So there is a no contract option, there are also contract options. Are they obligated to advertise every possible permutation they offer?
No. But when they do advertise the contract plans they are required to call them contract plans. That's all the AG is asking for, just advertise them truthfully. I can't believe there is so much opposition to such a basic requirement. Since when has truth in advertising become some sort of unnecessarily onerous interference in business?
Obviously if you are paying for it a month at a time they want you to finish paying before you leave.
Not. What is "obvious" to me is that if there truly wasn't a contract then canceling service would not impact the loan schedule on the phone. If you got a loan to pay for that phone from your local credit union instead of T-mobile, they wouldn't require immediate payment if you canceled service. That right there is proof that the loan is actually a contract for service.
Meanwhile, if someone is in such financial straits that they have to cancel their phone service then having to immediately pay off the balance on their phone loan is a huge deal. It is yet another policy that is abusive to the poor.
But the AG isn't even asking for T-Mobile to change their policies to be less shitty to poor people. All the AG wants is for T-Mobile to fully disclose the fact that the loan schedule is tied to duration of service. That's not being an "idiot" that's doing the bare minimum to insure honest dealing.
Then you aren't looking closely. If you cancel your service in less than two years you must immediately pay the balance on that loan for your phone. That's a contract tied to your "no-contract" service.
This is a stupid policy because anyone intent on doing harm will just set up a dummy account full of fluffy happy mail to show to airport security. Basically the only outcome of this policy is to deny entry to people who are not a threat.
The Defense Department's proposed $526.6 billion base budget is a reduction of $3.9 billion, or 0.7 percent, from the enacted budget for 2012. ,,, The administration's proposed budget provides $8.2 billion for the E.P.A., a decrease of $296 million, or 3.5 percent, from current spending. ... The home health co-payments and premium surcharges would raise $3.6 billion from 2017 to 2023
So you are admitting that Democrats were not willing to accept any deal that did not contain tax increases? I see how that works.
Do you now?
One side wants tax increases the other side wants spending cuts. Compromise means they both get a little bit of what they want. If you see that as a binary choice, well then you are part of the problem.
What you wrote does not contradict what I wrote. There is absolutely no question that Medicare Part D is not allowed to negotiate drug prices. Wikipedia has documented the shit out of it:
By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs.
Preparing for being modded down for not participating in the re-writing of history and group think..
You do deserve to be modded down. Not for being contrary, but for sucking at critical thinking. However, that very flaw is probably going to keep you convinced that you are being persecuted.
Bush did pass the drug benefit bill when he was running for re-election, which of course was also a big payout for the drug companies.
Not merely a payout, it was a fucking money avalanche because it forbade the government from using it's purchasing power to negotiate prices downward. So not only are more drugs being sold (because previously some people couldn't afford them had to go without) but the prices have every reason to go up.
Its like the one factor that could have resulted in cost-savings was explicitly blocked by the bill. When something like that happens it confirms all the worst stereotypes about the republican party. It would be kinda like finding out Obama really was born in Kenya.
Like I said, there was no willingness to compromise. Just because you agree with the no-compromise position doesn't make it any less of a no-compromise position.
The difference is that dems showed willingness to compromise- they admitted cuts as well as tax increases were neded, and were even willing to discuss cuts to social security. The republicans were not even willing to discuss more revenue. There is no equivalence here, one side is worse than the other.
To the best of my knowledge, that is true. The only tax the republicans were willing to raise was the payroll tax. If there were any other tax increase proposals that the republicans even considered negotiable I would definitely like to hear about them.
That said, airlines are still private businesses serving the public
And recipients of massive amounts of public largess - both directly in the form of decades of bailouts and indirectly in the form of a million government services like pension take overs. At best they are pseudo-private organizations so in terms of being able to discriminate against customers I say they need to be held to the same standard as the federal government rather private business.
IIRC there's already a law prohibiting companies from storing your credit card number without your permission.
It is not a law, it is in the PCI-DSS - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard - part of the merchant contract all the merchants must agree to in order to accept credit cards payments.
That's not enough. What will happen is that every company and their brother will require carte blanch opt in in order to do any transaction with them. There needs to be some sort of restriction on the collection and dissemination of information for purposes unrelated to the reason the person gave the information in the first place.
Night clubs that check id to verify legal drinking age aren't allowed to require that customers let them scan ids and keep records because that isn't necessary for the purpose of verifying age.
FWIW Power Bars and Gatorade are only marginally better for you than Doritos and Mountain Dew. Both are loaded with over-processed crap. It's reasonable to say that the former are actually worse because no one is going to think eating doritos and dew is healthy.
