a waste of time to calculate all the relativistic effects of a baseball being smacked. Since we are concerned with 100 mph pitches, I don't think we need to take into account miniscule time shifts or length contractions on the order of 10^-8 inch (very rough est.). My point is that with "real world" Newtonian mechanics relativity, or quantum mechanics for that matter, is just a thought sport.
As for general relativity, it is meaningful only in the special case of extrema in velocity. Whereas Darwinism is applied liberally over all life conditions that I am aware of on this planet.
Poor choice of words on my part, agreed.
...
...
Quantum mechanics takes place in the realm
I should have said: "Quantum mechanical effects become significant in the realm of the extremely super small." Likewise: "Einstein's relativity becomes significant in the realm of extremely large values of velocity."
Look around, and everyone will see that quantum mechanics is not something that happens around us!
What about: "Look around, and everyone will see that quantum mechanics is not tangible."
As for Darwinian proportions, I have not heard about the quantum economic model yet, or social Q.E.D.
Anyway, I think my point is taken
This sounds very interesting, but is it just simply a strange twist on words? Mathematics can work out to many wonderful things, but the challenge is how and why the mathematics is applied. Methinks (and remembers as a physics undergrad) that conceptual theories such as quantum and relativity are very different from everyday life because they are special cases. Whereas in biology we learned that Darwin's theory of evolution was a general case.
Let me explain: Quantum mechanics takes place in the realm of the extremely super small. Einstein's relativity takes place in the realm of extremely large values of velocity. There is a disconnect there in reconciling these two theories, thus the epic hunt for TOE, The Theory of Everything. The Holy Grail of physics is to find this super theory that unites relativity, quantum mechanics, electricity and magnetism, gravity, mechanics. Although relativity is used in quantum for calculations, there are some contradictions in reconciling the two theories, thus Einstein's famous quote (during his hunt to reconcile relativity with quantum), "God does not play dice with the universe!"
It is my understanding that Darwinism, whether social, economic or of natural selection, takes place in all biological situations. Look around, and everyone will see that quantum mechanics is not something that happens around us! Do you see quantum wells on your computer screen? As you observe the movement of the train, does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle come into play? No! This uncertainty principle does not conflict with everyday life chiefly because it only applies to the special case of extremely small and extremely fast particles.
So this comparison, extension and exercise of extending quantum mechanics to Darwinian proportions appears to me to be more than anything a philosophical exercise.
Apparently the patent is still pending. If it is granted I would call it an example of how the system is broken. Until then it's just fluff that doesn't mean much.
Anyone can file an application for a retarded patent, but it won't necessarily be granted. More to the point, this is so stupid it makes Microsoft look bad. What kind of company wastes their investment dollars filing this crap?
I used to own a 1985 Honda CRX that got somewhere in the high 40 mpg range on the freeway. And this was a carbureted vehicle, not fuel injected where the engine is helped by computer control of the fuel-air mixture. What people here would have you believe is that my 1985 car was not possible to manufacture. It's almost 20 years later and the average efficiency of gas powered cars has not improved but declined. This is absolutely absurd, and it goes to one point and one point only: The automotive industry is not ruled by technology but by economics.
It is cheaper for companies to produce cars with low mileage efficiency, and people buy them because gas is cheap. Yes, compared to inflation, gas is cheap. Let it rise to US $5 per gallon or US $10 per gallon, and let's see how fuel efficient cars can become.
Think about how much more we know than we knew in 1985, and think how absurd is this conversation. I am certain that -- outside of hybrids and using conventional fuels -- automotive manufactures could market and mass produce a safe, consumer grade vehicle that gets about 100 miles per gallon. They could do this with advances over the last 20 years in computer control technologies, advances in fuel injection valving, advances in materials, improvements in lubricants, etc.
Since 1985, the average fuel efficiency for cars has plummeted. It is now higher than just a few years ago, not counting SUVs. (Check the EPA site for more info.) There are many reasons for this, few of which I think can be blamed on safety equipment. One reason, I am sure is that the car companies do not make as much money per vehicle with fuel efficient cars. Further, there are other ways to influence the mileage debate, including convincing regular people that it is not possible to get the mileage that my car got in 1985.
Coverage is a major problem with AT&T Wireless in the Los Angeles area. So bad, in fact, that there is a pending lawsuit about the matter, Petrove, Wireless Consumers Alliance, et. al. v. AT&T Wireless. The page has not been updated recently, but it's a live case that is working its way through the courts here. I believe they are trying for class action status if they have not been granted it already.
