According to the screenshots including in the court filing (the linked PDF in the summary) people with online bills had to click "Use charges" twice before getting any itemized list, and that list was still bundled with other t-mobile charges, so even then you would never see a list of the 3rd party charges with a total. And on that 3rd screen they are just "Premium services."
Also in the accusations is that prepaid customers were charged these $9.99/month amounts without ever being billed or notified.
And:
Defendant’s own internal documents demonstrate that consumers were complaining in increasing numbers about unauthorized charges from at least early 2012. These documents state that there had been an increase in complaints, explain that consumers “do not know what the charges are or why they are being billed for them,” and note several third-party merchants that Defendant’s employees had identified as being the subject of many complaints. Despite knowing about these complaints of unauthorized charges, Defendant did not take sufficient steps to determine whether other consumers actually authorized the charges for Third-Party Subscriptions purportedly offered by the problematic third-party merchants.
So they have them red-handed with their own documents having discovered this problem, and then continued to assist in ripping off customers. They didn't turn a blind eye, they saw and then looked away. But they were caught looking. And increasing their own percent take on those accounts!
There is more and more. The allegations get very specific.
Duh, you didn't read the story, so of course you don't believe they hid anything. You probably don't even know what they're accused of hiding, and maybe not even that they are accused of hiding anything.
The filing linked not only accuses them of hiding the charges, they actually lie about the nature of the charges and instead of listing them as 3rd party charges, they hide them under "Use charges" with no breakout for 3rd party services on the first screen... or even on the click-through screen! You have to find the second hidden click-through, with still nothing listing 3rd party charges.
They're also accused of actually collecting a higher percentage cut... of the subscription services with the highest refund rates! So they clearly detected that those were scams, and instead of dropping the services, they demanded a larger cut. That is a substantial allegation, and it is very hard to come up with an innocent explanation for that difference in their own rates.
They're also accused of burying even their basic permission to charge for 3rd party services in the fine print. That is fine for the details of an agreement, but when a substantial part of the basic relationship is buried there, those provisions are probably not valid. Being bound to whatever the details said is very different than having not been clearly informed of the basic nature of the contract. And the contract is not a CC contract, it is a contract for specific telecommunications services.
So your experience is that of the 1 time t-mobile helped a company rip you off, they refunded the charges, therefore the percent of customers who didn't get a refund must be different than accused by the government.
I really can't see how that would follow. Your experience validates half the accusation, and they're not accused of never refunding anybody, only of not refunding a bunch of specific people... who really didn't get refunds.
I'm not sure how it is you feel that other carriers handled better for you the cases of other customers being ripped off that is accused by the government.
It is almost as if you're too old to know what an individual is, or that you are one. Or that you not being robbed tells you nothing about who robbed somebody else.
"Your honor, that man is innocent, why I was alive at the same moment as the victim, and that man didn't rob me."
They don't have the wind speed. If you look at the graphic, you can imagine that it needs a certain amount of energy for the cyclone to stand up; otherwise it is just circling from the ground up a little ways and back down, like a Ferris wheel. And dumping rain. And it only has to be slowed down for a short time period, and it will be too mixed to stand up later.
You derped all over yourself there. Right in your comment you point out that physics is a different field than cosmology, in your description of learning physics to apply it to cosmology! D'oh!
You seem a little... weak in your support of cosmology. Is it because you know it isn't held (by itself) to the same standards that physics holds itself to?
CMBR could also be caused by something else entirely that nobody has thought of yet. It could just be that old photons finally decompose after 14 billion years, and that old photons turn red. Since we only measure photons at very short distances here on Earth, we have no idea if red shift in photons emitted billions of years ago is due to the same causes as photons that we artificially redshift for fractions of a second. Just as there are different physical forces that can move a steel ball. If you don't know about magnatism, and you observe a magnetic force, you can either say, "gee, I don't understand that" or you can also just say, "hey, looks like the laws of physics are different here than everywhere else, it must be some sort of gravity vortex!"
Every time I hear "Big Bang" I think of one of those "Vortex" gift shops.
All of the data that could support "Big Bang" is edge data, and therefore known to be inaccurate. For every sensor, the resolution drops off at the edge. If Big Bang is true, it would be like God theories that can't be proven, because you can only hope to get edge data.
That it is taught as a "fact" instead of as an unprovable hypothesis shows the difference between actual physics, and cosmology.
Actual physics is making predictions at the small scale that is not edge data, and where the predictions match observation to obsurd numbers of decimal places as soon as a new sensor comes out.