Moral would be referring it to the police and the CC issuer and insurance company and accepting that there isn't anything that can be done.
You have a peculiar definition of morality there. I am not kidding. The law does not define morality. While the law may attempt to codify a certain set of morals, it is well understood that the law is frequently immoral - e.g. "the law is an ass." Look at your own example of libel - if the truth is an absolute defense of against charges of libel then the law is moral in the US and immoral in the UK, if that's not true then the law is immoral in the US and moral in the UK.
That might well be, but it's pretty clear that the "victim" in all of this has himself broken the law and is liable at bare minimum for libel, if not various other laws.
It's unfortunate the the mugger would get away, but ultimately, the UK has a system of laws and you don't get to break them just because somebody else has broken them first.
A system of arbitrarily enforced laws is anarchy. The blogger can't get the law enforced in the first place.
Besides, this isn't about what's legal, its about what's moral. The mugger is sending the blogger those pictures. He made that decision when he stole the laptop. He's probably not cognizant of that decision, but it is a reasonable assumption that using a stolen computer will result in the webcam sending photos to the rightful owner. After all, the guy did put a piece of tape over the camera for the first 4 weeks.
> This summary stinks of an advertisement to build the viewership and ad revenue generation.
The guy's goal is public shaming, but that doesn't work unless a lot of the public sees the website. So he probably did submit the story here, but it is doubtful that a few banner ads are going to make him any significant amount of money.
And I guess the submitter missed the other story that came out of England a few weeks ago where the theft victim similarly posted the "thieves" photos all over, only to discover the people he was harassing were innocent.
That's not really relevant because in this case the mugger also used the victim's debit card to buy a subscription to the fat chick porn website he's been caught wanking over. There is no question that he's 100% culpable here.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually much less abusive to the poor than the plans offered by other cell service companies.
Sure, I believe that. In the same way that breaking someone's finger is less abusive than breaking someone's arm.
Same as buying a washing machine at Sears on time payments.
Sears wants their money regardless of whether or not you are using the machine.
Sears does not require you to immediately pay off the entire loan on your washing machine if you decide to stop washing clothes with it.
So there is a no contract option, there are also contract options. Are they obligated to advertise every possible permutation they offer?
No. But when they do advertise the contract plans they are required to call them contract plans. That's all the AG is asking for, just advertise them truthfully. I can't believe there is so much opposition to such a basic requirement. Since when has truth in advertising become some sort of unnecessarily onerous interference in business?
Obviously if you are paying for it a month at a time they want you to finish paying before you leave.
Not. What is "obvious" to me is that if there truly wasn't a contract then canceling service would not impact the loan schedule on the phone. If you got a loan to pay for that phone from your local credit union instead of T-mobile, they wouldn't require immediate payment if you canceled service. That right there is proof that the loan is actually a contract for service.
Meanwhile, if someone is in such financial straits that they have to cancel their phone service then having to immediately pay off the balance on their phone loan is a huge deal. It is yet another policy that is abusive to the poor.
But the AG isn't even asking for T-Mobile to change their policies to be less shitty to poor people. All the AG wants is for T-Mobile to fully disclose the fact that the loan schedule is tied to duration of service. That's not being an "idiot" that's doing the bare minimum to insure honest dealing.
I'm a subscriber, and I don't see the deception.
Then you aren't looking closely. If you cancel your service in less than two years you must immediately pay the balance on that loan for your phone. That's a contract tied to your "no-contract" service.
Ah, so having lost the argument on budget cuts you are not only moving the goal posts, but you are not willing to back up your new claims. OK.
Make your point, don't ask me to make it for you.
This is a stupid policy because anyone intent on doing harm will just set up a dummy account full of fluffy happy mail to show to airport security. Basically the only outcome of this policy is to deny entry to people who are not a threat.
The Defense Department's proposed $526.6 billion base budget is a reduction of $3.9 billion, or 0.7 percent, from the enacted budget for 2012.
,,,
...
The administration's proposed budget provides $8.2 billion for the E.P.A., a decrease of $296 million, or 3.5 percent, from current spending.
The home health co-payments and premium surcharges would raise $3.6 billion from 2017 to 2023
Health Care and Military Spending Bear the Brunt of Proposed Cuts
So you are admitting that Democrats were not willing to accept any deal that did not contain tax increases? I see how that works.
Do you now?
One side wants tax increases the other side wants spending cuts. Compromise means they both get a little bit of what they want. If you see that as a binary choice, well then you are part of the problem.
Where DO you get your lies?
What you wrote does not contradict what I wrote. There is absolutely no question that Medicare Part D is not allowed to negotiate drug prices. Wikipedia has documented the shit out of it:
By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D#Criticisms
Preparing for being modded down for not participating in the re-writing of history and group think..
