T-Mobile sent out text messages to affected customers yesterday. I didn't receive one, so checked my contract (which had been sold to me as 'unlimited internet') and didn't spot any cap.
So I rang them and asked. I've had it confirmed that my tariff does not get a 500MB cap put onto it.
I took out the Flex30 with free uber-internet package when I got my G1, and I'm still on that package. Today I renewed it for a 20% discount - the service is generally good, it's hard to find uncapped mobile 'net these days and the bandwidth should improve now other users are getting capped.
In other words, t-mobile do still offer higher download options, just not cheaply. So it's up to you: pay up, switch network or deal with it.
(Had the cap applied to me, I'd have switched network. Today.)
It is possible to be in favour of some degree of gun control without being remotely scared of them.
For instance, I'm perfectly comfortable firing, stripping and cleaning high powered rifles but I don't want the police to carry firearms in their daily duties.
Is that a liberal stance? I can't tell and don't really care, life isn't binary and assigning strict political labels to views is unhelpful.
And she doesn't have the right to shoot me in the face when I stop to ask her for directions because I'm lost in a dodgy neighbourhood.
If she has a gun and thinks she needs it for self-defence then statistically it's more likely to be used on her than it is on anybody else, and she's also more likely to shoot someone that's innocent of action against her than shoot someone trying to assault her.
There are ways to defend yourself. Carrying a gun happens to be one of the more stupid ones.
Shit, if I wanted to attack a woman walking alone I'd start from behind her, I'd take her bag off her and I'd physically restrain her. That's just to stop her phoning for help, let alone any weapons she may be carrying. How exactly is a gun going to help?
Or is she wearing it in a garter holster? Except of course, a rapist's hands will be heading prety rapidly that way anyway..
Any further alarmist emo bullshit you'd like to throw at us?
That is such utter bullshit. The reason the killings stay in Mexico is due to the relative levels of zeal and corruption in law enforcement between Mexico and the US.
I don't trust US any of the US police services, but even I'll admit they're significantly more reliable than the ones in Mexico.
I can get access through three different DSL providers, through cable, through satellite, through five different mobile operators, through my neighbour's wifi, and I haven't even looked at setting up a village wide network, negotiating my own peering arrangements, installing my own cables, internet through powerlines or moving house.
You may have slightly less choice in DSL providers and mobile operators, but you are definitely artificially constraining your internet access options.
People changes phones almost at the same rate as they change their underwear.
That's a scary personal insight. My occasional 'throw out all my underwear and buy 28 new pairs' shopping occasions occur less often than I buy a new phone.
When the name is self-descriptive it's hard to describe it without repeating it.
Bufferbloat is a shite name for large buffers. That's pretty much it. The issue it causes is that fulfilling a request from the buffer leads to full resource utilisation, preventing use of those resources by other requests. This is being described as worse than being unable to respond to the initial request as quickly, thus leaving resources available for other requests.
It boils down to, do you give Person A a swift response at cost to persons B and C, or give persons A, B and C a shit response (but not as shit as B and C were getting in the other scenario).
The answer to me seems to be more intelligent use of the buffer to give person A an improved response while preventing resource saturation unduly impacting on persons B and C.
What the fuck does the colour of someone's skin have to do with the use of the word nigger?
Don't be racist.
Also google for 'white slavery' - there's an awful lot of it about. There are more slaves worldwide right now than there were at the time Huckleberry Finn was written, and they're from all backgrounds and races.
People find the word 'cunt' offensive too, but I've heard it used intentionally on the BBC. (I've heard it used accidentally too).
Just because people find a word offensive shouldn't stop it being used. Particularly when it's not being used to offend against them.
If I want to use the word 'nigger' in a historical context, why is that a bad thing? I hear plenty of 'nigga' in music, why is that acceptable but its use in what was contemporary literature not acceptable?
The demonisation of certain words merely constricts language and places barriers in the way of education and open discussion. Stop it.
Fuck you and your crass generalisations. People with ADHD are not fucking flakes and can be very reliable.
