I'm using a T-Mobile phone on that AT&T network without any problems. Sure, I'm stuck with edge, but it works just fine. Considering the data caps in places, it doesn't make much sense to use 3G or 4G anyways as you can easily run through the data cap in a few hours of heavy use.
Not to mention that all of the major carriers do sell to 3rd party carriers AFAIK, and this wouldn't really apply to them either.
The problem is that there's no requirement that the ToS or EULA be understandable by a non-attorney, and even attorneys have an issue at times understanding what they're really being asked to agree to.
As long as the courts are under the delusion that we all have unlimited funds for attorneys, this will go on.
That's what the contract break fee is supposed to be for. If you don't pay the carier back for their loan, then you cut them a check to cover it. And it absolutely is my property, they don't have the right to take it back and can't to tell me what apps I can and can't use from the appstore..
That's what the contract break fee is for, to pay that back. The customer owns the phone at all points along there, if they didn't, then the carier would have to pay to replace it if it broke. The customer owns the phone, they're just financing it via a non-optional rider to their plan.
So, the fact that they're working to reduce their emission is somehow offset by the consumers' lack of interest in locally made items produced in a more green manner?
Because obviously, if they don't solve all their problems all at once, they're just greedy bastards.
If you've got a problem with that, perhaps you should be looking at the conservatives that insist upon subsidizing oil, but refuse to subsidize solar, and the numerous free trade agreements that make it hard for US factories to compete with foreign ones.
Solar is solar, and ultimately any progress made their is a step in the right direction, even if it isn't perfect.
And ironically enough, that means higher taxes for everybody else as they purposefully fail to pay a living wage or provide any sort of benefits. And, undercut the local retailers leaving no jobs either before they move onto a new community to suck dry.
Not true, the fact of the matter is that card counting depends upon there being relatively large number of cards to function correctly. If you were trying to count against a single deck, you wouldn't see enough hands in order to have any meaningful impact on the cards.
The difference is that if you're counting cards, you're varying your bets so that you're betting more when you're more likely to get a good hand and less when you're less likely to.
And yeah, they've got a pretty good idea as to who is and isn't counting cards. The industry puts a ton of money into figuring that out as they can easily lose tons of money to card counters if they don't. Usually, they're looking at things like bet history, rate at which the player is playing and such, often times the pit boss will go over and chat you up if they think you're card counting, to try and distract you a bit.
The only part of the casino where they ever permit people to be profitable without being lucky, is the slots. The slots will have the pay schedule on the front of the machine, and sometimes you find some machines where they're set to pay out more than they take in. They'll usually be up front near the door to try and entice suckers to come and gamble. And they're usually video poker where if you play perfectly, you can expect a small profit over time.
It's typically legal to count cards, however the house isn't legally required to let you do so. And that's even if you aren't using mechanical assistance. Typically if they catch you doing it, the pit boss will come over and switch things up, and if that doesn't work they'll eject you from the casino or ask that you not play any more blackjack.
Which is understandable, blackjack only gives the house about a.5% edge over the player with normal play, and counting cards can easily change the house into operating at a loss.
But, the fact that things are stacked in the house's favor and that the house keeps it that way is dubious ethically speaking. Most players are not in any position to understand that to any appreciable degree.
As opposed to the many billions of dollars that have been lost by people who allowed their experience to cloud their judgment and run their own business into the ground. It happens more often than you think, just look at Kodak for instance. Where they let their experience rail them into a spiral of disaster.
And as for the this time it will be different, that's not what I'm talking about. If they can't give you a reason why it's going to be different, they're no different than the oldsters.
Pretty much, most people are of the hurd mentality and if you go against the hurd, then you wind up being burnt at the stake or shunned.
The elderly end up trapped in their own experience in many cases because they, wrongly, believe that they have seen everything and that this case is exactly like the one they've seen previously. Which might be true in many cases, but if it isn't true, their mental rigidity will prevent them from ever seeing the truth no matter how obvious it is to an outsider.
Experience is a good thing if what you're doing is like the things you've had experience with, it gets the job done faster, but if there's any novelty to it, you run the risk of doing it wrong.
