What credit should be given to these kids who drop the major? They only wanted to be in science because they think there is money in it. Or they watched too much CSI.
It isn't bad but my service drops more and I have to power off the phone on my Motorola XT603. Still like the phone though because it is the only way to get android and PTT. What I'd love to see is a PTT app available on any android phone.
I am using a Motorola XT603 Android phone with Sprint and as I understand it the Nextel Push To Talk is going out like data. They did have "hybird" phones before that had a iden radio for push to talk and used the standard Sprint network for voice. The push to talk service is NOT as solid as on a standard iden phone, but it is decent.
This will be a tough switch because most business users are using the nextel PTT just like a two way radio that you don't need to buy repeater space for. The old motorola phones were very heavy duty. I have drivers and technicians with phones that are ten years old that have been abused and still work well.
One side note "push-to-talk" communication is the only cellular service that the Federal Motor Carrier safety Administration allows haz-mat drivers to use, provided that they are able to initiate and receive a call by pressing only one button. Hopefully Sprint doesn't screw this up. If the driver has to press anything more than one button, there is absolutely no reason for him to have a Sprint phone.
The problem is the banks don't expose themselves to anything they lay security almost 100% at the feet of the merchant. The only institutions who could create a secure system, the issuing banks and the Visa/Mastercard cartel, won't because they can blame the merchants. If they can't blame the merchants they can blame the ISO's or third party processors. Every card transaction that is swiped hits the merchants POS, then goes out on a network like Buypas and is handled by the third party processing company, then hits Visa/Mastercard and issuing bank. The merchants can't secure the system because they only have the data initially. The ISOs are on the hook if the merchant can't pay for the breach, Visa/Mastercard are not liable for anything.
And that is the reason PCI compliance is security theater. merchants can be as secure as possible, yet they are on the hook for the information once it passes out of their hands. The entities that could secure the process, Visa/Mastercard and the issuing banks, won't because they have nothing to lose because the merchants are responsible. Other than the TJ Max breach the large breaches have been third party ISOs who handle the credit card processing.
Verizon is asking that the Union members contribute to their health insurance, they contribute 0 now, and they will have to pay $80.00 per week for a full family plan.
Depending on the union contract UPS drivers have to pay for damages to their trucks, but the UPS drivers also get things like the ability to retire with a full pension and health insurance after 20 years. Now this just changed and they added that you had to be older than 57 to retire. I just had a conversation with a guy griping that he had to wait another 10 years to retire. He thought that was just not fair, I mean he was 45 and had 18 years. But he said it wasn't all bad, because he had 8 weeks of vacation a year.
As a merchant I deal with credit credit card chargebacks on a regular basis. All a customer has to say is that is not my charge. We have to send back documentation, such as proof of signature. If the charge happened at the credit card readers at our gasoline dispensers, we have no signature, and we eat the charge. We have even offered to provide the customer or issuing bank with the license plate number and picture of person and vehicle charging, but that means nothing. That is why in many locations you need to enter your zip code at a pay at the pump, this offers some security to the merchant, even though by rule the merchant still must eat the charge if the customer balks.
Now if the merchant goes tits up or goes bad and steals money from the customers credit cards and can't pay it back, then the merchant's processing ISO is on the hook. The processor isn't Visa/Mastercard or the issuing bank, it is someone like First Data or a myriad of other middle men. The processor gets as little as 3 to 6 cents a transaction, passing the interchange cost to the merchant. The merchant has paid anywhere from 50 cents a transaction to 3% for the convenience of letting a customer pay with credit.The issuing banks and the cartel of Visa/Mastercard are on the hook only if the processor goes under. And even then it is the issuing banks that deal with the customer directly and they are the only ones who can decide to credit or not credit the customer.
The problem with this system in the United States is that the entities that make money off of credit card transactions, i.e. the issuing banks, have absolutely no incentive to make the system more secure. They do none of the work, other than marketing their credit cards and profiting off of their card holders who use their cards and the merchants who accept their cards
They can't because of the PCI standards, you are required to have a secure system scan for crap etc now to be allowed to processor cards. Now not all processors are enforcing the standards some are just collecting a "non-compliance" fee every month. In addition, the issuing banks can correlate stolen credit card numbers with the merchant that they were last used properly at.
The saying is extended "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach, and those who can't teach become principals"
Security Essentials even seems to be more effective than AVG
You know what - I would because it would cut down on the crazy medical malpractices awards and maybe, just maybe, make healthcare affordable.
The civil courts are NOT a venue for the rich to abuse the poor, but they are a venue for the well lawyered to abuse whomever they want.
Witness the raft of personal injury, product liability, workplace discrimination, ADA compliance, and bankruptcy cases. In every one of those cases the plaintiff is usually poorer than whom they are suing, BUT their law firm is not. Now granted that every one of those cases needs something however small to get started, but most reasonable people would agree that quite often the "damages" awarded are not at all in proportion to what was suffered. Now this goes both ways, there are tons of people who have been discriminated against or injured or whatever, who haven't gotten their due because they didn't retain the best lawyer. Nothing to do with money, because the lawyer just gets a cut of the reward, nothing from the plaintiff upfront.