Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:April:19 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2007/4/19 [Consumer/CellPhone, Health] UID:46367 Activity:nil
4/19    April 16, 2007 - Honey bees are dying off, and cell phones may be to blame.
Bees have been disappearing in 24 states, and beekeepers estimate more than a qu\
arter of the country's 2.4 billion colonies have been affected.

Previously, scientists thought dry weather or pesticides may have been the cause\
, but a new German study shows that radiation from cell phone signals disorients bees.

"When bees are exposed to signals from cell phones, they can't find their way,"\
said Dr. George L. Carlo, chairman of the Safewireless Initiative. "It gets no n\
utrition and it consequently dies."
2007/4/19-21 [Reference/Tax] UID:46368 Activity:nil
4/19    Rights are being eroded left'n'right, cameras are everywhere, net
        traffic is being scooped and analysed in bulk, pensions are long
        gone and social security isn't far behind while taxes are scheduled
        to go up further, the borders barely exist, there's only one
        political party but it has two names, and the insane rantings of a
        psychopathic killer are being broadcast which will only enourage
        others of similar nature to attempt to 'get their message out, too'.
        But at least they finally kicked Sanjaya!  Whew!
        \_ Small victories, my son, small victories.
2007/4/19-20 [Uncategorized] UID:46369 Activity:nil
4/19    Any serious advice on how to cut down on the misfirre from recruiters
        when posting your resume ? I mean jobs that you have at most one
        of the qualifications for. For example; I get alot of ads for
        Windows automation even though there is none in my resume. I used
        to chalk it up to a stupid recruiter. But its becoming far more
        common. ARE there just alot of stupid recruiters out there?
        \_ I would guess tighter labor market.
2007/4/19-21 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:46370 Activity:low
4/19    The late Asia's richest woman left her fortune to her fortune-teller.
        http://www.csua.org/u/ii8 (Yahoo! News)
        \- that wang woman is pretty odd. didnt she wear pigtails into
           her sixities .. on formal occasions.
           \_ Yeah, that's her.  Her Chinese nakename is something like "Little
              Sweetie".  Her husband was kidnapped twice.  The first time he
              survived.  The second time he or his body never re-appeared.
        \_ I really hope that they follow the original will.  It sounds like
           it has a lot of good intentions backed by adequate control of
           distribution.
2007/4/19-21 [Science/Space, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46371 Activity:nil
4/19    IAEA confirms Iran is enriching uranium, and has disallowed inspectors
        from visiting their heavy-water facility.
        http://csua.org/u/iia
2007/4/19-21 [Reference/Tax] UID:46372 Activity:nil
4/19    W-4 withholding question.  For those who are married with combined
        salaries of 2 x $100K, about how many allowances do you put on your
        W-4?  It seems like the computation method on the back of the form
        omits the deduction of state taxes, and I end up putting down 0
        allowances and withhold an extra $9K.  Let's say there is no mortgage
        interest deduction or significant investment income.  Thanks.
        \_ Call an accountant or just run the numbers through turbo tax.
           \_ ran it through turbotax, it says 4 allowances for me, 2 for her.
              but i figure there are married couples here who did this before
              they bought a house and wanted to verify ...
              i'm also surprised the w-4 instructions could be so wrong.
              \_ Remember it's a gov't agency.
2007/4/19-21 [Reference/Military] UID:46373 Activity:high
4/19    Just last month, two private citizens stopped a potential shooting
        spree because they had guns:  http://csua.org/u/ii6
        \_ And?
        \_ I know this is going to spur another thread on whether sources
           matter, but I'm not finding this in the mainstream news. Help?
           \_ Scripps isn't mainstream?
              \_ Scripps is a news-service; the story is being quoted from
                 The Commercial Appeal out of Memphis. This appears to be the
                 _only_ source of this story out there in the Internet.
           \_ Here's the local news story:
              http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=43109
              \_ Believe me, I want to believe this story is true, but now
                 I've got a Commercial Appeal story and an AP story that
                 doesn't actually appear in a search of the AP archives.
                 Please help!
                 \_ Ah, so the local stories are also in on the conspiracy.
                    Got it.
                    \_ What conspiracy? If you see a news story from only
                       one source, it's hard to tell if it's news or
                       anecdote. Are you not familiar with urban legends?
                       \_ Found the Commercial Appeal story, and it's worthy
                          of Paul Harvey: http://csua.org/u/iib (Commercial
                          Appeal). Roberson's side of the story:
                          'Roberson, 56, said Wednesday evening that he'd been
                           rear-ended by a black car carrying six men.
                           Roberson said he called police, then when the men
                           got out of their car, he reached down, got his gun
                           and tucked it into his back pocket.

