I've tried putting a wall along the top, and will probably put one along the bottom. However, recently my machine has also caught the "The ball doesn't go where it used to go" problem.
I don't think so. On my machine at work, it's pretty consistent. It just really sucks that you have to be so precise with your placements, and you can't even see the last path the ball took, or see the expected path.
The situation, for one. And if you had read the rest of my comment, you'd see that I was citing the letters he got from AT&T which said they threatened to cut off his service if he didn't go to the bargaining table.
No, because the judge correctly ruled that a "no tethering" rule was, in fact, a limit on the service they sold him, and therefore was not allowed if they gave him unlimited service.
No, they want to drop him in the middle of his contract. And you can damn well bet that they're not going to pay any kind of ETF like they make their customers do.
He still has unlimited data, just not at the speeds he was accustomed to.
Nope. That's still a limit on the data, thus making AT&T in violation of their contract.
This guy broke his part of the contract, and they are now calling him on it.
What part? The part where the judge agreed that no tethering was an arbitrary limit on the service they sold as unlimited, and was therefore null and void?
There's a huge fucking difference between technical constraints, and arbitrary, "We want more money!" bullshit constraints like those AT&T puts on their service.
It's only legal to those who think that corporations can do no wrong.
Further, the judge in this case agreed that unlimited means unlimited, not "We're going to say it's unlimited, but we're really going to put a bunch of severe restrictions on how you can use it."
Are you honestly so fucking dense that you don't think they'd cut him off for having the gall to call them out for being a shitty company? This is retaliation, pure and simple.
And the letters he got said that they would cut him off if he didn't come to the bargaining table, so they can shut him up, and get away with this for an even smaller pittance.
Care to back that statement up? Or are you just talking out of your ass because you're upset that a consumer actually won something, and was able to stand up to the big guy?
wireless is unregulated and receives no government subsidy
I'm sorry, but you're completely fucking wrong.
In this case, this is a customer who they don't want to have and that seems to be legal to drop. I know I wouldn't this guy as a customer if I were AT&T.
And it shouldn't be, because that puts a huge fucking hurdle in a consumer's ability to get justice for you fucking them over. Consumer rights should vastly trump any "right" you think you have to profit. Especially in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
When prices get this high, though, that kinda shuts out a lot of people from actually being able to purchase.
I've tried putting a wall along the top, and will probably put one along the bottom. However, recently my machine has also caught the "The ball doesn't go where it used to go" problem.
It'd be cool, but I think from what I've seen, it's too small of a work area.
I don't think so. On my machine at work, it's pretty consistent. It just really sucks that you have to be so precise with your placements, and you can't even see the last path the ball took, or see the expected path.
Tell ya what: You go make a standard SoC that ALL of the Android handsets will use, and I'm sure we can make the Android thing work.
Hell, we're comparing it to PCs. Make two. Shouldn't be that hard, right?
I'm sure there's something to do with developing algorithms, or visual programming using steps and tweaking parameters in there somewhere.
I don't know, I'm just having fun.
But that's not the situation here. For many people, it's just been that they don't have Flash enabled.
"It didn't work one time" doesn't mean that the software has errors. It could very well be a PEBKAC issue.
And hundreds of people are willing to fill that void, and come up with machines just as great or greater.
The situation, for one. And if you had read the rest of my comment, you'd see that I was citing the letters he got from AT&T which said they threatened to cut off his service if he didn't go to the bargaining table.
Contracts that specify arbitrary and retarded activity are perfectly valid
Not always, like in this case.
Arbitrary and retarded limits don't really fit with the whole "unlimited" thing.
And what if AT&T is the only carrier in the area worth a damn for signal? Should he have to go with a sub-par carrier just to get justice?
No, because the judge correctly ruled that a "no tethering" rule was, in fact, a limit on the service they sold him, and therefore was not allowed if they gave him unlimited service.
No, they want to drop him in the middle of his contract. And you can damn well bet that they're not going to pay any kind of ETF like they make their customers do.
He still has unlimited data, just not at the speeds he was accustomed to.
Nope. That's still a limit on the data, thus making AT&T in violation of their contract.
This guy broke his part of the contract, and they are now calling him on it.
What part? The part where the judge agreed that no tethering was an arbitrary limit on the service they sold as unlimited, and was therefore null and void?
There's a huge fucking difference between technical constraints, and arbitrary, "We want more money!" bullshit constraints like those AT&T puts on their service.
You don't have a "right" to unlimited data, sorry
I do when that's what they were advertising, and that's what they sold me.
It's only legal to those who think that corporations can do no wrong.
Further, the judge in this case agreed that unlimited means unlimited, not "We're going to say it's unlimited, but we're really going to put a bunch of severe restrictions on how you can use it."
Why the fuck would it be? He paid for unlimited data; so AT&T should not be allowed to place arbitrary limits on it.
Are you honestly so fucking dense that you don't think they'd cut him off for having the gall to call them out for being a shitty company? This is retaliation, pure and simple.
And the letters he got said that they would cut him off if he didn't come to the bargaining table, so they can shut him up, and get away with this for an even smaller pittance.
Care to back that statement up? Or are you just talking out of your ass because you're upset that a consumer actually won something, and was able to stand up to the big guy?
Except you're placing an arbitrary and retarded limit on the data. There's no difference from using the data on the phone, to using it as tethering.
Unless the consumer has the same rights, and can do so without penalty, then that clause should not be allowed.
wireless is unregulated and receives no government subsidy
I'm sorry, but you're completely fucking wrong.
In this case, this is a customer who they don't want to have and that seems to be legal to drop. I know I wouldn't this guy as a customer if I were AT&T.
And it shouldn't be, because that puts a huge fucking hurdle in a consumer's ability to get justice for you fucking them over. Consumer rights should vastly trump any "right" you think you have to profit. Especially in this case.
For example the machinist page I mentioned has a groupthink in love with cheap Chinese metalworking machinery
Off topic, but How? Why? That stuff is absolute shit. Sure, it might be cheap, but it won't remain cheap the third or fourth time it breaks down.