Depending on how far along in the project you are, it's reasonable to expect changing a single word in the spec to have a major impact on the project. Consider:
Paint my car black.
So you do all the prep work, car's primed with a dark primer, black paint is mixed and ready to go, then this change request comes in:
Paint my car white.
Well, now you've wasted the paint you just tinted black, and you can't paint white on top of dark primer (well, you can, but you need many more coats), so you've got to redo the prep work. That means waiting while the primer fully cures, so you can sand it off properly; otherwise, it'll gum your sandpaper. then re-prime, then you can paint. Assuming you don't see
The commenter who replied to you pretty much pointed out where you're wrong, so I'm not gonna waste my time. I'll add one bit that he missed, though; the relevant 8 pages are a subset of Title II's 33 pages. Have a nice day.
The rules are eight pages. However, the details with respect to forbearance, the regulations from which we will not be taking action—that alone is 79 pages. Moreover, sprinkled throughout the document, there are uncodified rules — rules that won’t make it in the code of federal regulations that people will have to comply with in the private sector. On top of that, there are things that aren’t going to be codified, such as the Internet Conduct Standard, where the FCC will essentially say that it has carte blanche to decide which service plans are legitimate and which are not, and the FCC sort of hints at what factors it might consider in making that determination.
Okay, let's break that down:
The rules are eight pages.
Pretty clear. Rules = code. 8 pages of rules will be codified.
However, the details with respect to forbearance, the regulations from which we will not be taking action—that alone is 79 pages.
An additional 79 pages of rules that could have been codified won't be. Can they be later? Sure, whether they were in this document or not, they can always be written and voted on later.
Moreover, sprinkled throughout the document, there are uncodified rules — rules that won’t make it in the code of federal regulations that people will have to comply with in the private sector.
Oh, look, more rules they considered, but that didn't make it into the 8 pages that will be codified.
On top of that, there are things that aren’t going to be codified, such as the Internet Conduct Standard, where the FCC will essentially say that it has carte blanche to decide which service plans are legitimate and which are not, and the FCC sort of hints at what factors it might consider in making that determination.
Even more things they talked about that didn't make it into the 8 pages that will be codified.
In short, it's 300+ pages of shit they discussed before arriving at the 8 page subsection of the existing Title II that will apply to internet services. We don't get to see the 8 pages of stuff that does apply, or the 300+ pages of discussion that does not, just yet; however, a reasonable person can probably guess which of the 33 pages of Title II might have made it into the applicable 8 pages.
That said, I wouldn't expect you to have that ability.
Title 2 has been around since 1996. If you don't know what it says, that's on you, not the FCC. All the FCC did was reclassify internet services as common carrier, covered by Title 2; the 300+ pages is an account of their justification for doing so, not 300+ pages of new rules.
Similarly, it may not be obvious, but they're an insulating layer. (Yes, a layer of ice or snow in your roof acts as added insulation, keeping heat in until it melts away or slides off)
You can change your key, but everyone is made AWARE the key has changed and you have to INFORM them why it changed and for what reason and they have to accept it or not.
Or, someone else changes the key, MITM's the site, injects a brief explanation of why the key was changed into a banner on the page (oh, but you have to accept the new key in order to see that, assuming the site uses SSL everywhere as it should) or spoofs an email with the explanation, or spoofs a social media campaign with the explanation, whatever.
Maybe they target an individual user, that user gets the spoofed email and sees the spoofed tweets, and accepts the new key. Company would never be the wiser, since no fake notices would go out publicly, and the user, well...
This would work for you, this would work for me, hell it'd work for a handful of people here, because we know to spend longer than the time it takes to click "OK" to investigate these things. The real problem with your solution is that 99.999% of users either don't know to do that, or simply don't think it's a big enough deal to warrant actually doing it. You think it'd be a better situation based on your experience with a few competent and security-minded people, but the reality is we're the minority and the situation would end up much worse as a result.
divide that 100Mhz channel into 1000 1ms time slots (or 10000 100 microsecond time slots and allow 1000 users 10 apiece, or keep dividing into smaller slices as the technology allows, to reduce latency) and provide 1gbps to 1000 users. Or 10000 1ms slots, to provide 100mbps to 10000 users.