You do deserve to be modded down. Not for being contrary, but for sucking at critical thinking.
However, that very flaw is probably going to keep you convinced that you are being persecuted.
Bush did pass the drug benefit bill when he was running for re-election, which of course was also a big payout for the drug companies.
Not merely a payout, it was a fucking money avalanche because it forbade the government from using it's purchasing power to negotiate prices downward. So not only are more drugs being sold (because previously some people couldn't afford them had to go without) but the prices have every reason to go up.
Its like the one factor that could have resulted in cost-savings was explicitly blocked by the bill. When something like that happens it confirms all the worst stereotypes about the republican party. It would be kinda like finding out Obama really was born in Kenya.
You don't even need a resistor, just a smarter hood.
the issue is taxes dont need to go up,
Like I said, there was no willingness to compromise. Just because you agree with the no-compromise position doesn't make it any less of a no-compromise position.
The difference is that dems showed willingness to compromise- they admitted cuts as well as tax increases were neded, and were even willing to discuss cuts to social security. The republicans were not even willing to discuss more revenue. There is no equivalence here, one side is worse than the other.
To the best of my knowledge, that is true. The only tax the republicans were willing to raise was the payroll tax. If there were any other tax increase proposals that the republicans even considered negotiable I would definitely like to hear about them.
Clean energy is nothing but a scam invented by the liberals who hate America and want to destroy this country with fear mongering (ie global warming).
It is a good thing that our enemy (China) is outpacing us in this budget-wasting regard! /s.
Woah!
Yea, its not like medical software errors ever killed anybody. Eh Therac-25?
Or Varian.
That said, airlines are still private businesses serving the public
And recipients of massive amounts of public largess - both directly in the form of decades of bailouts and indirectly in the form of a million government services like pension take overs. At best they are pseudo-private organizations so in terms of being able to discriminate against customers I say they need to be held to the same standard as the federal government rather private business.
IIRC there's already a law prohibiting companies from storing your credit card number without your permission.
It is not a law, it is in the PCI-DSS - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard - part of the merchant contract all the merchants must agree to in order to accept credit cards payments.
To protect against credit card fraud, rather than trust google, I use controlled payment numbers.
That's not enough. What will happen is that every company and their brother will require carte blanch opt in in order to do any transaction with them. There needs to be some sort of restriction on the collection and dissemination of information for purposes unrelated to the reason the person gave the information in the first place.
Night clubs that check id to verify legal drinking age aren't allowed to require that customers let them scan ids and keep records because that isn't necessary for the purpose of verifying age.
FWIW Power Bars and Gatorade are only marginally better for you than Doritos and Mountain Dew. Both are loaded with over-processed crap. It's reasonable to say that the former are actually worse because no one is going to think eating doritos and dew is healthy.
Moral would be referring it to the police and the CC issuer and insurance company and accepting that there isn't anything that can be done.
You have a peculiar definition of morality there. I am not kidding. The law does not define morality. While the law may attempt to codify a certain set of morals, it is well understood that the law is frequently immoral - e.g. "the law is an ass." Look at your own example of libel - if the truth is an absolute defense of against charges of libel then the law is moral in the US and immoral in the UK, if that's not true then the law is immoral in the US and moral in the UK.
That might well be, but it's pretty clear that the "victim" in all of this has himself broken the law and is liable at bare minimum for libel, if not various other laws.
It ain't libel if it is true.
It's unfortunate the the mugger would get away, but ultimately, the UK has a system of laws and you don't get to break them just because somebody else has broken them first.
A system of arbitrarily enforced laws is anarchy. The blogger can't get the law enforced in the first place.
Besides, this isn't about what's legal, its about what's moral. The mugger is sending the blogger those pictures. He made that decision when he stole the laptop. He's probably not cognizant of that decision, but it is a reasonable assumption that using a stolen computer will result in the webcam sending photos to the rightful owner. After all, the guy did put a piece of tape over the camera for the first 4 weeks.
> This summary stinks of an advertisement to build the viewership and ad revenue generation.
The guy's goal is public shaming, but that doesn't work unless a lot of the public sees the website. So he probably did submit the story here, but it is doubtful that a few banner ads are going to make him any significant amount of money.
And I guess the submitter missed the other story that came out of England a few weeks ago where the theft victim similarly posted the "thieves" photos all over, only to discover the people he was harassing were innocent.
That's not really relevant because in this case the mugger also used the victim's debit card to buy a subscription to the fat chick porn website he's been caught wanking over. There is no question that he's 100% culpable here.