Why, oh why won't anyone ever take big companies like this to task for their fraud?
Verizon billed me $5/month for handset extended. When my handset broke, they refused to honor the insurance because the handset was "more than two years old". But the terms/conditions they give you say nothing about two years. And they kept billing me for a whole year after that period was up. They refused to even refund me the extra year of payments.
Every lawyer I've asked about this confirms that a scheme like that is criminal fraud. But would a prosecutor ever go after them for something like that? NFW
They retrofitted ABM onto the AEGIS system in the 2000s. It's actually a completely separate system hosted on the same destroyers. A planned upgrade will integrate the two different systems, as both could be enhanced by sharing data between the two systems.
You'd have to build a ton of them to be able to get through the defenses. That would be hard to hide. Your simple system is vulnerable to destruction by a single air strike before they lift off.
IIRC, the key aspect to that section of the book was that it turned out that all of defensive missiles were actually aimed at decoys. So the 96 vs 100 part really didn't end up factoring into the equation. (I read that book like 20 years ago, so I could be mistaken.)
I'm going to have to call "bullshit" on your point #2. All you have to do is look at the patent wars that erupted around the airplane or the telephone to see that there's really nothing new about the state of IP.
My point wasn't that I didn't figure it out. My point was that if you're going to write a story about a subject, you should at least try to know a tiny bit about the topic. This guy clearly doesn't.
I'm not seeing how this is shady. Or at least not any shadier than any other product placement. Fortunately, the actual article doesn't use that term.
But I also don't really see the connection with marketing cigarettes to kids. The worry about marketing cigarettes to kids is not that they will think "I can't wait to turn 18 so I can try that". The worry is that they will start smoking while still kids (i.e. the concern is that kids will start an addictive behavior at an age when we know decision-making is not so good). I'm not sure that same concern exists for marketing a.50-caliber sniper rifle.
...even much later than the original overcharging.
Reminds me of Apollo 13. Wiring in the oxygen tank was damaged by being overheated in testing. What if the batteries were somehow damaged by a flawed testing regime? That kind of damage would be hard to find after a fire and none of the electronics would show any flaws either.
I disagree. I think most people think of the battery as only the lump of chemicals that stores the charge. Most people would not think of all the electronics as being part of the battery.
They actually had similar problems with NiCad when they first put them in planes. The failure modes for NiCad are not as bad. NiCad doesn't create a self-sustaining fire the way Li-ion can, but overheated NiCads can (and have) caused nearby objects to melt and/or catch on fire.
If it is the electronics, then it's possible that even if they'd gone with NiCad, they could still be having problems with the battery subsystem. The only difference in that case would be that you wouldn't have the "why did those idiots use Li-ion" questions being thrown around.
Of course it has over-charge protection. Most likely that protection is exactly what went wrong. It's not like they can just put a mechanical switch in there like a circuit breaker. It's all chips nowadays, you know.
It's different for your ISP to charge you differently based on the costs associated with delivering service to you than it is for Netflix to charge you differently.
And, YES, I want Netflix to treat all of their customers the same. I don't care if they are small, that is immaterial to the discussion.
I don't care if it's onerous. And I don't really care why TWC decided not to peer with Netflix. None of that should affect how Netflix interacts with me as a customer. All I should have to care about is "is my pipe wide enough to receive the stream". If it is, Netflix should send me the stream. If not, Netflix should not send me the stream. The rest of it is none of my concern.
Netflix is the one changing the game, here. They are really the first B2C entity telling customers that they will treat them differently based on the topological structure of the internet between the customer and the business. That's really unprecedented.
What if Apple said "we're not going to deliver large apps to customers on networks that don't peer with us" or "we're going to charge an extra _% to deliver large apps to customers on networks that don't peer with us". People would go BALLISTIC. So why is it OK for Netflix to do that?
Slashdot Mirror
Why, oh why won't anyone ever take big companies like this to task for their fraud?
Verizon billed me $5/month for handset extended. When my handset broke, they refused to honor the insurance because the handset was "more than two years old". But the terms/conditions they give you say nothing about two years. And they kept billing me for a whole year after that period was up. They refused to even refund me the extra year of payments.
Every lawyer I've asked about this confirms that a scheme like that is criminal fraud. But would a prosecutor ever go after them for something like that? NFW
Yes. Independently they are words. Together they are meaningless. And that rifle is used "on" your shoulder... it's used "against" your shoulder.
And I'm really not following your concern with broadband, anyway.
They retrofitted ABM onto the AEGIS system in the 2000s. It's actually a completely separate system hosted on the same destroyers. A planned upgrade will integrate the two different systems, as both could be enhanced by sharing data between the two systems.