At the 1gbps per user level, that's a little less capacity (without overselling) than current towers, considerable more if oversold at current rates. At the 100mbps level, that's insanely better coverage in high-population-density areas, as each channel can handle 10000 simultaneous users without overselling, closer to 20k if oversold. At which point, interference becomes an issue and you have 20k users on the channel, each getting 10-20mbps; which is a huge improvement over the current situation during a conference, where the most anyone is lucky to get is a few kbps, due to radio interference, while the hard line running to the tower sits there mostly unused. It's not even a matter of the tower not having a large enough pipe to the network, the radios can't keep up with demand, so the pipe largely goes unused in these instances.
the key you received in 2005 is the key you use in 2015
Unless the other endpoint was compromised at some point and legitimately changed their key as a mitigation measure. Solve that problem and we'll be in agreement.
I'm not sure your credentials qualify you to make internet diagnoses of fictional diseases. I do enjoy a good troll, though, so keep at it; if it bothered me, I wouldn't reply.;)
It's better for me than the hallucinogenic prescriptions I've been given for my migraines in the past. Every single migraine treatment is a hallucinogen, with the exception of marijuana and Excedrin Migraine (and I'm allergic to the combination of acetaminophen and aspirin; ironically, it gives me migraines). Can't be productive with a migraine, can't be productive tripping on migraine meds, but I can take a couple of draws from my vaporizer and be back to work within 15 minutes.
That's not to say I don't toke up recreationally on occasion, of course I do. Maybe once or twice a month I'll vape an entire bowl in one sitting; enough to pick up and maintain a buzz, but I hate being stoned. The once or twice a week I take one or two draws from the vape to quelch a migraine certainly trumps the recreational use, though, and I go through about an ounce over the course of a year. By volume, I use a lot less than any of the hallucinogens I've been prescribed since I was 5 years old, over the same span of time, and was financially ahead in the first year, even considering the $300 I dropped on a high-end portable vaporizer and a spare battery.
That's why I toke up. I suppose I'm lying to myself, though, and I was making up the migraines for 25 years just so I could start smoking weed 2 years ago, right?
Really? You want to get in a pissing contest over UIDs? If I hadn't lurked for 9 years before signing up, I'd have a sub-1000 UID, but you and I know that size doesn't matter nearly as much as how you use it; and I'm somewhat unsatisfied with your performance. (Also, is it just me, or has this branch of our discussion devolved into us attempting to out-troll each other? If so, don't get me wrong, I'm down for that; just remember who took the first swing before you get all butthurt.)
Perhaps I disagree because my wife has worked in a call center and I have her experience to back up my position? Or, perhaps, because I'm not a complete dick to phone reps, so they actually take the time to help me, rather than saying whatever to get me off the phone. I'm sure both of those color my experience, which in turn, paints my opinion. When I have phone reps double and triple check that they provided satisfactory service and ask me, repeatedly (in an attempt to delay having to deal with someone like you on their next call), if there is anything else they can help me with, that gives a distinct impression that they're not just saying whatever to get me off the phone. I also tend not to get conflicting stories from subsequent reps, don't have to argue to get billing errors corrected, and don't tend to get jerked around as often as some people I know; likely all benefits of not treating the reps like shit.
As for your insistence that the reps were lying to this blogger, what do you have to say about this quote?
The images he shows prove that there are serious bugs in the T-Mobile data tracking. Different places in their software makes different claims about the usage, and their own support workers can't even make enough sense of it to read the usage off the screen accurately.
My take in it is that you're admitting that the information the rep has may be incorrect. That doesn't make the rep a liar when he recites that information, it makes the information incorrect. Or, maybe, the information available to the customer via the customer portal is incorrect; the poster you were replying to wanted to see the iPhone's data usage report, likely, to verify that. It's not entirely unreasonable, when you suspect an inaccuracy in one data source, to refer to one or more other sources to confirm.
you made a faulty claim that my opinion isn't even able to be considered
I did no such thing. You're stating your opinion, that all call center reps lie, as fact, by trying to tell me that it's an industry-wide standard, that they're trained to lie, as though that's a fact. You can't have it both ways; it can't be both your opinion and a fact. You can either provide reference material for your claim, which would make it a fact, or let it rest as an opinion and quit trying to frame it as anything else. As it is, until right here, where you refer to it as opinion, you've been framing it as fact and have, thus far, been able to back it up; and I do refuse to consider "facts" without proof, especially when I have plenty of experience telling me there's no factual content contained within.
You're as entitled to your opinion as I am, I simply prefer to have my own.
Seriously? That's the best you've got? Your UID (the actual name for what re referred to as "the number") might be lower, but you're definitely on my lawn.
