I can only speak for me...but the scummy thing I see is they really want it both ways.

1) You can pay more for higher speeds
2) You can pay more for more bandwidth.

And we'll be really slow about moving the boundaries so as to capture as much money as possible.

Higher speed should just be included, and fine, charge a reasonable amount for bandwidth.
OR
You charge by the speed tier and however much bandwidth I consume you live with it.
[The pricing seems high too, IMO.]

But no, they want to make you pay both ways. [And pay again when you can't stream data (without meter) from other vendors - you have to pay extra to CC.]

Wireless carriers do it like this too.

Them: "No, you can't tether, that costs extra."
Me: "Why? You're capping my data consumption anyway. If it's not unlimited, then I should get to choose where I use my data - the phone, a tablet, or my laptop."

Either it's unlimited to a single device, in which case, I can stream netflicks 24x7 - or I pay for X amount of data and I can use it in any way, with any device I like.

But no. We'll pick the terms we like when it benefits us, and then mix and match to make even more.
Screw you customer! Just keep forking over the cash.

-Greg

See:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/tsa-defends-pat-year-kan-airport-16215862#.T6RGaqv2agQ

I'll summarize:
---
The grandmother of a 4-year-old girl who became hysterical during a security screening at a Kansas airport said Wednesday that the child was forced to undergo a pat-down after hugging her, with security agents yelling and calling the crying girl an uncooperative suspect.

The child's grandmother, Lori Croft, told The Associated Press that Brademeyer and her daughter, Isabella, initially passed through security at the Wichita airport without incident. The girl then ran over to briefly hug Croft, who was awaiting a pat-down after tripping the alarm, and that's when TSA agents insisted the girl undergo a physical pat-down.

Isabella had just learned about "stranger danger" at school, her grandmother said, adding that the girl was afraid and unsure about what was going on.

"She started to cry, saying 'No I don't want to,' and when we tried talking to her she ran," Croft said. "They yelled, 'We are going to shut down the airport if you don't grab her.'"
---
Massive stupidity ensues on the part of the TSA.

Now, once it becomes a widely read story, does the TSA apologize and essentially say - "We're sorry. We could have done this in a lot better, less traumatic, thoughtful and professional way?"

No, they say: "TSA has reviewed the incident and determined that our officers followed proper screening procedures in conducting a modified pat-down on the child," the agency said.

(sarcasm) Ah, what tact and professionalism. (/sarcasm)

No, IMO, these people, in general, as viewed from the pronouncements from the very top *are* thugs.

What they did was legal. But it wasn't necessary, reasonable or the way any reasonable person would handle things.
The fact that they take every opportunity to defend what's indefensible in any reasonable person's mind just show the "thug" mentality they have.

Sure, I'd guess there's quite a few nice TSA people. But the thuggishness comes from the top. I think much is the same with most police forces.

They can, so they do. And not only that, they defend their actions to the maximum.

That's the definition of a thug, IMO. "I can, legally, be a total ass, and I know that the top brass will defend my "assish-ness" to the maximum. So, FOAD, ya powerless loser!"

Perhaps your definition of "thug" doesn't include the above, but I think for most of us, the reasonable definition of a thug certainly includes this kind of attitude and behavior. And this thugish behavior is vigorously defended to the maximum by the people all the way to the top.

If we were seeing people get fired and publicly so - taking strong legal action against them, and very strongly defending the dignity of the passengers - then perhaps there'd be some argument about them being the "government's thugs." But as it is, they do most everything they do without any serious push back from anyone senior at the TSA.

In my world, that means they're doing what the TSA wants them to do - and thus, these thugs *are* government thugs.

-Greg

Nixon covered up a conspiracy that by its nature was a threat the the fabric of democracy. Namely he was using the power of the executive branch to commit crimes [felonies] in order to subvert a free and fair election.

While killing people is not a good thing, I think the threat to the democracy that Nixon posed was far greater than that posed by the ATF and their gun-running scheme.

Given that the threat to the fabric of democracy was threatened in such a way, I'd have to go with Nixon being a bigger problem than some stupid ATF people.

That absolutely should not be taken as my "giving a pass" to the ATF. It isn't. But I don't think the threat posed by the two acts is anywhere remotely equally grave in the context of the republic and its strength. [Which appears to be the point you're making - which IMO, is glue huffing territory.]

I believe you intended to be funny or sarcastic here, but many of the replies down-stream also seem to miss the point.

Provided you can believe the article...
There are *patterns* of thinking that indicate a student is about to make a mistake, that they otherwise may well be capable of solving correctly.

It's not that they can't handle that difficulty, or don't know the subject matter; it's that their brain is going into patterns that indicate it will simply be unable to reproduce the known material, and the student will fail on that problem, even if they have the requisite knowledge and skill to successfully answer the question.

It would seem a monumental failure to test someone and not actually measure the skill they have accurately.

Now, the solution? There are a myriad of them, and some are obviously better than others.

The prime solution, it seems in my mind, is to then give the subject a view of their brain and thinking that produced this likelihood of failure. You'd teach them how to recognize the onset of the thinking/brain patterns, and how to re-direct their thinking to help alleviate this bad construct.

