If we blast the kid towards the nearest black hole he'll be fine as all the nasty harmful 'rays' will be sucked into the hole and away from his delicate noggin.
We really don't know what happens at the center of a black hole. However, he would be subjected to far more powerful and deadly fields heading into the black hole that the magnetic sensitivity wouldn't be his biggest issue.
And that's why 3 UK can never be accused of false advertising; they don't offer unlimited data, they offer all-you-can-eat data with the 'you' in this case being the SIM card. :)
I kinda figure that they are going to have more problems lying in marketing than we do in the US. In the EU they tend to enforce the "you can't lie to your customers" aspect that in the US we tend to just call "marketing". Annoying as hell, you have to be really blatant (or not be big enough to hire lawyers) to run afoul of the "you can't lie to your customers" rules.
So instead it is the phone that throttles the connection after a certain amount, not the carrier.
Except that this isn't even close to true. The one time my phone did go above 5GB (on the 5GB plan,) the phone dropped to 2G (40 kb/s) even though I was using a rooted phone running an open-source version of Android.
The phone did not throttle the connection, T-Mobile did.
Taking the word "unlimited" out of the context of the terms in which it's presented is disingenuous and a complete reading comprehension fail.
But you are still failing. Unlimited means unlimited, period. You cannot have limits on "unlimited". Change the word, don't get upset when others read the word in the way that everyone else reads it (because it is the way it is defined in the dictionary.)
There is no context to the word "unlimited", otherwise it is the opposite of what it means.
Oh, yeah, everyone understands that "unlimited" applies only to the person who ordered the buffet.
Ah, yes, but that is not what the word unlimited means. Unlimited means without limits, and when you put limits on something that is unlimited, you shouldn't legally be able to call it unlimited. I know of no buffet that calls it unlimited any more...they call it all-you-can-eat, which implies that "you" is one person.
Kind of like everyone with any reading comprehension understands "unlimited" data applies to the device for which it was purchased.
Anyone with reading comprehension but no basis on reality or the English language. While I agree with you that they are quite clear on what they mean when they say that data only applies to the phone, Karl is quite right in pointing out that "unlimited" does not mean 21 GB limit, and only on the device for which it was purchased (since unlimited means without limits.)
T-Mobile should instead change their offering to "all-you-can-use-on-the-phone" data plan, but even then it isn't correct since if I was to use my phone to stream Netflix for 8 hours a day for 3 days (@ 1GB per hour,) I'd be well into their limits.
Is it really that difficult to track how much data is associated with a particular SIM? The OS should be irrelevant.
It shouldn't be. I am not sure what type of app they are using to hide their traffic usage, but it seems like the SIM is pretty unique and not easy to change, so if you are talking to the cell tower and they are recording your SIM Card Number, it should be pretty easy for them to determine how much you are using.
I am more than a little concerned about this. I don't tether my phone...I have a separate data device for connecting to my computer (which I am usually far under the maximum allotted bandwidth each month for,) but I have a non-carrier branded, rooted, and open-source ROM'd phone, partly because I don't like the nanny-monitoring software nor the "you bought your phone but we won't allow you to actually use it the way you want," aspect of this release. According to my phone, I use about 2-4 GB a month, so I am not one of those 2TB a month users, but I am very concerned when they start lumping non-official ROMs and unbranded phones into the "bad-guy" list.
Of course, wasting money on DRM can only last so long before competitors take their lunch by using every available resource to serve the customer instead of punishing them for buying their games!
I agree, but I think what CD Projekt Red is showing is the clothes-less and naked emperor...it is kinda hard for the Pro-DRM Game CEO to maintain that they would have more sales when they are outpacing quite a few of the DRM-released games (though there are still people buying a lot of AAA games, but not nearly as many as who would buy them if they didn't have DRM.) I suspect CD Projekt Red is actually selling more games without DRM, just cause people are tired of spending $50 for a game that they may not be able to install and play because of DRM (I know I've stopped buying any DRM games, solely because they might not like virtualization or running under wine or on a particular version of Windows they don't like.)