When the person on the phone doesn't know the answer, but they claim to know it and guess, and are wrong, that isn't a misunderstanding. That is somebody telling a lie. That they know the answer is the lie.
Actually, I did address it, I just didn't mention it at the time. I'll just copy and paste the approriate portion of my other reply:
the rep is, in fact, most likely seeing what he says he's seeing in the support portal; that information likely does disagree with the customer portal. One portal is probably displaying incorrect information. Maybe both are.
Now, I color myself quite the cynic, and my friends tend to agree, but your level of cynicism makes even me blush. I'm not even going to touch the comparison to Comcast because, you're right, T-Mobile's not Comcast. You'd think after 30+ years you'd have learned how to form a reasonable argument.
'm over 30, and I know at least a little bit about what I'm talking about.
ME TOO!!!!!! YAAAAAAAAAAAY! I guess, then, the question is who should get off whose lawn, right? If that's the best qualification you've got, I think we're done here, but I'm bored at the moment, so I'll continue anyway.
If you look at the actual accusations and the screen shots...
...you see one user's claims and the user portal. What you don't see is what the user actually said to T-Mobile, or the customer service portal, both of which likely differ from what we (barely, thanks to the color scheme) see on that page.
That you're a fan of their service overall tells...
...me that you're making assumptions. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt not because I'm a fan[1], but because my past experience with them indicates that the rep is, in fact, most likely seeing what he says he's seeing in the support portal; that information likely does disagree with the customer portal. One portal is probably displaying incorrect information. Maybe both are. And it'll get fixed just like each of the examples in my previous post. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat those words, but something tells me we'll never know how this story ends; I full do not expect this random blogger to update the story if T-Mobile fixes the issue, but I won't be surprised if they complain again next month if it's not fixed yet.
And if you were close to my age...
When did you graduate, friend?
[1]: I'm not, I could leave at any moment as I have no obligation to them, no ETF, phones paid for, etc... I don't because there's not a better option for me at the moment. I left AT&T at the drop of a hat, after 13 years of excellent service (a hint as to my age, I left AT&T 2 years ago, almost to the day; please check your assumptions at the door), when a better option came along and I'll do the same with T-Mobile if it happens again.
Slashdot Mirror
Paint my car black.
So you do all the prep work, car's primed with a dark primer, black paint is mixed and ready to go, then this change request comes in:
Paint my car white.
Well, now you've wasted the paint you just tinted black, and you can't paint white on top of dark primer (well, you can, but you need many more coats), so you've got to redo the prep work. That means waiting while the primer fully cures, so you can sand it off properly; otherwise, it'll gum your sandpaper. then re-prime, then you can paint. Assuming you don't see
Paint my car forest green.
in the meantime.
That was one word. Yes, one line matters.
The commenter who replied to you pretty much pointed out where you're wrong, so I'm not gonna waste my time. I'll add one bit that he missed, though; the relevant 8 pages are a subset of Title II's 33 pages. Have a nice day.
The rules are eight pages. However, the details with respect to forbearance, the regulations from which we will not be taking action—that alone is 79 pages. Moreover, sprinkled throughout the document, there are uncodified rules — rules that won’t make it in the code of federal regulations that people will have to comply with in the private sector. On top of that, there are things that aren’t going to be codified, such as the Internet Conduct Standard, where the FCC will essentially say that it has carte blanche to decide which service plans are legitimate and which are not, and the FCC sort of hints at what factors it might consider in making that determination.
Okay, let's break that down:
The rules are eight pages.
Pretty clear. Rules = code. 8 pages of rules will be codified.
However, the details with respect to forbearance, the regulations from which we will not be taking action—that alone is 79 pages.
An additional 79 pages of rules that could have been codified won't be. Can they be later? Sure, whether they were in this document or not, they can always be written and voted on later.
Moreover, sprinkled throughout the document, there are uncodified rules — rules that won’t make it in the code of federal regulations that people will have to comply with in the private sector.
Oh, look, more rules they considered, but that didn't make it into the 8 pages that will be codified.
On top of that, there are things that aren’t going to be codified, such as the Internet Conduct Standard, where the FCC will essentially say that it has carte blanche to decide which service plans are legitimate and which are not, and the FCC sort of hints at what factors it might consider in making that determination.
Even more things they talked about that didn't make it into the 8 pages that will be codified.
For reference, to codify means To turn into law.