Yes, I have personal experience.
ADHD doesn't stop someone being a completer-finisher, it just means you need to keep them interested and tolerate a degree of divergence and distraction. Since it's possible to channel that distraction towards other productive areas you can get a lot of productivity from them. Reliability is entirely fucking orthogonal.
I was replying to a comment that driving while just under the limit was akin to attempted murder, and highlighting reasons why the law permits a degree of intoxication.
For me life is simple: Drink, and I don't drive. Don't drink, and I can. The legal maximum being above zero means I can safely disregard non-beverage sources of alcohol.
I agree that the cut-off is to an extent arbitrary. I'm sure there's some science before it, and in some jurisdictions a lot of emotion and political pandering to lobby groups (on both sides) but the sad reality is that some people will just not drink if they're driving, some people will go "I'm safe if I only have one or two" and some people are twats.
I was replying to a comment that driving while just under the limit was akin to attempted murder, and highlighting reasons why the law permits a degree of intoxication.
Incidentally, you forgot to mention the 'free alcohol' options of catching a bus, catching a train or passing out and getting taken to hospital for your stomach pumping..
The issue is the time factor. The inevitable delay before the blood is taken will impact on the viability of using it in defence.
Admittedly in the UK you could demand a blood test and the police doctor will happily bleed you dry. I mean, take a sample.
To be fair, sounds like Florida's going to make it even quicker and easier - just decline the breathalyzer and they'll give you the blood test for free:)
You have the ability to do a blood test while locked in the back of a police car, or in a police cell, where the results of the test will show blood alcohol level in a legally admissable and verifiable form?
What if he ate a christmas pudding laced with brandy? What if he used some cough medicine that's made with alcohol?
There are plenty of sources of alcohol that don't include drinking beverages, including some that people don't expect or realise.
Driving while legally permitted to drive because you haven't had a drink relative to drink-driving is nothing like attempted versus actual murder.
if you can afford to party, you can afford a cab.
Clearly a lie. Also fails to acknowledge multiple free sources of alcohol.
Your arguments are inflammatory, specious and immature. If you want to argue against drunk driving then go for it, there are many good reasons that you can refer to. Your own idiocy sadly isn't one of them.
The problem isn't doing what you think is right, it's about the honesty of saying one thing and then doing another. PFC Manning swore to the world that he would obey the orders of the President of the United States, the officers appointed above him, and the UCMJ. He then turned around and broke that oath.
I haven't seen anybody attempt to suggest that Manning shouldn't stand trial and, if found guilty, receive an appropriate and proportionate punishment.
The issue people have is the treatment of the man prior to trial. A fair trial is increasingly unlikely as Manning has a strong likelihood of suffering mental illness as a result of his treatment, and/or may agree to any crime just to get an end to this, quite apart from the lack of justification for treating him as they are doing.
You may not give a fuck, but I personally think torturing someone that hasn't been found guilty of any crime unacceptable.
being put in the general population where he will most certainly experience REAL torture.
Ah, not pre-judging anything at all there then.
Whether he violated the law, whether he broke a contract, he should not be getting tortured. There is no legitimate outcome from that, it is merely spiteful immature behaviour from his captors that reflects very badly on them and on their superiors.
Slashdot Mirror
It's nothing to do with the treaty, it's UK law that we can not hand over someone to be tortured or murdered.
Any extradition treaty with the US or with Sweden is secondary to that primary constraint.
T-Mobile sent out text messages to affected customers yesterday. I didn't receive one, so checked my contract (which had been sold to me as 'unlimited internet') and didn't spot any cap.
So I rang them and asked. I've had it confirmed that my tariff does not get a 500MB cap put onto it.
I took out the Flex30 with free uber-internet package when I got my G1, and I'm still on that package. Today I renewed it for a 20% discount - the service is generally good, it's hard to find uncapped mobile 'net these days and the bandwidth should improve now other users are getting capped.
In other words, t-mobile do still offer higher download options, just not cheaply. So it's up to you: pay up, switch network or deal with it.