Reminds me of the movie "Freeze Frame." Where the guy, having been falsely accused of a horrendous crime, resolves to have a constant chain of video of whatever he's doing at all times.
Drones aren't planes, they're designed to go low and slow and be expendible. If planes were typically going that low and that slow, the military would be more concerned with it. Plus, you're a fool if you think the typical hunting rifle is comparable with a sniper's rifle.
I used to be a security officer and that's simply not true. At most, you might be questioned about it, and even that's relatively unlikely unless you're already under surveillance. But, if they're going any further than that, you've likely done something else that raised suspicion.
You think that satellites can't do that? This is just about appearances, nothing more, or they just wanted access to those phones for industrial espionage reasons.
This is about as legitimate as banning hunting rifles because they could shoot down military planes. I'm sure it's technically possible to get lucky, but it's rather unlikely that somebody is going to be able to hit something going that fast that far up on purpose.
As long as there is no evidence to support the hypothesis nor any testable hypothesis it's at best pseudo science. Trying to make excuses for people believing in such malarchy is really asking for trouble. I could believe that there's a magical fairy that lives in my closet and hand wave away the fact that there's no evidence in such a manner. Doesn't make it likely that there's a magical fairy living inside my closet.
As far as proof beyond us, that's just hogwash. People say that because there is no proof to be had. If there isn't proof to be had in any obvious way, that just makes the idea ludicrous on the face of it. And certainly not any different from any other mental illness.
Everything in the universe is expanding from a single point and at a rate which would put everything in the same spot about 13 billion years ago.
Seems logical enough to me that something exploded at that location 13ish billion years ago. Just because you choose to believe in such nonsense without any evidence to support the hypothesis does not put it on any sort of equal footing with observable reality. It just means that you were raised to believe in things without any good reason to believe in it.
And yes, there is something very wrong with people believing in things like this when it undermines belief in reality that can be demonstrated empirically. And yes, when you undermine scientific inquiry with such nonsense it harms more than just the believers.
Yes, but what's the point of that? They're already believing in something that doesn't make any sort of rational sense, presenting them with further evidence isn't likely to do anything than cause your blood pressure to spike.
That's bullshit right there. Strength training is done for short periods of time and large amounts of weight. If it takes you that much time, then you're doing it wrong.
I realize that the fitness industry has everybody conditioned to think that they need to do a dozen different workouts and you've got to hit puny muscle Y, but if you're moving your body as a unit, you'll hit all of those spots. And the fact of the matter is, that there's no reason to be hitting most of those small muscles anyways as they're already getting a work out whenever you're working their antagonizing muscles.
You do 6 exercises across the week and yeah, I guess 10-20 is a bit on the low side, but an hour 3 times a week is way more than what it takes. I work out about an hour a week, tops, and I'm definitely growing strong.
You look at the way people spend their work out time, the penny ante crap that does nothing for them. The stretching and the cool downs, and the multiple exercises that work the same basic groups of muscles, and yeah, if you do cut out all that crap that you don't need in the first place, you can easily cut out half or a third of your time. Not to mention the fact that if you're going into a gym to work out, there's a ton of down time in the middle of your work out when you're switching equipment or waiting on gear.
Not true. Unless you're in a place where the heat is turned up to high. Which it probably is, because even outside of server rooms, people turn the thermostat up way too high in the winter.
Doing some basic calisthenics isn't going to make you break a sweat. Now, if you're wanting to burn a lot of calories or tune up the heart, that's likely going to require sweat equity.
If you want to get strong and you're spending more than about 10 or 20 minutes a work out, you're wasting time.
Sort of, if you're research data doesn't mesh with everybody elses data, you'll find it be subjected to closer scrutiny until they find the reasons for that.
In practice though, consensus tends to form around sound conclusions rather than the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm using a T-Mobile phone on that AT&T network without any problems. Sure, I'm stuck with edge, but it works just fine. Considering the data caps in places, it doesn't make much sense to use 3G or 4G anyways as you can easily run through the data cap in a few hours of heavy use.