In short, it's 300+ pages of shit they discussed before arriving at the 8 page subsection of the existing Title II that will apply to internet services. We don't get to see the 8 pages of stuff that does apply, or the 300+ pages of discussion that does not, just yet; however, a reasonable person can probably guess which of the 33 pages of Title II might have made it into the applicable 8 pages.
That said, I wouldn't expect you to have that ability.
Title 2 has been around since 1996. If you don't know what it says, that's on you, not the FCC. All the FCC did was reclassify internet services as common carrier, covered by Title 2; the 300+ pages is an account of their justification for doing so, not 300+ pages of new rules.
It's title 2, which we've had since 1996, plus 300 some odd pages of justifications. It is, quite literally, nothing new.
I like how nobody denies it.
Or, you know, the ISPs could just be up-front about what they're actually selling for the price they're charging.
Who, Fox? Yeah, I know.
Similarly, it may not be obvious, but they're an insulating layer. (Yes, a layer of ice or snow in your roof acts as added insulation, keeping heat in until it melts away or slides off)
You can change your key, but everyone is made AWARE the key has changed and you have to INFORM them why it changed and for what reason and they have to accept it or not.
Or, someone else changes the key, MITM's the site, injects a brief explanation of why the key was changed into a banner on the page (oh, but you have to accept the new key in order to see that, assuming the site uses SSL everywhere as it should) or spoofs an email with the explanation, or spoofs a social media campaign with the explanation, whatever.
Maybe they target an individual user, that user gets the spoofed email and sees the spoofed tweets, and accepts the new key. Company would never be the wiser, since no fake notices would go out publicly, and the user, well...
This would work for you, this would work for me, hell it'd work for a handful of people here, because we know to spend longer than the time it takes to click "OK" to investigate these things. The real problem with your solution is that 99.999% of users either don't know to do that, or simply don't think it's a big enough deal to warrant actually doing it. You think it'd be a better situation based on your experience with a few competent and security-minded people, but the reality is we're the minority and the situation would end up much worse as a result.
divide that 100Mhz channel into 1000 1ms time slots (or 10000 100 microsecond time slots and allow 1000 users 10 apiece, or keep dividing into smaller slices as the technology allows, to reduce latency) and provide 1gbps to 1000 users. Or 10000 1ms slots, to provide 100mbps to 10000 users.
At the 1gbps per user level, that's a little less capacity (without overselling) than current towers, considerable more if oversold at current rates. At the 100mbps level, that's insanely better coverage in high-population-density areas, as each channel can handle 10000 simultaneous users without overselling, closer to 20k if oversold. At which point, interference becomes an issue and you have 20k users on the channel, each getting 10-20mbps; which is a huge improvement over the current situation during a conference, where the most anyone is lucky to get is a few kbps, due to radio interference, while the hard line running to the tower sits there mostly unused. It's not even a matter of the tower not having a large enough pipe to the network, the radios can't keep up with demand, so the pipe largely goes unused in these instances.
but it does mean that the terrorist has to improve his security hygiene to remain undetected.
And what happens when they do? Why actively encourage them to make themselves harder to catch?
the key you received in 2005 is the key you use in 2015
Unless the other endpoint was compromised at some point and legitimately changed their key as a mitigation measure. Solve that problem and we'll be in agreement.
I'm not sure your credentials qualify you to make internet diagnoses of fictional diseases. I do enjoy a good troll, though, so keep at it; if it bothered me, I wouldn't reply. ;)
It's better for me than the hallucinogenic prescriptions I've been given for my migraines in the past. Every single migraine treatment is a hallucinogen, with the exception of marijuana and Excedrin Migraine (and I'm allergic to the combination of acetaminophen and aspirin; ironically, it gives me migraines). Can't be productive with a migraine, can't be productive tripping on migraine meds, but I can take a couple of draws from my vaporizer and be back to work within 15 minutes.
That's not to say I don't toke up recreationally on occasion, of course I do. Maybe once or twice a month I'll vape an entire bowl in one sitting; enough to pick up and maintain a buzz, but I hate being stoned. The once or twice a week I take one or two draws from the vape to quelch a migraine certainly trumps the recreational use, though, and I go through about an ounce over the course of a year. By volume, I use a lot less than any of the hallucinogens I've been prescribed since I was 5 years old, over the same span of time, and was financially ahead in the first year, even considering the $300 I dropped on a high-end portable vaporizer and a spare battery.