Basically, the case centers around alleged false advertising claims made about coverage area. I can personally tell you after being stuck with a bad contract that the AT&T coverage area sucks, as I can't drive on the freeway for more than five minutes without losing (or "dropping") a call. The page talks about one lady who was carjacked and got shot in the face after she tried to call 911 but her cell phone didn't work. About two months ago I saw an accident on the 210 Freeway where the driver was bleeding and knocked unconscious. Over the course of a few miles I must have called 911 like five times on hold, then getting cut off, then finally dialing the operator. Instead of the local city the cell operator transfered me to San Bernardino County, which is about 30 miles away, and the dispatcher asked me to try again. I had to tell him that my cell phone wasn't working so he had to make the call for me, oh, and by the way, I might get cut off again.
My whole experience with the calling areas here has been bad, but I'm not sure quite as bad as my experiences with the cellular contract that got me here in the first place. Luckily, it just expired, and I am switching carriers ASAP -- that is if AT&T has gotten its number portability together. Bad AT&T Wireless service is a common theme in the L.A. area.
Let me make a correction ... AT&T Wireless CLAIMS to know when there are dropped calls. They CLAIM to offer "automatic" credit. However, this credit is based on particular behavior by the user and on a restrictive definition of the problem.
In order for the user to get dropped call credit the call must be reported as ended on the user's phone and the user then must redial within a specified time, which I've been told is one minute.
The process really begs the point of what is a dropped call. Apparently, AT&T only defines a restrictive subset of call failures as "dropped calls". For instance, a call that loses audio but remains connected is not considered a dropped call. Nor is an unsuccessful call that is dialed (reporting "connected") but simply never rings. My experience is that I have had numerous one minute calls on my phone bill separated from one another by repeat attempts to get through. Seldom if ever are these dropped calls credited by AT&T Wireless. (Incidentally, I am only discussing a small subset of conditions here that constitute call failures.)
In some irate calls to AT&T I've pointed out flaws in their algorithm for determining dropped calls. I've been told that it's not done otherwise because "customers would just end up making lots of one-minute calls to get free air time." With this service I've literally lost hundreds of dollars in uncredited minutes.
Now that the contract's over I'm switching to a new provider as fast as possible. I just hope by buying AT&T that Cingular helps them improve. By the way my experiences have been with TDMA service in the greater Los Angeles area. Let me know if you need a map of the five absolute dead spots along just 15 miles of the 210 freeway that I drive every day.
BTW, the "free-trade advocate" I discussed earlier is not really for free trade. They are for fixed trade, where everything is fixed in one party's best interest. This point is missed by the free-trade advocates. Because with true free trade monetary policies are not artificially propped up and people can go work in whatever countries they want!
So it looks stellar! Let's think about that. The difference between $4.1 billion and $2.5 billion is $1.6 billion. In 1990 our trade deficit with India was about $700 million. In 2004, our trade deficit ballooned to $8,066 million. (That's $8.1 billion, folks!)
Plug those numbers into your trusty calculator free-trade advocate, and you will find that our exports are up a whopping 64 percent. However, our trade deficit has shot up 1,152 percent. And, what you say, you didn't think percentages could go above 100?!?
So, maybe this experience with India is anomalous. Lets take a look at China, the other major player in outsourcing. In 1990 our exports to China were $4.8 billion, while our trade deficit was a measly $10 billion. After years of outsourcing, by 2004, our exports have shot up to $28.4 billion. However, the trade deficit has enlarged to $124 billion. These respective percentages are 591 percent for exports, but 1240 percent for the trade deficit.
The truly bad part about all this, as has been pointed out earlier, is that our "exports" really may not be anything but paper goods. Apparently, these exports largely are value that American companies derive from selling products to India and China, whether the products are actually made in the U.S. or not!
Does any of this mean that outsourcing works? I think clearly not. The countries that have gotten all the American jobs are clearly benefitting in gross disproportion to the benefits we receive from sending them all our jobs.
This is not a strategy for success free-trade advocate, but it is a stellar strategy for FAILURE!
NO! Email is not anonymous by definition. Headers contain a lot of information, including IP addresses. It can be made hard to track if the sender spoofs their identity or uses a third party email service. This is what spammers do.
The difference between email and postal mail is that email is FREE! Oh, and postal mail is easier to send anonymously because there aren't computers recording header information. (It's up to the sender to put their return address.) Now imagine how much junk mail you'd receive if postal mail was free, too.