My last EA game purchased (from EA,) was about 13 years ago (Command & Conquer Generals,) which didn't work after I purchased it because of some issue with the DRM on the disk not liking my CD-ROM drive and after spending the money on a non-functioning game, I vowed never to buy any game with DRM on it ever again. Now, if it doesn't come DRM-less, I avoid it like the plague (though I still do buy some Steam games, a lot less now that I realize 6 months after they appear on Steam, they'll likely appear DRM-less on one of the DRM-Free game sites, like GoG.) And I know I am not the only one.
Amusingly I skipped the chance of acquiring every single Heroes of Might and Magic ever released for $10 (I'm a fan of the earlier games, specially Heroes III and the awesome mods out there) because most of them required uplay. No, thanks.
Heroes of Might and Magic are available on GoG, sans uplay/DRM of any type, and occasionally they have sales where you can pick them all up for around $10. Watch around June and December.
It seems the first link is active even though I didn't use tags. Please don't click on it because I don't think it's safe.
Then again, I occasionally submit comments with tags where it strips one or more of the tags (or, far more likely, I break it somehow,) leaving my comment with an unlinked link, but figure that if folks really want to follow it, they can copy and paste.
Why can't people verify email addresses before sending?
The incident was discovered when a civilian responded to a CBP user's email to a distribution list of other CBP/DHS users.
Having had an amazingly similar situation happen with me where a non-profit organization sent a very sensitive document to me at one point on accident, and then wanted me to sign an NDA because, even though I told them I deleted the email unread, I might have seen something I shouldn't have and could have made life miserable for them (the email and the contents were deleted, I have no idea what it was.) I told them full stop, they sent the email to me due to no fault of my own, and I wasn't going to sign anything.
It really doesn't take that long to verify you have the right email address (and more importantly, the right domain name) for sending sensitive information. Yet, they told me they were so busy and couldn't confirm the email address and thus it was somehow my problem that they sent me what they sent me.
What is really sad is that even though they screwed up, in today's society, I suspect that no good deed will go unpunished (especially given the phrasing above.) The good samaritan let them know they were broken, but they discovered the problem, no thanks to the good samaritan.
The test is still about the actual likelihood of customer confusion, and it seems like quite a stretch to suggest that a small California craft brewer is going to be somehow confused for the mega-corporation that pumps out Budweiser.
Is it me, or when I read this line, do I read what Tim meant to say as somehow confused for the mega-corporation that pumps out piss.
And furthermore, the Constitution doesn't "give" or "grant" rights. It tells the Government what it can do, and what limits it can impose, on the rights given to us by the flying spaghetti monster (insert your deity here, or if you don't believe in one, insert "those rights inherited when you were born from those who came before you.")
That was kind of the whole point of the exercise.
The British have as much right as anyone else since they are born with those rights...they just aren't allowed to tell us what we can or can't do, and certainly aren't allowed to tax us for something we neither want nor need, certainly if we aren't allowed to tell them what we do want or need.
Anyone who says this seriously needs to have 24 hour video surveillance and a GPS monitor. I am getting tired of hearing it. "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Cool, don't mind the 24/7 video drone following you with the video being piped to your own Truman-Show channel.
You'll see how quickly they spin on their words when its them in the cross-hairs of surveillance. Just look at all the politicians and government employees that woke up this morning to the news that their email addresses were leaked from Ashley-Madison (whether or not that truly means anything, the news media is making a big deal out of it.)
I do, however, buy EA titles from GoG, which don't have DRM. (I actually have repurchased a bunch of EA games that I already had on CD just because it meant I didn't have to search around for nocds or figure out a way to get a Windows 98 game to run on Windows 7.)
Some of their old stuff (made by other companies they purchased,) is good. Unfortunately, that means that I am part of the problem because I am supporting a flunky business model.
I think you misunderstand, MLb.tv will still be blacked out but authenticated Fox users will be able to watch Fox online as I understand it.
Sadly, you are right. MLB.tv will get the stream in exchange for giving FoxSportsGo the authentication of the users, so you have to have an active account (have to be a cable subscriber with access to the Fox network) in order to use this. So it helps exactly zero cable cutters or cable subscribers without access to the Fox network (if only everyone could be so lucky,) and probably not many others since they already have access to the video from cable.
The only hope for us cable cutters is a good decision in Garber v. Office of the Commissioner, but so far that has just been lawyers trying to score big on the litigation lottery and has not resulted in any changes (at least on the NHL side where they settled out of court and no changes were made.)