Hah. Bet the irony of that statement is lost on you.
Are you also going to criticize protesters who are against tax increases because they protest on the paved street which was paid for by tax money? Or people who want better food labeling who eat food that isn't labelled well?
Are you going to keep dodging my question? If so, could you at least get down to an apples-to-apples comparison? For example: Why, yes, I would criticize a Vegan who followed me into a pizza joint, approached me unsolicited, and rudely voiced his opinion of my lunch after taking a bite of a salad he had just put bacon-bits on.
Heh. I've always chuckled at that. Although I do need to take back something rather harsh I said a couple of years ago: I called the people you describe leeches and warned them that they are risking the existences of the sites they frequent, instead their actions are causing the related industries to sit up, take notice, and settle down.
Please share with us an example or two of what you're doing that's having a practical effect on making the world better for everyone else.
It's not that I don't believe that you do, it's just that you're posting this criticism on an ad-supported site after digging into a topic that clearly doesn't apply to you.
I just wanted to say I watched Battle Bots over the summer and was pleasantly surprised at how much more energy has gone into it. Finally we get some robot gore!
If you are so enlightened why are you spending your Saturday night criticizing strangers over the Internet when you could be biting your nails in fear of ISIS? Clearly reckless panic will be effective, so lead by example!
I pointed out that you are uninformed. What you choose to do with that substance is up to you.
... I'm inclined to believe the OP until someone presents a more informative reply than yours.
There's a third option: Do some research on your own. It involves more work, and it's not as fun as spitting pre-digested arguments that you really don't understand with anonymous people on-line, but you'll end up being far less prone to Sheepism than you are right now.
"If a customer calls in with any questions associated with the usage policy and how it relates to Net Neutrality, Netflix or observations about how XFINITY services are or are not counted relative to third party services, do not address these items with the customer."
This sorta reminds me of an experience I had with AT&T. I have one of the grandfathered unlimited plans. In 2011 AT&T started throttling unlimited users indiscriminately, some only using a gig in a month and then *BAM* modem speeds. I was never affected mainly because I never really used that much data (I do now... somewhat vengefully...) but I did want to know exactly what their minimum spec for throttled transfers was. That seems like a reasonable question, right? If they're offering an unlimited plan but throttling the speed, they should tell me what the minimum speed is otherwise zero kb/s is an option, meaning that's unlimited.
I had several phone calls and emails with them about that, 3/4ths of the conversation was them trying to convince me that it'll never affect me. "You can always use wifi!", "You don't actually use that much data", "a little data goes a long way!", and so on. I actually had to tell one rep that I had already heard all that and it didn't apply (I made up a story about going on a long business trip to a place with no wifi...) and she was nice enough to get her supervisor involved, and SHE had to listen to the bit about how we always have wifi and all that stuff. If the call didn't' take so long I would have considered that funny.
Their final answer was to tell me that their network throttling speed was proprietary information about their network performance and that I had no business knowing anything about it. Nice chaps, I hope they enjoy their 100 million dollar fine over it. Too bad Comcast isn't paying attention.
He's hitting Comcast in the wallet, what better way do you suggest? Oh and to save time, let's skip the 'vote with your wallet' approach which is not only impractical due to local monopolies, but is also indistinguishable from leaving for any other reason at all.
Why even spend the time on that when Foxconn produces parts for many manufactures and not just Apple? I wouldn't mind, but worker safety is a whole different level from PR stemming from a poorly understood patent case. Heck, you could even rake Apple over the coals for letting the violations happen again as recently as this year!
Heh. The funny part about that statement is that your fixation on Apple is the only reason you have an interest in any 'crappy business practices'. You think about Apple more than the fanboys do.
Why is this marked Troll? The human rights violations aren't ever mentioned around here unless Apple is under scrutiny. In fact, the hubub around here died down after made some changes, only for it to reoccur a couple of years later. Perhaps if it really were about human rights and not about dinging Apple's PR, the heat would have stayed on, other companies would be following suit, and Apple wouldn't feel comfy enough to let it happen again.
Every time one of the PC kids come out to boast I'm reminded of the Halloween episode of the Office where Dwight's bragging about his Emperor Palpatine costume costing $129.
Slashdot Mirror
Has somebody noticed that tragedies in free gun zones occur not when people are not armed...
Yes, a bunch of Fox News nitwits have beaten you to the punch trying to correlate that, and they were unsuccessful also.
Who the fuck is ignorant?
The shooters are yelling "Allahu Akhbar" ...
There's your sign.
Despite popular belief here in the USA, putting a gun on your hip will not turn you into John McClain. Source: Reality.
Hmm.. you know, it never occurred to me until I read your post why the Cybermen say that.
He/she says smugly.
Hah. Bet the irony of that statement is lost on you.
Are you also going to criticize protesters who are against tax increases because they protest on the paved street which was paid for by tax money? Or people who want better food labeling who eat food that isn't labelled well?