Cosmologists were wrong about everything, even Earth's radiation belts, and the solar heliopause. Predictions in the center of the range of our sensors are consistently wrong, and that is just nearby. And yet these same idiots bloviate about something 14 billions years away and at the edge of their sensors.
Agreed, actually that sounds like the most literal reading. Not sure why people can't read... oh, this is slashdot. I gotta find some kind of nerd site or something.
The Parties recognize that transparent regulations and policies governing the activities of financial service suppliers are important in facilitating their ability to gain access to and operate in each other’s market. Each Party commits to promote regulatory transparency in trade in financial services.
Seems to me like they come right out and say clearly that the goal is for the financial service corporations to have access to information about what the regulators are doing.
Even in the modern world, you're still asking who to trust? Stop trusting, and STOP ASKING. The answer is "never" and it will always be "never." If you want to lie to yourself, you can start that wherever you can; you don't even have to trust yourself for that.;)
Hey, but if you find them, look up undercover investigation precedents. It might turn out that this has already been covered by the Courts, and that you're wrong.
If you want it to be different in the future, it would violate their rights to prosecute them for things that were legal at the time. If you want the rules to be the same for everybody, you don't get very far by tossing out the rights of those you would hold as equal.
(Besides, where does this "blame the victim" attitude always come from? It's ridiculous. This is equal to saying that wearing scantily clad clothing means a woman deserves to get raped.)
After the neckbeard reaches at least 6 inches, it grows into the nervous system and implants these ideas directly. This is an attempt to force the host into breeding behavior, so that the infection can spread.
I see this come up a lot and honestly..... I mean.... is it really wrong to suggest that a person should think about self-protection?
No, it is wrong to claim that they're expected to. See the difference? No?
Why bloviate for dozens of words if you're going to fall on your face in the first sentence?
You can't even tell the difference between prerogatives and coercion, so you have no moral or ethical foundation to build anything on. You have no points, because they're suspended in space and everybody else is on planet Earth.
And yes, it is really "very" wrong to attempt to exercise other people's prerogatives. It is a less extreme example of the same sort of horribles you consider! So no, you shouldn't be telling people to live in fear, or that it is somehow required for them to put reacting to crime, or giving up their freedom by reacting to it in the way you would desire them to. It is their prerogative, and theirs only, if they will continue to live their own life with their head held high, or cower in fear over protecting a pile of stuff, or something in between.
Nobody has any obligation to prevent crime. Nobody.
People are only responsible for acting in a legal manner themselves.
Isn't that how they do it on your planet, too? No? You can sue the victim there? Wow, no wonder you left! By the way, you left. You're on Earth now. No, crime victims don't get sued by their friends and partners here.
While true, if you look at Japanese and Chinese history, the Chinese did the vast majority of the invading-and-pillaging. That gives additional context for the current illegal claims that China is making over Japanese, Vietnamese, Philippine, and others' territory.
No, their position is not that they could violate the Treaty. The theory is that if they want to withdraw from the Treaty, then they could weaponize ASAP, with the only bottleneck on manufacturing. And no, that doesn't mean they already "have" them. I know tenses are hard, but come on. If that means they "have" them already, and they turn out not to build them for decades, then when they do finally build them, by your logic they'd have already had them for decades!
What is the theory, here? Do you think they'd have some sort of irrational fear based on things that happened before they were born, or would they just feel awkward? I really don't see how this is a valid theory of military behavior...
Japan is already protected by the US nuclear program, so nothing really changes. But Japan has long had a policy of being "ready" for quick weaponization if needed. And it was already the case that the US position is generally that Japan has served their probation and can change their Constitution whenever they're ready to pick up their own defense bill. Recent regional provocation by China only strengthens that.
If China is so "concerned," maybe they should only claim legal maritime borders according to internationally agreed formulas, instead of trying to claim the whole Champa Sea.
They can pretty much guarantee that their provocative stance will increase the militarization of their neighbors. It could destroy the WTO, too, since they're members now. If they push too far, sanctions against them might prove very popular in the US because of the effect it would have on US manufacturing. The only way to avoid these consequences is not antagonize their neighbors.
It was a meta-listing for projects that were hosted elsewhere. So you could look at a combined listing, and search based on keywords instead of based on hosting provider.
Honestly, hosting provider has nothing to do with what users would be interested in software for. "freecode" (aka freshmeat.net) was the only place with good combined listings. Now, there is no such place.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the screenshots including in the court filing (the linked PDF in the summary) people with online bills had to click "Use charges" twice before getting any itemized list, and that list was still bundled with other t-mobile charges, so even then you would never see a list of the 3rd party charges with a total. And on that 3rd screen they are just "Premium services."