Teaching someone how to do that would be incredible. It wouldn't involve "going easy" on them, and wouldn't give them results they couldn't achieve on their own. Once they were able to move out of the "bad" patterns, they could go right back to doing the test and you would get a much more accurate measurement of what the test-taker actually knew.

Further, almost certainly some people are much worse at getting stuck in these brain patterns - and their results from testing are probably much worse than the rest of the population and they are measured very inaccurately.

In spite of all the "humor" and snowflake BS thrown at the concept, I see this as something that could greatly improve the quality and skill of the people who utilized it. It could allow us to tap the potential of people who otherwise would be lost as "not very good" who really only fail the measurement system. [Or more accurately, the measurement system fails them.]

Why throw away many who *do* have the requisite knowledge - simply because we don't know how to help them perform better?
Why not help people perform better and learn where their brain limitations cost them - and better yet, teach them how to modify their thinking and work output to give them better results?

-Greg

As alleged by our government, who we all *know,* could never, ever tell a lie. (cough) (cough) (cough)

But given due processes these days, and the nature of our tiered justice system, why don't we just skip with the trial and lynch him already.

Really, when the executive branch (and all serious important people too) can blatantly commit serious felonies and we're to "look forward, not backward" - well, it's not surprising that we'd be attempting to break down the few brave people who actually leak the details about the felonious [not to mention morally repugnant] behavior of our government.

(sarcasm)
I mean, he was defending *brown* people from torture and we all know those *brown* people. [wink wink]
They hate us for our freedoms!
They're evildooers and teerrissts!
Think of the children!
(/sarcasm)

-Greg

! THIS !

@Jerry - while you have a point; the quote was out of context, you actually commit the offense you rail against in your defense.

Seriously!

Yes, the wording was changed - that is wrong. But the context as @willaien points out was Foreign policy experience, and proximity to Russia was a total misdirection. Proximity to Russia gave Palin absolutely no real experience in foreign policy.

Frankly the quote, while factually wrong, did maintain the logical fallacy and stupidity of the original Palin response.

So, hats off to hypocrisy. Raise a massive misdirection, to defend against a technically incorrect quote, which still maintains the vapid and empty-headed statement from Palin herself.

...due to its program to develop nuclear weapons

What program? What evidence.

I know many believe that's the case, but there's no conclusive evidence - at least none that isn't the "just trust us wink-wink, our all knowing leaders would never lie to you, and we're perfectly trust-worthy" kind. You know, don't let the problem of actual *evidence* worry your pretty little head. Leave that to the big serious folks. [Who incidentally have financial ties to the military-industrial complex and are hauling home cash by the truck-load.]

Second - they have a right to pursue a nuclear program. [They've signed agreements not to pursue a weapons program.]

So, it seems really crazy to demand that the Iranians prove the impossible. True or not, they will NEVER be able to prove they aren't working on a nuclear weapons program. I mean, sheesh, if Iraq couldn't prove there was no WMD program when there really WAS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER that they were, how could Iran hope for any better?

Proving a negative is always a losing battle...
[You know why Elephants paint their toenails red, don't you? Because they can hide in Cherry trees! You've never seen one, have you? See, it works!]

What Iran is really doing, I'm not sure. But I don't think anyone else is SURE either. So, we simply have to live with not knowing for sure.

Finally, I'm really not sure what gives the rest of the world the right to demand that a sovereign country stop doing developing any nuclear program.
It's OK if the west, or our friends do it, but you're EEEEVVVIIILL brown skinned muslims, so everyone must be *very* afraid!

I'm sure it won't be a good thing, but frankly, ANYONE having nuclear weapons is a bad thing. But it's kind of hard to ask "them" to give up the opportunity when you and all your friends have so thoroughly enjoyed it yourselves.

Further, the US and its partners discovered 700,000 tons of non-WMD UN-banned weapons when we invaded. Iraq was in violation of not one, not two, but THREE binding and in-force UN Security council resolutions, any one of which allowed for the use of force with no further justification.

Citation needed.

Then it would need to be the appropriate law enforcement from THAT country that would have an indictment.

It would be REALLY odd (nay, not within the law) for the US Department of Justice to be holding a sealed indictment for crimes under Australian law or any other country's laws. Ironic huh? That the US Justice Department would be involved in an extra-judicial, not-within-the-law process?!? Not really I guess, but "For Great Justice" - erm, lets lynch the SOB. Trust us, the president says he's an eeeeevilll-dooer, AND a terrorist!

And don't get me started on our great constitutional law scholar who is assassinating American citizens and their minor children without due process.

Summary: If you think pretty much anything the US government does these days is within the law, you aren't paying attention.

-Greg

I'm not exactly trying to knock you or your missionary friend...but let me say this.

There are just as many scammers that live in the USA or anywhere else for that matter.
There are just as many honest Nigerians too.

People are people.

Some are greedy liars, some are really nice folks.
It doesn't really matter if they're black, white, male, female, gay, straight, or whatever.

I do wish we'd start to question the premise of thoughts like this more.

Rather than "Why are Nigerians such scammers..." perhaps we ought to ask ourselves - "what has gone wrong that causes people to do these things.

The answers probably would be a lot more useful.

-Greg