I think this is exactly it. AT&T and Verizon shareholders are used to the huge profits that they have been reaping on the backs of consumers, and they've been getting backlash on their dwindling profitability, in part due to lower revenue per user since they are making less off the phones, as well as less off the monthly recurring charges.
It's not population density. It's urban sprawl. The US cities just keep expanding and expanding. The cable companies are constantly building out new infrastructure, and this costs a lot of money. The reason that the high density areas are still being charged a lot is because they're basically subsidizing these new neighborhoods.
I'm not sure that getting news on FB means getting it from your friends necessarily. I get my news from FB, but not from my friends on there. I get it by "Liking" different news pages. I did that mainly because this is the easiest way to setup a feed on Android. Instead of having to setup a dozen or more different RSS feeds (and find a good widget that I like, which I haven't yet). Now, all I have to do is connect with FB. I barely even see my friends commenting. FB, for me, is all about news. Some sites that I get my news from: CNN, Slashdot, Jalopnik, Wired, CNET, various sports, financial, music, and comedy pages, plus some other miscellaneous ones, and I think I get a decent amount of information on the main screen of my phone. Makes it pretty convenient.
Good point. And with the overall, general hatred towards the government these days, people aren't looking to work there, including the military, since there is a war going on. General government work, and especially the military, have been places in the past where most people get their security clearances. Then, they can leverage those to get a job in the private sector. It doesn't look like that's happening like it used to.
It isn't you, its me. I'm leaving you for India, as she is so much more able to fulfil my needs. I truly hope that you will find someone new. Let's be friends. - Uncle Sam.
You think you and I are in a monogamous relationship. Sorry to tell you that you're just one out of dozens, and its this egotistical, self-centered attitude that we're all really sick of. I may have needed you at first, but now I could really care less.
Leviticus 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
By making drugs legal, it solves a couple of things. First, it would stop the synthetic drugs that have been popping up everywhere. These are much more dangerous than the drugs that they try to imitate. Synthetic marijuana has killed people, but real marijuana doesn't. That's a byproduct of the War on Drugs. Second, it could be controlled and taxed, which would bring down the prices and negate the risk for organized crime. For example, when I was in high school, it was easier for me to buy pot than it was to buy alcohol. It wasn't worth it for the local drug dealer to sell me beer, but it was for pot.
She should have used this opportunity to say, "A lot of us are telecommuting nowadays, but our collaboration tools suck. Let's fix that." Instead, she resorted to the more archaic solution. And that is why they will fail. They need to look to the future, not the past.
I'm not sure exactly why they chose only "streaming." Also, from the summary (which quotes the article), the way they have it written, it's all streaming of copyrighted works. Wouldn't it just be the unauthorized streams?
making the streaming of copyrighted works a felony. As it stands now, streaming a copyrighted work over the Internet is considered a violation of the public performance right.
So, does this mean that even the legal broadcasters are committing felonies? Or is this just poor writing? I would think it should read "making the streaming of unauthorized copyrighted works a felony." The sentence then takes on an entirely different meaning.
Maybe you're on your first phone contract or have simply never owned a phone out of contract, but I can say for absolute fact that you do not get any special treatment for owning your phone outright. The cost of the plan is a fixed amount, subsidized or not. If you bring your own phone you are only aiding the carrier hedge their bets by paying the same monthly rate as a contracted user but posing zero repayment risk.
That's true with Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint. But not T-Mobile. As soon as you pay for the phone, you're monthly bill goes down. Also, if you bring your own device, you get that dropped rate immediately.
T-Mobile has a truly unlimited data plan, which is on their HSPA+ as well as LTE, if available. Granted, their LTE coverage pretty much sucks as of right now but should be much improved by the end of the year.
And, I agree about the downgrading the voice experience though. Not a very elegant solution. However, Voice Over LTE (VoLTE) should solve this, and most major carriers (AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile) are planning to implement this either in 2013 or 2014.
"Yaaaay, Math!" (Shameless Breaking Bad quote.)
Seeing that this is Slashdot, I would have thought that the GP would have actually done the math himself instead of just blindly quoting some sensationalist blog site. Thans for taking the time to post that.
If you're main problem is just inside, you can switch to Wifi, including Wifi calling. You'd have great coverage at home (assuming here that you have a wireless router and broadband connection).
I agree. I'm not even sure if you could call a General Manager and a Director part of "IT". They're management. Yes, they may have worked in the IT department, but they're not really IT. I've seen too many organizations, including my current company, where there are just way too many "Directors", and none of them have a clue, and, personally, I wish we would get rid of some of these "inefficiencies" around the office.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is exactly it. AT&T and Verizon shareholders are used to the huge profits that they have been reaping on the backs of consumers, and they've been getting backlash on their dwindling profitability, in part due to lower revenue per user since they are making less off the phones, as well as less off the monthly recurring charges.
FTA, it was more of a generalization on 2 black holes collapsing. It wasn't talking about anything specific in this case.
So you had to go and play the race card didn't ya?
