OK, but even if you go with the former, they're still claiming that they're the only ones that do that, which is blatantly untrue. Most or all of the other big 3 provide that option and many of the 2nd tier providers do as well.
Bottom line is that the advertisements are deceptive and misleading.
And so do the other carriers. I can do that with other carriers. I didn't bother watching the ones other than the first link, but they're clearly fraudulent advertisements. T-Mobile is not the only carrier that lets you go without a contract. And claiming that they are is in fact deceptive marketing.
I'm really curious as to how you explain that away. Because it's clearly a lie that T-Mobile is doing something novel that's not available from the other carriers.
And your point is? Viewing the commercials I didn't see anything that indicated that. I'll have to pay closer attention next time they come on, but I don't recall seeing any fine print that indicated that.
The WA AG is suing because it's a false advertisement, not because the terms of the deal are necessarily unfair, but because they've apparently had ads which were deceptive put on the air.
Slashdot apparently pays the editors $22k a year and the editors don't actually seem to do any editing. I think that might describe the problem. Incompetence and apathy.
Personally, I come here for the trolling, but even that's going down hill. This current APK BS doesn't hold a candle to Dr. Bob and it's actually even less competent and thoughtful than all that "care and feeding of niggers" bullshit from some years back.
That's more or less it. I have an account and I've bought a few things and they're reasonably nice. But a lot of it is junk, that would previously have been in The Sharper image at 10x the cost. I do love the cutting board and the laptop light I got from them, but most of the items appear to be crap.
I dunno, I've been a member there for a while. I'm not making like huge amounts of money on it, but I've gotten some free stuff and I get a small amount of money from it.
Conceptually it's interesting, but I doubt there's much room for growth.Certainly not enough for it to support many competitors.
And that's sort of the point. T-Mobile might not be great, but it's less not great than most of the competitors.
Personally I'm likely to go with somebody like Sprint or Credomobile next time I need a new phone as they seem to be in less of a position to screw me over than the larger carriers. Plus, I found that Sprint coverage around here was by and large pretty reliable compared with Spotty AT&T coverage.
The point is that this has been the case with all the carriers for quite some time. You could go month to month and not get the included phone. Now you don't get a rate break if you don't do it, but you don't have the early termination fee either.
By advertising them as a no-contract network they were deceiving potential customers and putting themselves at a competitive advantage without actually having to do anything other than claim that they were doing something differently.
The point here is that nobody is claiming like they aren't giving you a contract with regards to the car. An auto loan is clearly a contract and most dealers don't advertise them anyways, they typically advertise the cars and their financing options.
In this case, T-Mobile is advertising no contract plans that aren't actually no contract plans, which is why they're getting sued. I wasn't aware that they were doing this, but if they really were, then the advertisements are clearly misleading.
It gets worse when you realize that the shortages are the result of including people that couldn't be given a transplant even if there were a perfect match available right now. Either they're no longer healthy enough or they're otherwise not cleared for the transplant. In either case they're kept on the list to bolster efforts to get more organs.
Which is problematic because in the US the standards employed to ensure that the system doesn't turn people into organ donors when there's still a chance of saving them doesn't work very well. The doctors doing the transplant are sometimes representing both the dieing and the individual needing the transplant. What's more, in many places they're changing the standards so that it's opt out and good luck if you happen to be taken to a hospital that doesn't have a record of you not wanting to give up your organs, or where you have specific wishes you want respected.
I don't mind the idea of my organs being harvested, I just don't care for having somebody else making those sorts of decisions without proper consideration for me.
This I agree with. A well run business would treat their employees with some respect as retraining and turn over can be quite expensive in the long run compared with just paying a living wage with decent benefits.
Which would work fine, if not for the fact that DC is tiny compared with the government facilities needed. The bomb ranges alone would likely take up more area that the entirely of DC combined.
Not to mention the fact that one nuke or even just terrorist attack of the scale of the Boston Marathon bombing would disrupt the entire government.
I doubt there was, especially given that Google doesn't just choose cities at random, the cities have to put in a proposal of some sort. I'm sure technically they could have said no, but if it was unanimous, you can be pretty sure that the odds were indistinguishable from 100% that it would be accepted.
I do hope that they eventually get to Seattle as we have a crapload of fiber just sitting around and the incumbents don't seem to be particularly interesting in giving us fast speeds at any price.
Wrong, the government has the right to break into the data, but not to force somebody to interpret the data for them.
