Verizon said it was 1% of their customers. 1% of their customers on a $100 a month plan adds up pretty quickly. The financials should show an increase in revenue, a flat or even 0.5% drop is "bad". Even if half of them leave they just lost a lot of revenue and didn't get rid of any of the high usage customers that they were aiming at.

The thing that Verizon doesn't realize is that the type of people that hung onto this plan for 3 years are not the type of people that will stay with Verizon if they get off of unlimited, its the type of people that hang out on slick deals. They are going to be left with just the people who use 50+ GB a month and the ones that use 5-10GB are going to switch to another carrier where they can pay half the price for that amount of data.

I'd much rather see the headline "pro-gamers get their hands on the steam controller and approve" than anything else. Especially any that use the claw or hammer grips (aka keeping a finger on the a b x y buttons at all times). Game developers aren't necessarily known for being good at their games.

EVERY contract is a restraint of trade. A restraint is only part of what is needed to be illegal. You also need either an agreement that unreasonably restrains competition under Sherman act section 1 (such as a horizontal agreement to split up the market or price fix), or a restraint using monopoly power under Sherman act section 2. An exclusivity agreement not to sell android code unless it comes from Google is not a violation of either section.

If you read the whole section he didn't say he would do nothing about it because China was worse. He said that there are better ways to fix it than taxing carbon emissions in America. What would our corporate overlords do if there was a Cap and Trade tax? They would dodge the tax, like they dodge any tax they can, by moving their operations elsewhere, in this case, out of America. A tax on just American operations would have no net decrease in emissions.

Can a person fail the turing test for being too dumb to create a description that most people on slashdot can understand?

Interesting to think about whether the Fourth Amendment applies here. The Fourth Amendment only protects us from government action. This non-profit would be considered a private person, whom are only covered when they are acting in their capacity as an agent of the government. This is determined by the level of government involvement in the situation and the totality of the circumstances. I'm not a lawyer, but based on the facts here it seems like this non-profit would be considered an agent of the government, and therefore you may not be able to sue them for money damages, but the material they collect probably cannot be used as evidence in a crime.

This probably had something to do with it. Verizon found a way to buy as much spectrum as they wanted while jumping through way less regulation hurdles. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/12/verizon-buys-up-spectrum/2/

The internet was always somewhere just beyond the reach of the law because laws always focused on taking down the illegal program or site through technical means. The most recent set of laws focuses less on technology, and more on financial backing, which has proven much more effective at censoring any program or website. You can get around DNS blocking, but you can't get around a site not having any way whatsoever to collect revenue. Ensuring no revenue will cripple websites in a way that none of your technological solutions can prevent.

Don't forget Compuserve also served up content in an icons in a grid that looks even more closely like the iphone than anything else. Random blog with a picture: http://www.fanboy.com/2009/07/compuserve.html

I would assume most cities are not nearly as prolific at handing out tickets than Boston. Generating parking revenue is one area where they have their act together. Cambridge even puts yoga images to calm you down after handing you a $25 ticket.

Maybe no one cares who people are facebook friends with???

Its even easier than that. A patent is granted to the inventor. You can't take another persons invention to the patent office.

Apparently even the posters don't even bother reading the articles anymore... First line under the title: Apr 13, 2009 3:50 am