(Had the cap applied to me, I'd have switched network. Today.)
It is possible to be in favour of some degree of gun control without being remotely scared of them.
For instance, I'm perfectly comfortable firing, stripping and cleaning high powered rifles but I don't want the police to carry firearms in their daily duties.
Is that a liberal stance? I can't tell and don't really care, life isn't binary and assigning strict political labels to views is unhelpful.
Hey fuckwit. Yes there are.
The geneva convention still applies to countries that signed up to it. So no using lasers to blind people.
International maritime law still applies. So piracy is still illegal, and defending yourself against them is specifically legal.
No fucking laws my arse. No wonder you posted anonymously.
And she doesn't have the right to shoot me in the face when I stop to ask her for directions because I'm lost in a dodgy neighbourhood.
If she has a gun and thinks she needs it for self-defence then statistically it's more likely to be used on her than it is on anybody else, and she's also more likely to shoot someone that's innocent of action against her than shoot someone trying to assault her.
There are ways to defend yourself. Carrying a gun happens to be one of the more stupid ones.
Shit, if I wanted to attack a woman walking alone I'd start from behind her, I'd take her bag off her and I'd physically restrain her. That's just to stop her phoning for help, let alone any weapons she may be carrying. How exactly is a gun going to help?
Or is she wearing it in a garter holster? Except of course, a rapist's hands will be heading prety rapidly that way anyway..
Any further alarmist emo bullshit you'd like to throw at us?
That is such utter bullshit. The reason the killings stay in Mexico is due to the relative levels of zeal and corruption in law enforcement between Mexico and the US.
I don't trust US any of the US police services, but even I'll admit they're significantly more reliable than the ones in Mexico.
Now that would be news indeed as the 'left' in the US is composed mostly of people who find guns scary
wtf? blinkered bigoted views much?
a village wide network
I'm not 18 miles from the nearest post office but I'm not exactly urban.
I haven't even mentioned 'net access through libraries, internet cafes, hospitals, educational establishments..
That's not technically true.
I can get access through three different DSL providers, through cable, through satellite, through five different mobile operators, through my neighbour's wifi, and I haven't even looked at setting up a village wide network, negotiating my own peering arrangements, installing my own cables, internet through powerlines or moving house.
You may have slightly less choice in DSL providers and mobile operators, but you are definitely artificially constraining your internet access options.
People changes phones almost at the same rate as they change their underwear.
That's a scary personal insight. My occasional 'throw out all my underwear and buy 28 new pairs' shopping occasions occur less often than I buy a new phone.
When the name is self-descriptive it's hard to describe it without repeating it.
Bufferbloat is a shite name for large buffers. That's pretty much it. The issue it causes is that fulfilling a request from the buffer leads to full resource utilisation, preventing use of those resources by other requests. This is being described as worse than being unable to respond to the initial request as quickly, thus leaving resources available for other requests.
It boils down to, do you give Person A a swift response at cost to persons B and C, or give persons A, B and C a shit response (but not as shit as B and C were getting in the other scenario).
The answer to me seems to be more intelligent use of the buffer to give person A an improved response while preventing resource saturation unduly impacting on persons B and C.
What the fuck does the colour of someone's skin have to do with the use of the word nigger?
Don't be racist.
Also google for 'white slavery' - there's an awful lot of it about. There are more slaves worldwide right now than there were at the time Huckleberry Finn was written, and they're from all backgrounds and races.
The word is so offensive today
It's just a word.
People find the word 'cunt' offensive too, but I've heard it used intentionally on the BBC. (I've heard it used accidentally too).
Just because people find a word offensive shouldn't stop it being used. Particularly when it's not being used to offend against them.
If I want to use the word 'nigger' in a historical context, why is that a bad thing? I hear plenty of 'nigga' in music, why is that acceptable but its use in what was contemporary literature not acceptable?
The demonisation of certain words merely constricts language and places barriers in the way of education and open discussion. Stop it.