Not to mention that all of the major carriers do sell to 3rd party carriers AFAIK, and this wouldn't really apply to them either.
You own it at that point, the contract termination fee is there to recover the cost that hasn't yet been paid.
And, you pay that fee whether or not you get a phone in most cases. The whole thing is a scam designed to make it hard to change carriers.
The problem is that there's no requirement that the ToS or EULA be understandable by a non-attorney, and even attorneys have an issue at times understanding what they're really being asked to agree to.
As long as the courts are under the delusion that we all have unlimited funds for attorneys, this will go on.
That's what the contract break fee is supposed to be for. If you don't pay the carier back for their loan, then you cut them a check to cover it. And it absolutely is my property, they don't have the right to take it back and can't to tell me what apps I can and can't use from the appstore..
That's what the contract break fee is for, to pay that back. The customer owns the phone at all points along there, if they didn't, then the carier would have to pay to replace it if it broke. The customer owns the phone, they're just financing it via a non-optional rider to their plan.
So, the fact that they're working to reduce their emission is somehow offset by the consumers' lack of interest in locally made items produced in a more green manner?
Because obviously, if they don't solve all their problems all at once, they're just greedy bastards.
If you've got a problem with that, perhaps you should be looking at the conservatives that insist upon subsidizing oil, but refuse to subsidize solar, and the numerous free trade agreements that make it hard for US factories to compete with foreign ones.
Solar is solar, and ultimately any progress made their is a step in the right direction, even if it isn't perfect.
And ironically enough, that means higher taxes for everybody else as they purposefully fail to pay a living wage or provide any sort of benefits. And, undercut the local retailers leaving no jobs either before they move onto a new community to suck dry.
Not true, the fact of the matter is that card counting depends upon there being relatively large number of cards to function correctly. If you were trying to count against a single deck, you wouldn't see enough hands in order to have any meaningful impact on the cards.
The difference is that if you're counting cards, you're varying your bets so that you're betting more when you're more likely to get a good hand and less when you're less likely to.
And yeah, they've got a pretty good idea as to who is and isn't counting cards. The industry puts a ton of money into figuring that out as they can easily lose tons of money to card counters if they don't. Usually, they're looking at things like bet history, rate at which the player is playing and such, often times the pit boss will go over and chat you up if they think you're card counting, to try and distract you a bit.
The only part of the casino where they ever permit people to be profitable without being lucky, is the slots. The slots will have the pay schedule on the front of the machine, and sometimes you find some machines where they're set to pay out more than they take in. They'll usually be up front near the door to try and entice suckers to come and gamble. And they're usually video poker where if you play perfectly, you can expect a small profit over time.
It's typically legal to count cards, however the house isn't legally required to let you do so. And that's even if you aren't using mechanical assistance. Typically if they catch you doing it, the pit boss will come over and switch things up, and if that doesn't work they'll eject you from the casino or ask that you not play any more blackjack.
Which is understandable, blackjack only gives the house about a .5% edge over the player with normal play, and counting cards can easily change the house into operating at a loss.
But, the fact that things are stacked in the house's favor and that the house keeps it that way is dubious ethically speaking. Most players are not in any position to understand that to any appreciable degree.
As opposed to the many billions of dollars that have been lost by people who allowed their experience to cloud their judgment and run their own business into the ground. It happens more often than you think, just look at Kodak for instance. Where they let their experience rail them into a spiral of disaster.
And as for the this time it will be different, that's not what I'm talking about. If they can't give you a reason why it's going to be different, they're no different than the oldsters.
Pretty much, most people are of the hurd mentality and if you go against the hurd, then you wind up being burnt at the stake or shunned.
The elderly end up trapped in their own experience in many cases because they, wrongly, believe that they have seen everything and that this case is exactly like the one they've seen previously. Which might be true in many cases, but if it isn't true, their mental rigidity will prevent them from ever seeing the truth no matter how obvious it is to an outsider.
Experience is a good thing if what you're doing is like the things you've had experience with, it gets the job done faster, but if there's any novelty to it, you run the risk of doing it wrong.