It's not population density. It's urban sprawl. The US cities just keep expanding and expanding. The cable companies are constantly building out new infrastructure, and this costs a lot of money. The reason that the high density areas are still being charged a lot is because they're basically subsidizing these new neighborhoods.
I'm not sure that getting news on FB means getting it from your friends necessarily. I get my news from FB, but not from my friends on there. I get it by "Liking" different news pages. I did that mainly because this is the easiest way to setup a feed on Android. Instead of having to setup a dozen or more different RSS feeds (and find a good widget that I like, which I haven't yet). Now, all I have to do is connect with FB. I barely even see my friends commenting. FB, for me, is all about news. Some sites that I get my news from: CNN, Slashdot, Jalopnik, Wired, CNET, various sports, financial, music, and comedy pages, plus some other miscellaneous ones, and I think I get a decent amount of information on the main screen of my phone. Makes it pretty convenient.
Good point. And with the overall, general hatred towards the government these days, people aren't looking to work there, including the military, since there is a war going on. General government work, and especially the military, have been places in the past where most people get their security clearances. Then, they can leverage those to get a job in the private sector. It doesn't look like that's happening like it used to.
If you're a real geek, the answer is always yes when it comes to learning new things. It doesn't matter what it is.
It isn't you, its me. I'm leaving you for India, as she is so much more able to fulfil my needs. I truly hope that you will find someone new. Let's be friends. - Uncle Sam.
You think you and I are in a monogamous relationship. Sorry to tell you that you're just one out of dozens, and its this egotistical, self-centered attitude that we're all really sick of. I may have needed you at first, but now I could really care less.
At least then, I might watch it.
At least the swimmers won't have to shave their body hair. It will just fall out naturally.
Leviticus 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Quite a bit of murder involved.
By making drugs legal, it solves a couple of things. First, it would stop the synthetic drugs that have been popping up everywhere. These are much more dangerous than the drugs that they try to imitate. Synthetic marijuana has killed people, but real marijuana doesn't. That's a byproduct of the War on Drugs. Second, it could be controlled and taxed, which would bring down the prices and negate the risk for organized crime. For example, when I was in high school, it was easier for me to buy pot than it was to buy alcohol. It wasn't worth it for the local drug dealer to sell me beer, but it was for pot.
She should have used this opportunity to say, "A lot of us are telecommuting nowadays, but our collaboration tools suck. Let's fix that." Instead, she resorted to the more archaic solution. And that is why they will fail. They need to look to the future, not the past.
Holy hand grenades are fine, since you have to count to three before they explode. Not one. Not two. But three.
making the streaming of copyrighted works a felony. As it stands now, streaming a copyrighted work over the Internet is considered a violation of the public performance right.
So, does this mean that even the legal broadcasters are committing felonies? Or is this just poor writing? I would think it should read "making the streaming of unauthorized copyrighted works a felony." The sentence then takes on an entirely different meaning.
Maybe you're on your first phone contract or have simply never owned a phone out of contract, but I can say for absolute fact that you do not get any special treatment for owning your phone outright. The cost of the plan is a fixed amount, subsidized or not. If you bring your own phone you are only aiding the carrier hedge their bets by paying the same monthly rate as a contracted user but posing zero repayment risk.
That's true with Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint. But not T-Mobile. As soon as you pay for the phone, you're monthly bill goes down. Also, if you bring your own device, you get that dropped rate immediately.
T-Mobile has a truly unlimited data plan, which is on their HSPA+ as well as LTE, if available. Granted, their LTE coverage pretty much sucks as of right now but should be much improved by the end of the year.
And, I agree about the downgrading the voice experience though. Not a very elegant solution. However, Voice Over LTE (VoLTE) should solve this, and most major carriers (AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile) are planning to implement this either in 2013 or 2014.
Dude, you're not the only one who can post as AC!! They're not trying to impersonate you. That's just how the system works. Everybody can be AC.
"Yaaaay, Math!" (Shameless Breaking Bad quote.) Seeing that this is Slashdot, I would have thought that the GP would have actually done the math himself instead of just blindly quoting some sensationalist blog site. Thans for taking the time to post that.
If you're main problem is just inside, you can switch to Wifi, including Wifi calling. You'd have great coverage at home (assuming here that you have a wireless router and broadband connection).
Google is great at taking an idea an improving.
... and then mohtballing it a couple of years later.
There is a slight difference, in that no one (of any consequence) actually believes the Roman gods actually exist.
They do exist! And I'm offended that you say otherwise. Why do you think we named the planets after them?
So, I take it the names Mars, Venus, and Jupiter somehow offend you, too?
I agree. I'm not even sure if you could call a General Manager and a Director part of "IT". They're management. Yes, they may have worked in the IT department, but they're not really IT. I've seen too many organizations, including my current company, where there are just way too many "Directors", and none of them have a clue, and, personally, I wish we would get rid of some of these "inefficiencies" around the office.
Then they put their training into use and go from training rounds to live rounds.