                           At some point, Roberson said most of the men
                           dispersed, leaving just the driver and a "heavyset"
                           man. Roberson said the large man then pulled a gun.

                           "I didn't know what his intentions were, so I came
                            out with mine. I started shooting," said Roberson,
                            who is licensed to carry a gun.

                           Roberson, who was charged with reckless
                           endangerment, admits to some regrets about the
                           affair.

                           "I probably could've handled it a little better,"
                           added Roberson, who said he'd put his gun away
                           before the brothers arrived. "Just leave it ...
                           alone."
                          So now we know the rest of the story, and it's not
                          that a well-armed citizenry leads to less shootings.
        \_ Great example of how the easy availability of guns leads to
           shootings.   -tom
           \_ So what is your plan to eliminate guns?  Passing anti-gun laws
              won't eliminate them from criminal hands (that's why we call
              them criminals, they don't follow laws).  Are you advocating
              shutting down the gun makers so guns simply cease to become
              available and rounding up all the fire arms currently out there?
              \_ The shooter at VA Tech and the shooter in this story both
                 had legal permits; they weren't criminals until they
                 started shooting.  It doesn't take a whole lot of
                 imagination to figure out ways to reduce gun ownership.  -tom
                 \_ The VAT guy had been sent to the loony ward for help and
                    was a known problem.  He should not have been given a gun
                    permit.  We don't know much about this other guy so I can't
                    comment.  Anyway, I'm not very imaginative, so what is
                    your plan to reduce/eliminate gun violence?
                    \_ Medical records are private, and I'm sure the NRA
                       wouldn't be a big fan of legislation that barred
                       anyone who's been treated for depression from owning
                       a gun.  Ya think?
                       My plan is to enact legislation like England's,
                       develop gun turn-in programs, and confiscate them
                       from criminals.   -tom
                       \_ Medical records aren't private when someone is
                          determined to be a threat.  And *anyone* can be
                          hauled in for a 3 day evalution with little more
                          than a social worker's say so.  And what the NRA
                          thinks of anything is meaningless.  That's red
                          herring material.
                          So your plan is to do what a number of cities already
                          do with turnin programs and to confiscate guns from
                          criminals which already happens.  Ok.  Your plan is
                          in place and has failed.  Now what?
                          \_ Uh, I'm saying that a gun shop can't look at
                             someone's medical records to determine if
                             they can sell him a gun.
                             And you left out a rather important part of the
                             plan, which is to enact gun control laws which,
                             you know, keep people from buying more guns.
                             And yes, my plan is in place, and has succeeded.
                               -tom
                             \_ No one said a gun shop can look at medical
                                records.  What do you think the waiting period
                                is for?  They're sending your name off to get
                                checked for things like having a criminal
                                record or being a lunatic.  And your idea of
                                gun control laws will do exactly nothing to
                                keep guns from the hands of real criminals
                                while disarming their potential victims, the
                                rest of us.  Your plan has failed to get guns
                                from the hands of real criminals while making
                                it very hard for responsible citizens to
                                protect themselves.  Good work!
                                \_ Your medical record is not checked during
                                   the waiting period, so not only is your
                                   conjecture ridiculous, your facts are
                                   wrong.  -tom
                                   \_ The NICS system does include records of
                                      whether people have been committed.  So
                                      if a court concludes that you're a threat
                                      to yourself and others, has you committed
                                      to a mental hospital, and you later try
                                      to buy a gun, the NICS system will flag
                                      that and reject you when the firearms
                                      dealer runs you through NICS at the time
                                      of purchase.  Incidentally, a NICS check
                                      only takes a few minutes in most cases.
                                      A waiting period is only required at a
                                      federal level when it doesn't go that
                                      quickly (for whatever reason -- confusion
                                      in their records, or just from NICS
                                      being down).  A waiting period is usually
                                      imposed at the state level (such as the
                                      ten day wait in California).  NICS did
                                      involve a waiting period in the early
                                      days, but that went away by design as
                                      the system matured.  From what I've seen
                                      in the news, it sounds like the judge
                                      stopped short of something that would
                                      have shown up in NICS.
                                                                --alawrenc
                                      \_ VT nutjob was not committed.  (It's
                                         very difficult to commit anyone
                                         these days.)  -tom
                                         \_ Being adjudicated as a mental
                                            defective will also disqualify you
                                            and show up in NICS.  The point I
