This is a useful exercise. Printing guns will either force our government to try and regulate even privately built guns, or we will have an alternative, no matter how inadequate, to being told 'no'.
That horse has already left the barn. Any organized crime group worth a darn is already in possession of the technology to print guns. That fight is already lost.
This is not about supply and demand. It is about exercising Second Amendment rights without the government illegally preventing you from doing so.
Yes, we can now start in discussing what is illegal for the government to do regarding guns, but it still comes down to being able to own a gun without getting permission from the government.
And that can be done if you can *make* the gun yourself.
Cost is not the issue. Supply, if you consider government regulation and denial to be a supply issue, fine.
Ok. just trying to understand the expectation here. If I tolerate the expansion of surveillance, I can hope to be the second target for a group. If I'm the first, well, my sacrifice may be someone else's salvation.
Ah yes, the difference between prevention and prosecution. Is this worth the infringement? I vote no, come back with a prevention plan.
But I live and work in the Phoenix area, and we don't expect the Muslims to bomb us. Look for the illegal immigration advocates to do that here, more likely, though so far they have avoided such overt violence.
And keep the flames coming. We're used to the heat.
When did *i* even state that I got a phone for 'practically nothing'? Your poor comprehension skills are causing you trouble here. I've never thought or said I believed I got a phone for 'practically nothing'.
I was always entirely aware of the installment plan. It was never, to me, hidden, obscured, or less than fully disclosed.
Now there are, I guess people out there that think you can get a $600 phone for $99 if you have a plan, and if you terminate the plan you ought to walk off with the phone for a fraction of its retail value.
So who's the idiot here? Me, who gets it, or the unwashed who think they get the phone for a pittance? Go ahead, explain how the average moron is indeed paying so little attention they think that embedding the cost in the plan is such a deal.
And where I work, we also need to disclose terms and conditions. Our standard is that these terms and conditions are understood by our customers, or we explain it sufficiently that they can repeat back these terms and conditions accurately. And then we ask if they agree. Merely meeting the letter of the law is no longer sufficient. SO I get it, but I got it with my Tmobile plan without lengthy explanations, though they were offered. I wasn't misled by any advertising. TMobile's point is that they sell you service and the phone separately. If you choose to pay for the phone over 2 years, well, 2 years it is.
No part of the phone purchase contract requires service. Cell service is not dependent on the phone purchase contract.
Every time I spoke with a rep, they kept repeating the terms; 24 months, $20 per month, $99 down payment.
Seriously, I get that the Washington AG found enough cause to compel TMO to offer more disclosure, but I have not yet found anything that was not exactly as I expected it.
You presume the accountant can write the specs. Which presumes they can figure out all that is part of the current system.
I would expect that 2 years later, tops, something will come up that requires a patch, and the custom programmer you used is either drunk, dead, or expensive. and the code is undocumented, convoluted, and beyond maintainable.
Just experience talking here. It could happen in 6 months as well.
"(one bar in my apartment, the tower is 300 feet away, clear LOS.)"
Another anecdotal complaint about service at a specific location.
Whatever the reason, don't you get it? Cell service is imperfect.You can find similar stories for E V E R Y carrier in your area. So if this is a problem that compels you to change carriers, you'll be changing to landlines.
Sorry, but such stories bespeak the sheer ignorance of the complaintant. It's not useful. Let it go, or move out of your brokeass apartment and choose to live where you get the features you desire, like sunshine and cell service. Sheesh, didn't you check before you signed the lease?
I'm a subscriber, and I don't see the deception. Somewhat inadequate disclosure, maybe, but I have no service contract. And I always understood that the phone was so much down, so much a month for so many months. And that was EXACTLY how it was explained.
Now, I bought my new phone for $99 down, $51 tax (dead giveway that this is not so simple there!!!), shipping, and $2/month for 24 months. My phone will cost me about $636, tax & shipping included.
And in 2 years, when I 've paid off the phone, or sooner if I choose, my bill goes down $20/month.
The last 2 times I kept a phone beyond the contract expiration, I kept one for 18 months past, the other for 8 months past. In both cases, my bill did not go down. I was still paying as if I were paying off a subsidized (or financed) phone - terrific windfall for my carrier. Now, that won't happen. And I keep the phone. And it will actually work on another carrier's system; I am permitted to unlock it when I pay it off, if not before.
BTW, in TMobile's new plans, there is very little incentive to lock the phone. They get paid for the phone anyways, no contract means leaving whenever, so locking is something of a legacy from the dark past. AT&T, are you listening?
No, it isn't Just expenditures. Most of our Congressmen have, however, aligned themselves into one of two camps; lower taxes and reduce spending, or maintain spending and raise taxes.
There is little support for a third action - reduce government services.
Remember, Medicare/Medicaid can well be described as an entitlement program, but Social Security was mot designed that way, and should not be characterized as such. My contributions to SSA were expected to fund the program. Attempts to reduce or eliminate my future benefits will be seen by me and others as robbery. Reducing Medicare benefits will just be another broken promise.
Both will get me involved, and my representatives do not like it when i get involved
Slashdot Mirror
that's not so big. add two zeros and call me.
Wow. Just wow. This is modded insightful because of the insight it offers into the mind of an AC, right?
Pay attention. he;s made two of them at least, and lived through testing both, no injuries.
perhaps you would volunteer for the third try, to satisfy your virtually total lack of information of this?
^^What was said. Oh, for a mod point.
This is a useful exercise. Printing guns will either force our government to try and regulate even privately built guns, or we will have an alternative, no matter how inadequate, to being told 'no'.
You can guess i don't really trust my government.
That horse has already left the barn. Any organized crime group worth a darn is already in possession of the technology to print guns. That fight is already lost.