Fuck you and your crass generalisations. People with ADHD are not fucking flakes and can be very reliable.
Yes, I have personal experience.
ADHD doesn't stop someone being a completer-finisher, it just means you need to keep them interested and tolerate a degree of divergence and distraction. Since it's possible to channel that distraction towards other productive areas you can get a lot of productivity from them. Reliability is entirely fucking orthogonal.
I was replying to a comment that driving while just under the limit was akin to attempted murder, and highlighting reasons why the law permits a degree of intoxication.
For me life is simple: Drink, and I don't drive. Don't drink, and I can. The legal maximum being above zero means I can safely disregard non-beverage sources of alcohol.
I agree that the cut-off is to an extent arbitrary. I'm sure there's some science before it, and in some jurisdictions a lot of emotion and political pandering to lobby groups (on both sides) but the sad reality is that some people will just not drink if they're driving, some people will go "I'm safe if I only have one or two" and some people are twats.
I was replying to a comment that driving while just under the limit was akin to attempted murder, and highlighting reasons why the law permits a degree of intoxication.
Incidentally, you forgot to mention the 'free alcohol' options of catching a bus, catching a train or passing out and getting taken to hospital for your stomach pumping..
Theoretically, and legally, yes.
The issue is the time factor. The inevitable delay before the blood is taken will impact on the viability of using it in defence.
Admittedly in the UK you could demand a blood test and the police doctor will happily bleed you dry. I mean, take a sample.
To be fair, sounds like Florida's going to make it even quicker and easier - just decline the breathalyzer and they'll give you the blood test for free :)
You have the ability to do a blood test while locked in the back of a police car, or in a police cell, where the results of the test will show blood alcohol level in a legally admissable and verifiable form?
Nice.
What if he ate a christmas pudding laced with brandy?
What if he used some cough medicine that's made with alcohol?
There are plenty of sources of alcohol that don't include drinking beverages, including some that people don't expect or realise.
Driving while legally permitted to drive because you haven't had a drink relative to drink-driving is nothing like attempted versus actual murder.
if you can afford to party, you can afford a cab.
Clearly a lie. Also fails to acknowledge multiple free sources of alcohol.
Your arguments are inflammatory, specious and immature. If you want to argue against drunk driving then go for it, there are many good reasons that you can refer to. Your own idiocy sadly isn't one of them.
10m people pay £8/month to play WoW alone. Many games are still released on PC only, and outsell games released on multiple platforms.
Yes some publishers are absolute twats. At least MS and Sony don't control the entire device..
Ironic, I thought you had laws against cruel punishments?
It's like British Army justice in the 30s..
Sorry, what's a "fucking commie" and why wouldn't one recognise, acknowledge and live life in accordance with the Declaration of Independence?
You'll have to forgive me, I come from a country where people aren't explicitly labelled in a black and white manner.
The problem isn't doing what you think is right, it's about the honesty of saying one thing and then doing another. PFC Manning swore to the world that he would obey the orders of the President of the United States, the officers appointed above him, and the UCMJ. He then turned around and broke that oath.
I haven't seen anybody attempt to suggest that Manning shouldn't stand trial and, if found guilty, receive an appropriate and proportionate punishment.
The issue people have is the treatment of the man prior to trial. A fair trial is increasingly unlikely as Manning has a strong likelihood of suffering mental illness as a result of his treatment, and/or may agree to any crime just to get an end to this, quite apart from the lack of justification for treating him as they are doing.
You may not give a fuck, but I personally think torturing someone that hasn't been found guilty of any crime unacceptable.
being put in the general population where he will most certainly experience REAL torture.
Ah, not pre-judging anything at all there then.
Whether he violated the law, whether he broke a contract, he should not be getting tortured. There is no legitimate outcome from that, it is merely spiteful immature behaviour from his captors that reflects very badly on them and on their superiors.
That you support it merely makes you a cunt too.
Nice to know you'll assure he gets a fair and impartial trial, based on the facts of the case and not a predetermined outcome involving his death.
Organised many lynch mobs recently?