This would be a bit like if you had a secret crime lair where you kept all the evidence of your misdeeds. The government would have a right to search for it, but if they couldn't find it or couldn't figure out how to open it, they couldn't force you to open it for them or tell them where it is or acknowledge its existence.
What's more, they couldn't force you to incriminate yourself against other crimes that you might have committed by revealing that evidence to them.
The only exceptions I've heard about to the protection are cases where LEO already knew what was inside the container and had seen the materials prior to being shut out of it.
Right and then there's the situation of taxable account versus non-taxable account and whether one is using a DRIP.
But, in either case, the effect can be substantial for a lot of people. Enough so that it pays to pay attention to the consequences and the preferred method of a company.
Executives conceptualize them differently because they aren't mathematical equivalents when it comes to the effect on the wealth of the shareholders. In both cases they return wealth to the shareholders, however they have different tax consequences and different methods by which one can tap that revenue source. When I get a dividend, I can have it reinvested or I can have that money available for other uses. With a stock buy back, I have to sell shares in order to make use of the extra money. What's more, I have to pay for the privilege.
What's more, in any given case they aren't going to come out the same. If you have a company with plenty of cash that's trading well below it's value, it can be quite profitable for all the investors for the company buy back shares. Now, for a company that's overvalued it can be a waste of money to buy back those shares whereas a dividend payment would be the more efficient way of getting investors money back.
In other words, it takes a certain level of misunderstanding to think that they're equivalent when there's so much involved, the tax situation alone ensures that the two are not equivalent.
The point is that if you don't show to the tax payers what they're losing they might not object. The bottom line is that it's hard to really appreciate what years of underfunded infrastructure is until a bridge falls down. But, if people have to wait an additional 20 minutes for their plane to depart they'll notice that.
Taxes are not evil, what's evil is using tax breaks to break the American worker.
When's the last time the GOP cut spending? I'm guessing that would probably be during Ford's administration or earlier as I can't recall them ever doing so during my lifetime. And during every single time they've been in control spending has gone through the roof.
But, what's worse is that the spending hasn't been on anything which benefited the average citizen, it's mostly on things that benefit the rich. The actual working class makes less now than they did 30 years ago, even as the rich have gained even more.
The issue is that they can't agree on what to cut. The GOP refuses to cut things that support the military industrial complex and generally things that subsidize the rich. The Democrats are slightly less dedicated to social programs that actually help people. Then there's the various facilities and industries that are located in one or another state.
Between all of that, it's unlikely that you'll get much in the way of cuts.
Not that it really matters because the RWNJs will complain about the crushing levels of taxation no matter what it actually is.
Except that's how businesses in the US generally work. Layoffs and pay cuts to the employees before the executives have to take a pay cut, and even then that's after they've failed to find a way of declaring bankruptcy and auctioning themselves off for a bonus.
The problem isn't the sacred cows. The problem is that the people demanding tax cuts won't accept service cuts to things they like.
TBH, I'd love to have programs that support other people cut so that I can have lower taxes, but that kind of thinking doesn't work. I'm not sure why my tax dollars should go to subsidize people that live in the middle of nowhere or who vote for local officials that refuse to run their state in a sustainable way. The South and most of the Red states couldn't exist if not for the rather large subsidies that the Blue states provide.
Dividends encourage investors to hold their shares for long periods of time by giving some income along the way. A buy back is something which boosts the price of the shares, but does nothing to generate a revenue stream for the investor. And if it doesn't inspire new investors to buy in, it can result in little or no benefit to the investor.
What's more, you can issue a dividend regardless of what the price of the stock is with respect to it's actual worth, whereas you shouldn't be buying back stock unless the shares are worth less than the management thinks they're worth.
Dividends themselves are generally something that only make sense when the firm doesn't have somewhere to invest the money themselves. It basically says to the investor that you're going to make more money investing the money elsewhere than we're going to derive by investing it ourselves. And frequently that means that the business can't expand any further for regulatory reasons.
Didn't we just cover this the other day? In the UK truth is not an absolute defense against libel. It should be, but it isn't. It's pretty clear that the intent behind posting what he's posted was malicious and as such he could very well be liable for that.
Not to mention whatever wiretao laws are in place in the UK.
As for morality. I'm sorry, but this isn't moral. 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. This is outright immoral and likely to cause all sorts of problems for society. Vigilantism is just not something which is acceptable in a civilized society.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, but even if you go with the former, they're still claiming that they're the only ones that do that, which is blatantly untrue. Most or all of the other big 3 provide that option and many of the 2nd tier providers do as well.