This is not about supply and demand. It is about exercising Second Amendment rights without the government illegally preventing you from doing so.
Yes, we can now start in discussing what is illegal for the government to do regarding guns, but it still comes down to being able to own a gun without getting permission from the government.
And that can be done if you can *make* the gun yourself.
Cost is not the issue. Supply, if you consider government regulation and denial to be a supply issue, fine.
"the reason for the cameras is really deterrence."
And how is that working? I think it is not.
So batting .500 is acceptable.
Ok. just trying to understand the expectation here. If I tolerate the expansion of surveillance, I can hope to be the second target for a group. If I'm the first, well, my sacrifice may be someone else's salvation.
Ah yes, the difference between prevention and prosecution. Is this worth the infringement? I vote no, come back with a prevention plan.
But I live and work in the Phoenix area, and we don't expect the Muslims to bomb us. Look for the illegal immigration advocates to do that here, more likely, though so far they have avoided such overt violence.
And keep the flames coming. We're used to the heat.
When did *i* even state that I got a phone for 'practically nothing'?
Your poor comprehension skills are causing you trouble here. I've never thought or said I believed I got a phone for 'practically nothing'.
You are in error.
Of course I do. Do I look that stupid to you?
I was always entirely aware of the installment plan. It was never, to me, hidden, obscured, or less than fully disclosed.
Now there are, I guess people out there that think you can get a $600 phone for $99 if you have a plan, and if you terminate the plan you ought to walk off with the phone for a fraction of its retail value.
So who's the idiot here? Me, who gets it, or the unwashed who think they get the phone for a pittance? Go ahead, explain how the average moron is indeed paying so little attention they think that embedding the cost in the plan is such a deal.
And where I work, we also need to disclose terms and conditions. Our standard is that these terms and conditions are understood by our customers, or we explain it sufficiently that they can repeat back these terms and conditions accurately. And then we ask if they agree. Merely meeting the letter of the law is no longer sufficient. SO I get it, but I got it with my Tmobile plan without lengthy explanations, though they were offered. I wasn't misled by any advertising. TMobile's point is that they sell you service and the phone separately. If you choose to pay for the phone over 2 years, well, 2 years it is.
No part of the phone purchase contract requires service. Cell service is not dependent on the phone purchase contract.
Every time I spoke with a rep, they kept repeating the terms; 24 months, $20 per month, $99 down payment.
Seriously, I get that the Washington AG found enough cause to compel TMO to offer more disclosure, but I have not yet found anything that was not exactly as I expected it.
So you understand. Good.
You say contract, i say potahto.
I'm looking at this correctly. I agreed to buy the phone on installments. I have no service contract.
I also recieved an installment loan agreement in email that matches the one I completed online. It was fully disclosed, even stating the APY was 0.0%.
If you're thinking this is deceptive, you are mistaken. Period.
What opposition?
SAP is Satan's preferred method of interaction with this world. Ask him, he'll tell ya. He's the one in the suit that sold it to your boss.
And that, audience, is why sort routines were so popular back then.
An RPN calculator is still the best way to balance your checking account, if you still balance your account.
If you don't you may not be able to afford a decent calculator.
You presume the accountant can write the specs. Which presumes they can figure out all that is part of the current system.
I would expect that 2 years later, tops, something will come up that requires a patch, and the custom programmer you used is either drunk, dead, or expensive. and the code is undocumented, convoluted, and beyond maintainable.
Just experience talking here. It could happen in 6 months as well.
"(one bar in my apartment, the tower is 300 feet away, clear LOS.)"
Another anecdotal complaint about service at a specific location.
Whatever the reason, don't you get it? Cell service is imperfect.You can find similar stories for E V E R Y carrier in your area. So if this is a problem that compels you to change carriers, you'll be changing to landlines.
Sorry, but such stories bespeak the sheer ignorance of the complaintant. It's not useful. Let it go, or move out of your brokeass apartment and choose to live where you get the features you desire, like sunshine and cell service. Sheesh, didn't you check before you signed the lease?
I'm a subscriber, and I don't see the deception. Somewhat inadequate disclosure, maybe, but I have no service contract. And I always understood that the phone was so much down, so much a month for so many months. And that was EXACTLY how it was explained.
Now, I bought my new phone for $99 down, $51 tax (dead giveway that this is not so simple there!!!), shipping, and $2/month for 24 months. My phone will cost me about $636, tax & shipping included.
And in 2 years, when I 've paid off the phone, or sooner if I choose, my bill goes down $20/month.
The last 2 times I kept a phone beyond the contract expiration, I kept one for 18 months past, the other for 8 months past. In both cases, my bill did not go down. I was still paying as if I were paying off a subsidized (or financed) phone - terrific windfall for my carrier. Now, that won't happen. And I keep the phone. And it will actually work on another carrier's system; I am permitted to unlock it when I pay it off, if not before.
BTW, in TMobile's new plans, there is very little incentive to lock the phone. They get paid for the phone anyways, no contract means leaving whenever, so locking is something of a legacy from the dark past. AT&T, are you listening?
No, it isn't Just expenditures. Most of our Congressmen have, however, aligned themselves into one of two camps; lower taxes and reduce spending, or maintain spending and raise taxes.
There is little support for a third action - reduce government services.
Remember, Medicare/Medicaid can well be described as an entitlement program, but Social Security was mot designed that way, and should not be characterized as such. My contributions to SSA were expected to fund the program. Attempts to reduce or eliminate my future benefits will be seen by me and others as robbery. Reducing Medicare benefits will just be another broken promise.
Both will get me involved, and my representatives do not like it when i get involved
How often can you change your user name here?
I suspect as often as you can change your gender preference. And with the same effect.
Want