That's what human intelligence is for.
And you can only distribute them so far, because they need airfields to take off on.
I agree with the other posters, it wasn't U.S. armor that defeated Nazi armor.
Nazi armor was defeated by:
1) Russian tanks
2) Air strikes
3) Artillery
4) Infantry
5) Lack of fuel
6) U.S. tanks
You'd have to build a ton of them to be able to get through the defenses. That would be hard to hide. Your simple system is vulnerable to destruction by a single air strike before they lift off.
It's a little unfair to refer to AEGIS as a 1970s system. It's gotten lots of TLC over the years.
IIRC, the key aspect to that section of the book was that it turned out that all of defensive missiles were actually aimed at decoys. So the 96 vs 100 part really didn't end up factoring into the equation. (I read that book like 20 years ago, so I could be mistaken.)
I'm going to have to call "bullshit" on your point #2. All you have to do is look at the patent wars that erupted around the airplane or the telephone to see that there's really nothing new about the state of IP.
Except that broadband is a actual term, while "shoulder-mounted" is not (unless you're talking about a parrot, I guess).
Also, were all of Amazon's services down?
The country-specific sites (e.g. Amazon.co.de)?
Zappos.com?
Audible.com?
How about the cloud services (Amazon makes money on those, also)?
Also, why should we believe Thursday afternoon at the end of January represents an average shopping hour for Amazon?
My point wasn't that I didn't figure it out. My point was that if you're going to write a story about a subject, you should at least try to know a tiny bit about the topic. This guy clearly doesn't.
OMG, YES (on the candy cigs part). Really on the rest of it, also.
Doesn't "username" just push the problem into a "how do we create unique user names" problem?
Obama's wars of aggression? I lost you there.
I'm not seeing how this is shady. Or at least not any shadier than any other product placement. Fortunately, the actual article doesn't use that term.
But I also don't really see the connection with marketing cigarettes to kids. The worry about marketing cigarettes to kids is not that they will think "I can't wait to turn 18 so I can try that". The worry is that they will start smoking while still kids (i.e. the concern is that kids will start an addictive behavior at an age when we know decision-making is not so good). I'm not sure that same concern exists for marketing a .50-caliber sniper rifle.
Also, what exactly is a "shoulder-mounted" rifle?
Don't most WiFi routers have a setting for WAN-only access for guest accounts? And also have QoS settings so guests won't max your bandwidth?
Reminds me of Apollo 13. Wiring in the oxygen tank was damaged by being overheated in testing. What if the batteries were somehow damaged by a flawed testing regime? That kind of damage would be hard to find after a fire and none of the electronics would show any flaws either.
I disagree. I think most people think of the battery as only the lump of chemicals that stores the charge. Most people would not think of all the electronics as being part of the battery.
They actually had similar problems with NiCad when they first put them in planes. The failure modes for NiCad are not as bad. NiCad doesn't create a self-sustaining fire the way Li-ion can, but overheated NiCads can (and have) caused nearby objects to melt and/or catch on fire.
If it is the electronics, then it's possible that even if they'd gone with NiCad, they could still be having problems with the battery subsystem. The only difference in that case would be that you wouldn't have the "why did those idiots use Li-ion" questions being thrown around.
Of course it has over-charge protection. Most likely that protection is exactly what went wrong. It's not like they can just put a mechanical switch in there like a circuit breaker. It's all chips nowadays, you know.
It's different for your ISP to charge you differently based on the costs associated with delivering service to you than it is for Netflix to charge you differently.
And, YES, I want Netflix to treat all of their customers the same. I don't care if they are small, that is immaterial to the discussion.
Same reason Intro to OS courses often incorporate that version of early AT&T Unix?
I don't care if it's onerous. And I don't really care why TWC decided not to peer with Netflix. None of that should affect how Netflix interacts with me as a customer. All I should have to care about is "is my pipe wide enough to receive the stream". If it is, Netflix should send me the stream. If not, Netflix should not send me the stream. The rest of it is none of my concern.
Netflix is the one changing the game, here. They are really the first B2C entity telling customers that they will treat them differently based on the topological structure of the internet between the customer and the business. That's really unprecedented.
What if Apple said "we're not going to deliver large apps to customers on networks that don't peer with us" or "we're going to charge an extra _% to deliver large apps to customers on networks that don't peer with us". People would go BALLISTIC. So why is it OK for Netflix to do that?
At the end of the first paragraph, that should have been "that should NOT effect my relationship with Netflix."