Also in the accusations is that prepaid customers were charged these $9.99/month amounts without ever being billed or notified.
And:
So they have them red-handed with their own documents having discovered this problem, and then continued to assist in ripping off customers. They didn't turn a blind eye, they saw and then looked away. But they were caught looking. And increasing their own percent take on those accounts!
There is more and more. The allegations get very specific.
Duh, you didn't read the story, so of course you don't believe they hid anything. You probably don't even know what they're accused of hiding, and maybe not even that they are accused of hiding anything.
The filing linked not only accuses them of hiding the charges, they actually lie about the nature of the charges and instead of listing them as 3rd party charges, they hide them under "Use charges" with no breakout for 3rd party services on the first screen... or even on the click-through screen! You have to find the second hidden click-through, with still nothing listing 3rd party charges.
They're also accused of actually collecting a higher percentage cut... of the subscription services with the highest refund rates! So they clearly detected that those were scams, and instead of dropping the services, they demanded a larger cut. That is a substantial allegation, and it is very hard to come up with an innocent explanation for that difference in their own rates.
They're also accused of burying even their basic permission to charge for 3rd party services in the fine print. That is fine for the details of an agreement, but when a substantial part of the basic relationship is buried there, those provisions are probably not valid. Being bound to whatever the details said is very different than having not been clearly informed of the basic nature of the contract. And the contract is not a CC contract, it is a contract for specific telecommunications services.
So your experience is that of the 1 time t-mobile helped a company rip you off, they refunded the charges, therefore the percent of customers who didn't get a refund must be different than accused by the government.
I really can't see how that would follow. Your experience validates half the accusation, and they're not accused of never refunding anybody, only of not refunding a bunch of specific people... who really didn't get refunds.
I'm not sure how it is you feel that other carriers handled better for you the cases of other customers being ripped off that is accused by the government.
It is almost as if you're too old to know what an individual is, or that you are one. Or that you not being robbed tells you nothing about who robbed somebody else.
"Your honor, that man is innocent, why I was alive at the same moment as the victim, and that man didn't rob me."
They don't have the wind speed. If you look at the graphic, you can imagine that it needs a certain amount of energy for the cyclone to stand up; otherwise it is just circling from the ground up a little ways and back down, like a Ferris wheel. And dumping rain. And it only has to be slowed down for a short time period, and it will be too mixed to stand up later.
Plant terraced farms on the south side, and tree farms on the north side. Jobs, jobs, jobs!
If you can go with a slope and build it as a triangular prism then it is easy to build, like a long pyramid. Jobs, jobs, jobs!
You derped all over yourself there. Right in your comment you point out that physics is a different field than cosmology, in your description of learning physics to apply it to cosmology! D'oh!
You seem a little... weak in your support of cosmology. Is it because you know it isn't held (by itself) to the same standards that physics holds itself to?
The good news, "Big Bang" is a cosmology thing not a physics thing. And unlike physicists, who are usually right, cosmologists are usually wrong.
(1) CMB is based on data that can't be explained any other *reasonable* way
Sounds very flat-Earther to me. "I dunno, so it must be the best of my ideas." No. If you don't know, it is probably NOT your best idea. ;)
CMBR could also be caused by something else entirely that nobody has thought of yet. It could just be that old photons finally decompose after 14 billion years, and that old photons turn red. Since we only measure photons at very short distances here on Earth, we have no idea if red shift in photons emitted billions of years ago is due to the same causes as photons that we artificially redshift for fractions of a second. Just as there are different physical forces that can move a steel ball. If you don't know about magnatism, and you observe a magnetic force, you can either say, "gee, I don't understand that" or you can also just say, "hey, looks like the laws of physics are different here than everywhere else, it must be some sort of gravity vortex!"
Every time I hear "Big Bang" I think of one of those "Vortex" gift shops.
All of the data that could support "Big Bang" is edge data, and therefore known to be inaccurate. For every sensor, the resolution drops off at the edge. If Big Bang is true, it would be like God theories that can't be proven, because you can only hope to get edge data.
That it is taught as a "fact" instead of as an unprovable hypothesis shows the difference between actual physics, and cosmology.
Actual physics is making predictions at the small scale that is not edge data, and where the predictions match observation to obsurd numbers of decimal places as soon as a new sensor comes out.