That's why I toke up. I suppose I'm lying to myself, though, and I was making up the migraines for 25 years just so I could start smoking weed 2 years ago, right?
... theonion ...
Really? You want to get in a pissing contest over UIDs? If I hadn't lurked for 9 years before signing up, I'd have a sub-1000 UID, but you and I know that size doesn't matter nearly as much as how you use it; and I'm somewhat unsatisfied with your performance. (Also, is it just me, or has this branch of our discussion devolved into us attempting to out-troll each other? If so, don't get me wrong, I'm down for that; just remember who took the first swing before you get all butthurt.)
As for your insistence that the reps were lying to this blogger, what do you have to say about this quote?
The images he shows prove that there are serious bugs in the T-Mobile data tracking. Different places in their software makes different claims about the usage, and their own support workers can't even make enough sense of it to read the usage off the screen accurately.
My take in it is that you're admitting that the information the rep has may be incorrect. That doesn't make the rep a liar when he recites that information, it makes the information incorrect. Or, maybe, the information available to the customer via the customer portal is incorrect; the poster you were replying to wanted to see the iPhone's data usage report, likely, to verify that. It's not entirely unreasonable, when you suspect an inaccuracy in one data source, to refer to one or more other sources to confirm.
you made a faulty claim that my opinion isn't even able to be considered
I did no such thing. You're stating your opinion, that all call center reps lie, as fact, by trying to tell me that it's an industry-wide standard, that they're trained to lie, as though that's a fact. You can't have it both ways; it can't be both your opinion and a fact. You can either provide reference material for your claim, which would make it a fact, or let it rest as an opinion and quit trying to frame it as anything else. As it is, until right here, where you refer to it as opinion, you've been framing it as fact and have, thus far, been able to back it up; and I do refuse to consider "facts" without proof, especially when I have plenty of experience telling me there's no factual content contained within.
You're as entitled to your opinion as I am, I simply prefer to have my own.
Seriously? That's the best you've got? Your UID (the actual name for what re referred to as "the number") might be lower, but you're definitely on my lawn.
When the person on the phone doesn't know the answer, but they claim to know it and guess, and are wrong, that isn't a misunderstanding. That is somebody telling a lie. That they know the answer is the lie.
Actually, I did address it, I just didn't mention it at the time. I'll just copy and paste the approriate portion of my other reply:
the rep is, in fact, most likely seeing what he says he's seeing in the support portal; that information likely does disagree with the customer portal. One portal is probably displaying incorrect information. Maybe both are.
Now, I color myself quite the cynic, and my friends tend to agree, but your level of cynicism makes even me blush. I'm not even going to touch the comparison to Comcast because, you're right, T-Mobile's not Comcast. You'd think after 30+ years you'd have learned how to form a reasonable argument.
'm over 30, and I know at least a little bit about what I'm talking about.
ME TOO!!!!!! YAAAAAAAAAAAY! I guess, then, the question is who should get off whose lawn, right? If that's the best qualification you've got, I think we're done here, but I'm bored at the moment, so I'll continue anyway.
If you look at the actual accusations and the screen shots...
...you see one user's claims and the user portal. What you don't see is what the user actually said to T-Mobile, or the customer service portal, both of which likely differ from what we (barely, thanks to the color scheme) see on that page.
That you're a fan of their service overall tells...
...me that you're making assumptions. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt not because I'm a fan[1], but because my past experience with them indicates that the rep is, in fact, most likely seeing what he says he's seeing in the support portal; that information likely does disagree with the customer portal. One portal is probably displaying incorrect information. Maybe both are. And it'll get fixed just like each of the examples in my previous post. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat those words, but something tells me we'll never know how this story ends; I full do not expect this random blogger to update the story if T-Mobile fixes the issue, but I won't be surprised if they complain again next month if it's not fixed yet.
And if you were close to my age...
When did you graduate, friend?
[1]: I'm not, I could leave at any moment as I have no obligation to them, no ETF, phones paid for, etc... I don't because there's not a better option for me at the moment. I left AT&T at the drop of a hat, after 13 years of excellent service (a hint as to my age, I left AT&T 2 years ago, almost to the day; please check your assumptions at the door), when a better option came along and I'll do the same with T-Mobile if it happens again.
*woosh*
You just want more RAM?
In soviet Russia, drunk Boris Yeltsin watches you.
On the Set up accounts screen, choose which accounts you want to set up. Tap Skip if you do not want to set up accounts.