Bottom line is that the advertisements are deceptive and misleading.
And so do the other carriers. I can do that with other carriers. I didn't bother watching the ones other than the first link, but they're clearly fraudulent advertisements. T-Mobile is not the only carrier that lets you go without a contract. And claiming that they are is in fact deceptive marketing.
I'm really curious as to how you explain that away. Because it's clearly a lie that T-Mobile is doing something novel that's not available from the other carriers.
And your point is? Viewing the commercials I didn't see anything that indicated that. I'll have to pay closer attention next time they come on, but I don't recall seeing any fine print that indicated that.
The WA AG is suing because it's a false advertisement, not because the terms of the deal are necessarily unfair, but because they've apparently had ads which were deceptive put on the air.
Slashdot apparently pays the editors $22k a year and the editors don't actually seem to do any editing. I think that might describe the problem. Incompetence and apathy.
Personally, I come here for the trolling, but even that's going down hill. This current APK BS doesn't hold a candle to Dr. Bob and it's actually even less competent and thoughtful than all that "care and feeding of niggers" bullshit from some years back.
That's more or less it. I have an account and I've bought a few things and they're reasonably nice. But a lot of it is junk, that would previously have been in The Sharper image at 10x the cost. I do love the cutting board and the laptop light I got from them, but most of the items appear to be crap.
I dunno, I've been a member there for a while. I'm not making like huge amounts of money on it, but I've gotten some free stuff and I get a small amount of money from it.
Conceptually it's interesting, but I doubt there's much room for growth.Certainly not enough for it to support many competitors.
And that's sort of the point. T-Mobile might not be great, but it's less not great than most of the competitors.
Personally I'm likely to go with somebody like Sprint or Credomobile next time I need a new phone as they seem to be in less of a position to screw me over than the larger carriers. Plus, I found that Sprint coverage around here was by and large pretty reliable compared with Spotty AT&T coverage.
The point is that this has been the case with all the carriers for quite some time. You could go month to month and not get the included phone. Now you don't get a rate break if you don't do it, but you don't have the early termination fee either.
By advertising them as a no-contract network they were deceiving potential customers and putting themselves at a competitive advantage without actually having to do anything other than claim that they were doing something differently.
The point here is that nobody is claiming like they aren't giving you a contract with regards to the car. An auto loan is clearly a contract and most dealers don't advertise them anyways, they typically advertise the cars and their financing options.
In this case, T-Mobile is advertising no contract plans that aren't actually no contract plans, which is why they're getting sued. I wasn't aware that they were doing this, but if they really were, then the advertisements are clearly misleading.
It gets worse when you realize that the shortages are the result of including people that couldn't be given a transplant even if there were a perfect match available right now. Either they're no longer healthy enough or they're otherwise not cleared for the transplant. In either case they're kept on the list to bolster efforts to get more organs.
Which is problematic because in the US the standards employed to ensure that the system doesn't turn people into organ donors when there's still a chance of saving them doesn't work very well. The doctors doing the transplant are sometimes representing both the dieing and the individual needing the transplant. What's more, in many places they're changing the standards so that it's opt out and good luck if you happen to be taken to a hospital that doesn't have a record of you not wanting to give up your organs, or where you have specific wishes you want respected.
I don't mind the idea of my organs being harvested, I just don't care for having somebody else making those sorts of decisions without proper consideration for me.
I'm guessing that the bond money was already spent and that Google wouldn't have agreed to come if they had to pay back the bond money.
Yes, it sucks for the tax payers, but at least this way they'll be getting service, even if the money itself was wasted.
This I agree with. A well run business would treat their employees with some respect as retraining and turn over can be quite expensive in the long run compared with just paying a living wage with decent benefits.
Which would work fine, if not for the fact that DC is tiny compared with the government facilities needed. The bomb ranges alone would likely take up more area that the entirely of DC combined.
Not to mention the fact that one nuke or even just terrorist attack of the scale of the Boston Marathon bombing would disrupt the entire government.
I doubt there was, especially given that Google doesn't just choose cities at random, the cities have to put in a proposal of some sort. I'm sure technically they could have said no, but if it was unanimous, you can be pretty sure that the odds were indistinguishable from 100% that it would be accepted.
I do hope that they eventually get to Seattle as we have a crapload of fiber just sitting around and the incumbents don't seem to be particularly interesting in giving us fast speeds at any price.
$22k a year? I'd be willing to not edit the submissions for a fraction of that.