Are you going to keep dodging my question? If so, could you at least get down to an apples-to-apples comparison? For example: Why, yes, I would criticize a Vegan who followed me into a pizza joint, approached me unsolicited, and rudely voiced his opinion of my lunch after taking a bite of a salad he had just put bacon-bits on.
Heh. I've always chuckled at that. Although I do need to take back something rather harsh I said a couple of years ago: I called the people you describe leeches and warned them that they are risking the existences of the sites they frequent, instead their actions are causing the related industries to sit up, take notice, and settle down.
I am quite happily eating my words.
Google's learning that supporting multiple OS versions costs money. I wonder what the Android team thinks.
Please share with us an example or two of what you're doing that's having a practical effect on making the world better for everyone else.
It's not that I don't believe that you do, it's just that you're posting this criticism on an ad-supported site after digging into a topic that clearly doesn't apply to you.
Because there's a difference between not finding it after checking and not finding it after not-checking...?
I just wanted to say I watched Battle Bots over the summer and was pleasantly surprised at how much more energy has gone into it. Finally we get some robot gore!
If you are so enlightened why are you spending your Saturday night criticizing strangers over the Internet when you could be biting your nails in fear of ISIS? Clearly reckless panic will be effective, so lead by example!
Why would its insurance be cheaper?
They could add hardware scrolling to their chip and not be dependent on mutli-core processors! /s
Memory is only wasted if it isn't used. Since the spec didn't call out any limitations on memory useage then that point is moot.
Being your rebuttal contained no substance...
I pointed out that you are uninformed. What you choose to do with that substance is up to you.
... I'm inclined to believe the OP until someone presents a more informative reply than yours.
There's a third option: Do some research on your own. It involves more work, and it's not as fun as spitting pre-digested arguments that you really don't understand with anonymous people on-line, but you'll end up being far less prone to Sheepism than you are right now.
Uninformed right-wing criticism? Umm, thanks for that.
Then how is Google Fi getting away with it? Also, why aren't we seeing more diversity in plans from various carriers?
Please pardon the cliche, but [CITATION NEEDED].
"If a customer calls in with any questions associated with the usage policy and how it relates to Net Neutrality, Netflix or observations about how XFINITY services are or are not counted relative to third party services, do not address these items with the customer."
This sorta reminds me of an experience I had with AT&T. I have one of the grandfathered unlimited plans. In 2011 AT&T started throttling unlimited users indiscriminately, some only using a gig in a month and then *BAM* modem speeds. I was never affected mainly because I never really used that much data (I do now... somewhat vengefully...) but I did want to know exactly what their minimum spec for throttled transfers was. That seems like a reasonable question, right? If they're offering an unlimited plan but throttling the speed, they should tell me what the minimum speed is otherwise zero kb/s is an option, meaning that's unlimited.
I had several phone calls and emails with them about that, 3/4ths of the conversation was them trying to convince me that it'll never affect me. "You can always use wifi!", "You don't actually use that much data", "a little data goes a long way!", and so on. I actually had to tell one rep that I had already heard all that and it didn't apply (I made up a story about going on a long business trip to a place with no wifi...) and she was nice enough to get her supervisor involved, and SHE had to listen to the bit about how we always have wifi and all that stuff. If the call didn't' take so long I would have considered that funny.
Their final answer was to tell me that their network throttling speed was proprietary information about their network performance and that I had no business knowing anything about it. Nice chaps, I hope they enjoy their 100 million dollar fine over it. Too bad Comcast isn't paying attention.
He's hitting Comcast in the wallet, what better way do you suggest? Oh and to save time, let's skip the 'vote with your wallet' approach which is not only impractical due to local monopolies, but is also indistinguishable from leaving for any other reason at all.
Why even spend the time on that when Foxconn produces parts for many manufactures and not just Apple? I wouldn't mind, but worker safety is a whole different level from PR stemming from a poorly understood patent case. Heck, you could even rake Apple over the coals for letting the violations happen again as recently as this year!
Heh. The funny part about that statement is that your fixation on Apple is the only reason you have an interest in any 'crappy business practices'. You think about Apple more than the fanboys do.
Why is this marked Troll? The human rights violations aren't ever mentioned around here unless Apple is under scrutiny. In fact, the hubub around here died down after made some changes, only for it to reoccur a couple of years later. Perhaps if it really were about human rights and not about dinging Apple's PR, the heat would have stayed on, other companies would be following suit, and Apple wouldn't feel comfy enough to let it happen again.
Hmm... apparently one of them bound the Troll mod to one of the thumb buttons on their mouse.
Every time one of the PC kids come out to boast I'm reminded of the Halloween episode of the Office where Dwight's bragging about his Emperor Palpatine costume costing $129.
Give the prisoners shotguns with bird shot, afterall it's perfectly safe!