Don't try to use super-low-power things for software development. Get something that will run things quickly and efficiently, and turn it off when you're not using it.
But never with T-mobile. AT&T did indeed allow third parties to start charging us without permission, then made it a fair amount of hassle (from my point of view, anyway) to cancel the services which we never requested. Never had a problem on any of our t-mobile lines.
Glad to see that things I was hearing about back in college, and used to experiment with Unix ports of in the early 90s, and which were also found in the pre-OSX Mac dev environment, are being reinvented as though they were new.
The big flaw here is your assumption that the justification for the "higher paying job" should be "entirely practical skills".
It's the general education and study that are most useful in making you able to eventually be significantly more productive and effective than someone without an education... Except of course that there's lots of ways of getting an education that don't happen to come with a diploma. But employers are not totally insane to prefer people who have a broader educational background, because those people will be more able to do a good job of lots of things.
I think you're assuming that the original connection between degrees and salaries was more direct than it really ever was.
I think it's very much that, in this particular case. The anon didn't say that women should be in some way responsible for choices like "walking alone in dangerous neighborhoods at night", but for how they look or dress. That's... actually not at all justifiable. I am okay with suggesting that people ought to lock their houses, learn self defense, and so on, because in practice they ought to. I'm less okay with saying that if they fail to do so, that makes it their fault if they get mugged, raped, or otherwise attacked.
The blame-the-victim thing comes from the just world fallacy. People don't want to think that bad things happen to innocent people, so they declare the people non-innocent.
You can reproduce this beautifully in lab conditions. Play people a recording of someone being tortured and they will start disliking the person and thinking badly of them.
Good job shifting the goalposts, but that's pretty much totally unrelated. See, the lions are generally not considered to be moral actors. Humans usually are.
Of course she's responsible for how she looks and dresses, it's just that neither of those can ever be, in any way, a justification for rape. They're totally irrelevant. She's also responsible for what she has for breakfast, and that's every bit as relevant to your decision as to whether or not you want to be a rapist. Which, given that you're playing apologetics for it, presumably you do.
That's not obvious at all. I am pretty sure I could make more money doing other things, but I enjoy the things I do now more. Your best interest isn't necessarily what makes you the most money.
Well, apart from the complete lack of citations, etcetera:
Who cares what someone did in 1944? And what does 9/11 have to do with anything? You're making a moral argument that something is disgusting or immoral, but that's not a rebuttal to the claim that it has a particular effect.
It's also a little weird to see you talking about the "post 9/11 vaccine" for a disease that we haven't generally vaccinated for since 1972 or so.
People were concerned about them, but since they were inevitable, you couldn't do anything but not worry too much and hope for the best.
We knew that mumps and measles were one-time diseases, and that it was best to get them early because then you were immune, some of them are much more dangerous in adults (especially mumps, which sterilzes adult males), and anyway the sooner you get it the less of an investment we lose if it kills you.
People were a lot more casual about kids dying in the past.
The Wakefield paper may not have been retracted, but there were plenty of things demonstrating that it was wrong. I blame her because she's clearly highly influential.
I'd be interested in seeing citations. I have been told by someone whose credibility and sources I trust that there was no throttling as such, just a configuration of routes and bandwidth such that the traffic would go through heavily congested gateways which never seemed to get upgraded. But nothing like an actual QoS filter limiting traffic. Still easy to fix immediately upon wanting to, but also a thing that even a fairly strict net neutrality law wouldn't really prevent...
It's worth distinguishing between neutrality between actors, and neutrality between protocols.
It makes perfect sense to use QoS features to guarantee reliable availability of a small amount of bandwidth with very high priority (thus lower latency) for VOIP, while allowing downloads to consume a ton of bandwidth but get delayed slightly to get the VOIP traffic where it wants to be. We do stuff like this all the time at many levels and it's good engineering.
The concern about net neutrality is more at the level of, say, choosing to throttle companies you are trying to compete with. Although apparently, the real issue with Comcast and the like has mostly been not actively throttling, but merely failing to upgrade feeds enough to handle the load.
Most significantly, the temperature people generally serve coffee at is, in fact, hot enough go give third-degree burns. The general recommended temperature to store coffee at before serving is 185 degrees (farenheit, obviously). The truth is neither that the lawsuit was totally frivolous, nor that it was totally justified, but that this was a complicated situation with a number of issues that generally get glossed over.