Wrong, the government has the right to break into the data, but not to force somebody to interpret the data for them.
This would be a bit like if you had a secret crime lair where you kept all the evidence of your misdeeds. The government would have a right to search for it, but if they couldn't find it or couldn't figure out how to open it, they couldn't force you to open it for them or tell them where it is or acknowledge its existence.
What's more, they couldn't force you to incriminate yourself against other crimes that you might have committed by revealing that evidence to them.
The only exceptions I've heard about to the protection are cases where LEO already knew what was inside the container and had seen the materials prior to being shut out of it.
Right and then there's the situation of taxable account versus non-taxable account and whether one is using a DRIP.
But, in either case, the effect can be substantial for a lot of people. Enough so that it pays to pay attention to the consequences and the preferred method of a company.
That's just bullshit.
Executives conceptualize them differently because they aren't mathematical equivalents when it comes to the effect on the wealth of the shareholders. In both cases they return wealth to the shareholders, however they have different tax consequences and different methods by which one can tap that revenue source. When I get a dividend, I can have it reinvested or I can have that money available for other uses. With a stock buy back, I have to sell shares in order to make use of the extra money. What's more, I have to pay for the privilege.
What's more, in any given case they aren't going to come out the same. If you have a company with plenty of cash that's trading well below it's value, it can be quite profitable for all the investors for the company buy back shares. Now, for a company that's overvalued it can be a waste of money to buy back those shares whereas a dividend payment would be the more efficient way of getting investors money back.
In other words, it takes a certain level of misunderstanding to think that they're equivalent when there's so much involved, the tax situation alone ensures that the two are not equivalent.
The point is that if you don't show to the tax payers what they're losing they might not object. The bottom line is that it's hard to really appreciate what years of underfunded infrastructure is until a bridge falls down. But, if people have to wait an additional 20 minutes for their plane to depart they'll notice that.
Taxes are not evil, what's evil is using tax breaks to break the American worker.
When's the last time the GOP cut spending? I'm guessing that would probably be during Ford's administration or earlier as I can't recall them ever doing so during my lifetime. And during every single time they've been in control spending has gone through the roof.
But, what's worse is that the spending hasn't been on anything which benefited the average citizen, it's mostly on things that benefit the rich. The actual working class makes less now than they did 30 years ago, even as the rich have gained even more.
The issue is that they can't agree on what to cut. The GOP refuses to cut things that support the military industrial complex and generally things that subsidize the rich. The Democrats are slightly less dedicated to social programs that actually help people. Then there's the various facilities and industries that are located in one or another state.
Between all of that, it's unlikely that you'll get much in the way of cuts.
Not that it really matters because the RWNJs will complain about the crushing levels of taxation no matter what it actually is.
Except that's how businesses in the US generally work. Layoffs and pay cuts to the employees before the executives have to take a pay cut, and even then that's after they've failed to find a way of declaring bankruptcy and auctioning themselves off for a bonus.
The problem isn't the sacred cows. The problem is that the people demanding tax cuts won't accept service cuts to things they like.
TBH, I'd love to have programs that support other people cut so that I can have lower taxes, but that kind of thinking doesn't work. I'm not sure why my tax dollars should go to subsidize people that live in the middle of nowhere or who vote for local officials that refuse to run their state in a sustainable way. The South and most of the Red states couldn't exist if not for the rather large subsidies that the Blue states provide.
No, they're not.
Dividends encourage investors to hold their shares for long periods of time by giving some income along the way. A buy back is something which boosts the price of the shares, but does nothing to generate a revenue stream for the investor. And if it doesn't inspire new investors to buy in, it can result in little or no benefit to the investor.
What's more, you can issue a dividend regardless of what the price of the stock is with respect to it's actual worth, whereas you shouldn't be buying back stock unless the shares are worth less than the management thinks they're worth.
Dividends themselves are generally something that only make sense when the firm doesn't have somewhere to invest the money themselves. It basically says to the investor that you're going to make more money investing the money elsewhere than we're going to derive by investing it ourselves. And frequently that means that the business can't expand any further for regulatory reasons.
Didn't we just cover this the other day? In the UK truth is not an absolute defense against libel. It should be, but it isn't. It's pretty clear that the intent behind posting what he's posted was malicious and as such he could very well be liable for that.
Not to mention whatever wiretao laws are in place in the UK.
As for morality. I'm sorry, but this isn't moral. 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. This is outright immoral and likely to cause all sorts of problems for society. Vigilantism is just not something which is acceptable in a civilized society.