Cosmologists were wrong about everything, even Earth's radiation belts, and the solar heliopause. Predictions in the center of the range of our sensors are consistently wrong, and that is just nearby. And yet these same idiots bloviate about something 14 billions years away and at the edge of their sensors.
Agreed, actually that sounds like the most literal reading. Not sure why people can't read... oh, this is slashdot. I gotta find some kind of nerd site or something.
Seems to me like they come right out and say clearly that the goal is for the financial service corporations to have access to information about what the regulators are doing.
Stop trusting, geeze.
Even in the modern world, you're still asking who to trust? Stop trusting, and STOP ASKING . The answer is "never" and it will always be "never." If you want to lie to yourself, you can start that wherever you can; you don't even have to trust yourself for that. ;)
Grampy, you forgot your meds!
Hey, but if you find them, look up undercover investigation precedents. It might turn out that this has already been covered by the Courts, and that you're wrong.
If you want it to be different in the future, it would violate their rights to prosecute them for things that were legal at the time. If you want the rules to be the same for everybody, you don't get very far by tossing out the rights of those you would hold as equal.
(Besides, where does this "blame the victim" attitude always come from? It's ridiculous. This is equal to saying that wearing scantily clad clothing means a woman deserves to get raped.)
After the neckbeard reaches at least 6 inches, it grows into the nervous system and implants these ideas directly. This is an attempt to force the host into breeding behavior, so that the infection can spread.
I see this come up a lot and honestly..... I mean.... is it really wrong to suggest that a person should think about self-protection?
No, it is wrong to claim that they're expected to. See the difference? No?
Why bloviate for dozens of words if you're going to fall on your face in the first sentence?
You can't even tell the difference between prerogatives and coercion, so you have no moral or ethical foundation to build anything on. You have no points, because they're suspended in space and everybody else is on planet Earth.
And yes, it is really "very" wrong to attempt to exercise other people's prerogatives. It is a less extreme example of the same sort of horribles you consider! So no, you shouldn't be telling people to live in fear, or that it is somehow required for them to put reacting to crime, or giving up their freedom by reacting to it in the way you would desire them to. It is their prerogative, and theirs only, if they will continue to live their own life with their head held high, or cower in fear over protecting a pile of stuff, or something in between.
Nobody has any obligation to prevent crime. Nobody.
People are only responsible for acting in a legal manner themselves.
Isn't that how they do it on your planet, too? No? You can sue the victim there? Wow, no wonder you left! By the way, you left. You're on Earth now. No, crime victims don't get sued by their friends and partners here.
Bad people exist. It doesn't matter if you cry, it does matter if you seek Justice or not.
Changing your life to accommodate them is ill advised.
At some point, you have to ascribe *some* responsibility on the [victim], no?
No.
While true, if you look at Japanese and Chinese history, the Chinese did the vast majority of the invading-and-pillaging. That gives additional context for the current illegal claims that China is making over Japanese, Vietnamese, Philippine, and others' territory.
No, their position is not that they could violate the Treaty. The theory is that if they want to withdraw from the Treaty, then they could weaponize ASAP, with the only bottleneck on manufacturing.
And no, that doesn't mean they already "have" them. I know tenses are hard, but come on. If that means they "have" them already, and they turn out not to build them for decades, then when they do finally build them, by your logic they'd have already had them for decades!
What is the theory, here? Do you think they'd have some sort of irrational fear based on things that happened before they were born, or would they just feel awkward? I really don't see how this is a valid theory of military behavior...
Yeah, this seems a bit silly.
Japan is already protected by the US nuclear program, so nothing really changes. But Japan has long had a policy of being "ready" for quick weaponization if needed. And it was already the case that the US position is generally that Japan has served their probation and can change their Constitution whenever they're ready to pick up their own defense bill. Recent regional provocation by China only strengthens that.
If China is so "concerned," maybe they should only claim legal maritime borders according to internationally agreed formulas, instead of trying to claim the whole Champa Sea.
They can pretty much guarantee that their provocative stance will increase the militarization of their neighbors. It could destroy the WTO, too, since they're members now. If they push too far, sanctions against them might prove very popular in the US because of the effect it would have on US manufacturing. The only way to avoid these consequences is not antagonize their neighbors.
It was a meta-listing for projects that were hosted elsewhere. So you could look at a combined listing, and search based on keywords instead of based on hosting provider.
Honestly, hosting provider has nothing to do with what users would be interested in software for. "freecode" (aka freshmeat.net) was the only place with good combined listings. Now, there is no such place.