Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Why stop there? (Score 0) 477

by Achromatic1978 (#33887968) Attached to: FCC Will Tackle Cell Phone 'Bill Shock'
Alternatively, you can presume that, since I am responding to another commenter, I am in fact responding to his claim, rather than hitting reply to the article, and bitching about the issue of not being comped cell phone usage, which is an entirely separate fucking issue.

Or you can choose not to.

Comment: Re:Why stop there? (Score 2, Insightful) 477

by Achromatic1978 (#33886806) Attached to: FCC Will Tackle Cell Phone 'Bill Shock'
I know - it's fucking horrible. Like AT&T for example, their interface to do this is a disaster. I have to go to "www.att.com/myWireless", off a button on the front page of AT&T's site, no less, then, get this, they ask for my cell number and a password. Once I enter that in, it's this onerous, convoluted situation where I am forced to let my eyes wander roughly four inches from the top of the page to this tiny graphic that occupies, hmmm, no more than a third of the page width, and has all this legalistic jargon like:

As of October 13, 2010, you have 3 days left in your billing cycle.

And then, under the graphic that purports to show the same data, it tries to bamboozle you with phrases like:

Anytime Minutes: 253 of 550 used.

and

Rollover Minutes: 0 of 2325 used.

This is the kind of shit we shouldn't stand for.

Comment: Re:Or... (Score 1) 477

by Achromatic1978 (#33886746) Attached to: FCC Will Tackle Cell Phone 'Bill Shock'

I recently added a global data plan (at a rate of about $1 per day over my regular data plan) for an overseas trip and was shocked to see a $130 data charge that didn't show up until a couple of weeks after the trip.

Maybe you should read more carefully. On all the carriers I've activated global roaming (T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon - I can't imagine Sprint being different), when activating, you are expressly advised that billing reconciliation with international providers may take several weeks and "charges may not be reflected until a later bill".

Comment: Re:Wow, just... wow (Score 1) 475

by Achromatic1978 (#33875792) Attached to: Lawyer Is Big Winner In Webcamgate Settlement

The parent sued and got a small part of the settlement as part of a suit or the parents didn't sue and got nothing. Unless you have a lawyer, you're not getting anywhere.

Yeah, I think that's part of people's problem. "You got nothin'. We'll do it for you - what with our monopoly on such things - but we're taking the vast majority of the win. Don't like it? Well, you're just shit outta luck, huh?"

On average, lawyers make between 50-100K

Ehhh, not really. In 2006, the middle 50% of lawyers made between $82,000 and $168,000.

The clients themselves can dispute the costs if they wish. Again, the lawyers have to detail their bills.

That's great. And if they say "Phone calls: $2/min in telephony charges, plus standard rate for attorney, plus $30/hr for dictation", the issue isn't in the itemization.

Comment: Re:Wow, just... wow (Score 1) 475

by Achromatic1978 (#33875674) Attached to: Lawyer Is Big Winner In Webcamgate Settlement

This would be a serious ethical breach opening the door to a legal malpractice suit, disciplinary action, and potentially disbarment for the attorney.

It would be a serious ethical breach. It's also a highly subjective area, and lawyers and bar associations are notoriously difficult to persuade to sanction a lawyer, possibly from fear that they, one day, might be subject to sanctions for such a claim.

Legal malpractice is no joke. About the same amount is paid out in legal malpractice each year as medical malpractice.

Great soundbite. Then you realize that while there are 700,000 physicians in the US (not all practicing), there are 1.7 million active lawyers.

Comment: Re:Wow, just... wow (Score 1) 475

by Achromatic1978 (#33875530) Attached to: Lawyer Is Big Winner In Webcamgate Settlement

Cases like this are risky endeavors for lawyers. Clients don't have many choices in this kind of case because they are very difficult if not impossible to win. The lawyer and the client, before the case was even filed, assigned value to the risk in a mutually agreed to contract.

Wronged person has no opportunity for recourse other than to utilize services of lawyer at essentially any rate lawyer chooses, because some recourse is better than none. Other than choosing no recourse for a wrong (how about that, a society where justice has a price you have to be able to pay), that sounds almost suspiciously close to "duress", what with a legal monopoly on being admitted to the bar (you cannot represent 'yourself' in a class action).

Now that the risk has been played out and the plaintiff has won, the outcome looks unfair. Before the case, only a crazy person would take the case, even with the huge payout potential. After the case, that crazy person that went all-or-nothing when no one else would is lambasted by a bunch of uninvolved bystanders for being greedy.

Alternatives: crazy person actually is not all that crazy at all, and had a reasonable belief and expectation that there was a significant likelihood of success, however much lawyers like to pull out the "risky endeavour, very difficult if not impossible to win" card.

Or crazy person is entirely crazy, in which case is of suspect judgment. If you jump from a plane without a parachute, you're crazy. You don't become less crazy because you survived, to use your attempt at an analogy.

Comment: Re:It's not "the" guide (Score 1) 453

by Achromatic1978 (#33866908) Attached to: The Hackintosh Guide

reestablished my open SSH sessions to my Linux box

Strange ... there I was thinking of that little KeyRegenerationInterval parameter - and just how an SSH connection would be re-established following a key mismatch. That is, of course, following the whole issue of the ClientAliveInterval, by default 5 minutes - no response received, connection dropped. Methinks your mind might be deceiving you ...

The world is not octal despite DEC.

Working...