Obviously, it's only trolling if it's not what the reporter wants you to think, you idiot.
Reminds me of the movie "Freeze Frame." Where the guy, having been falsely accused of a horrendous crime, resolves to have a constant chain of video of whatever he's doing at all times.
Drones aren't planes, they're designed to go low and slow and be expendible. If planes were typically going that low and that slow, the military would be more concerned with it. Plus, you're a fool if you think the typical hunting rifle is comparable with a sniper's rifle.
I used to be a security officer and that's simply not true. At most, you might be questioned about it, and even that's relatively unlikely unless you're already under surveillance. But, if they're going any further than that, you've likely done something else that raised suspicion.
You think that satellites can't do that? This is just about appearances, nothing more, or they just wanted access to those phones for industrial espionage reasons.
This is about as legitimate as banning hunting rifles because they could shoot down military planes. I'm sure it's technically possible to get lucky, but it's rather unlikely that somebody is going to be able to hit something going that fast that far up on purpose.
What's that got to do with anything?
As long as there is no evidence to support the hypothesis nor any testable hypothesis it's at best pseudo science. Trying to make excuses for people believing in such malarchy is really asking for trouble. I could believe that there's a magical fairy that lives in my closet and hand wave away the fact that there's no evidence in such a manner. Doesn't make it likely that there's a magical fairy living inside my closet.
As far as proof beyond us, that's just hogwash. People say that because there is no proof to be had. If there isn't proof to be had in any obvious way, that just makes the idea ludicrous on the face of it. And certainly not any different from any other mental illness.
Everything in the universe is expanding from a single point and at a rate which would put everything in the same spot about 13 billion years ago.
Seems logical enough to me that something exploded at that location 13ish billion years ago. Just because you choose to believe in such nonsense without any evidence to support the hypothesis does not put it on any sort of equal footing with observable reality. It just means that you were raised to believe in things without any good reason to believe in it.
And yes, there is something very wrong with people believing in things like this when it undermines belief in reality that can be demonstrated empirically. And yes, when you undermine scientific inquiry with such nonsense it harms more than just the believers.
Yes, but what's the point of that? They're already believing in something that doesn't make any sort of rational sense, presenting them with further evidence isn't likely to do anything than cause your blood pressure to spike.
That's bullshit right there. Strength training is done for short periods of time and large amounts of weight. If it takes you that much time, then you're doing it wrong.
I realize that the fitness industry has everybody conditioned to think that they need to do a dozen different workouts and you've got to hit puny muscle Y, but if you're moving your body as a unit, you'll hit all of those spots. And the fact of the matter is, that there's no reason to be hitting most of those small muscles anyways as they're already getting a work out whenever you're working their antagonizing muscles.
You do 6 exercises across the week and yeah, I guess 10-20 is a bit on the low side, but an hour 3 times a week is way more than what it takes. I work out about an hour a week, tops, and I'm definitely growing strong.
You look at the way people spend their work out time, the penny ante crap that does nothing for them. The stretching and the cool downs, and the multiple exercises that work the same basic groups of muscles, and yeah, if you do cut out all that crap that you don't need in the first place, you can easily cut out half or a third of your time. Not to mention the fact that if you're going into a gym to work out, there's a ton of down time in the middle of your work out when you're switching equipment or waiting on gear.
Not true. Unless you're in a place where the heat is turned up to high. Which it probably is, because even outside of server rooms, people turn the thermostat up way too high in the winter.
Doing some basic calisthenics isn't going to make you break a sweat. Now, if you're wanting to burn a lot of calories or tune up the heart, that's likely going to require sweat equity.
If you want to get strong and you're spending more than about 10 or 20 minutes a work out, you're wasting time.
Sort of, if you're research data doesn't mesh with everybody elses data, you'll find it be subjected to closer scrutiny until they find the reasons for that.
In practice though, consensus tends to form around sound conclusions rather than the other way around.
They exist, but they're rare, owing in large part to the fact that it's the burden for the believers to prove, not the non-believers.