                                            was trying to make is that things
                                            can show up in a NICS check to
                                            disqualify you based on your mental
                                            health without the gun shop having
                                            access to medical records.  If you
                                            get rejected by NICS, the FFL who
                                            made the NICS request doesn't know
                                            why.
                                                                --alawrenc
                 \_ So lets say that we ban all gun factories except those
                    that sell to law enforcement and the military, what is
                    to stop criminals from either (1) importing their guns
                    from elsewhere (a la the drug trade) or (2) making guns
                    illegally? I mean do you really want the gun trade to
                    go underground and turn that into another debacle like
                    the whole drug thing?
                    \_ The VA Tech shooting was not done by "a criminal".
                       Neither was the shooting in this article.  It will
                       still be possible to obtain guns, just like any other
                       contraband; should we legalize heroin, since it's
                       still possible to get it on the street?  (Actually
                       if you're a libertarian nutjob, don't answer that.)
                         -tom
                       \_ Of course he's a criminal, he decided to murder
                          a whole bunch of people. He's probably not that
                          stupid and could very possibly have acquired
                          an illegal gun had there been a handgun ban.
                          Or modified a legal gun to make it concealable.
                          \_ He wasn't a criminal when he bought the gun,
                             over the counter.  Surely you aren't suggesting
                             that it's just as easy to obtain heroin as
                             alcohol now.  -tom
                             \_ You make a HUGE assumption - if guns were
                                not available OTC then the nutjob wouldn't
                                have been able to get any guns. If one is
                                determined to use a gun in connection w/ a
                                crime, then one will find a way to obtain
                                a gun. Furthermore, let's say we ban all
                                the guns, and criminals switch to using
                                knives, swords, crossbows, &c. What then
                                ban anything that could be used as a weapon?
                                Ban all classes that might teach you how to
                                make a weapon? Well at least the next gen
                                of ugs wouldn't have to suffer the 7 series.
                                \_ How about this: Let's just ban guns,
                                   because unlike knives, swords, and
                                   crossbows, they are known to be commonly
                                   used in fatal attacks in the U.S., and
                                   there is plenty of precedent for
                                   ways to control their distribution.  -tom
                                   \_ Swords, knives, &c. have been killing
                                      people for MUCH longer than guns have.
                                      What effective precedents are there
                                      for controlling gun distribution that
                                      would ACTUALLLY keep guns out of the
                                      hands of criminals?
                                      The whole failure of your argument
                                      is the assumption that w/o OTC access
                                      to guns, those who commit crimes would
                                      be deprived of access to them. That
                                      is not a realistic assumption. Do you
                                      really think this nutjob wouldn't have
                                      found some other way to get his guns?
                                      \_ Yes, I think there's a big difference
                                         between being able to walk into a
                                         store and buy a gun, and having to
                                         find some black-market way to
                                         obtain one.  It's the same difference
                                         that keeps more people drinking
                                         alcohol than smoking pot.  And
                                         there exist other countries which
                                         manage to keep guns out of the
                                         hands of nutjobs. It's obviously not
                                         impossible--it's being done.  -tom
                                         \_ Yeah, banning guns has completely
                                            stopped violent crime in Australia
                                            and the UK.  Oops, not really.
                                            \_ Strawman.  Both the U.K. and
                                               Australia have murder rates
                                               less than half of ours.  -tom
                                            \_ More to the point, the number
                                               of mass fatalities due to
                                               violent crime is lower in places
                                               where guns are banned.
                                         \_ I guess we just disagree. I think
                                            that you might stop the occasional
                                            spur of the moment crime by making
                                            it harder to purchase guns, but I
                                            don't think that a ban will affect
                                            people like the nutcase in VT.
                                            Such people will manage to find
                                            guns just like ugs at Cal manage
                                            to find pot on a regular basis.
                                            I just think the marginal upside
                                            of safety from gun violence is
                                            not enough to outweigh the loss
                                            of overall freedom that we as a
                                            people will have from our gov.
                                            I think my freedom is worth the
                                            risk that I will be a victim of
                                            gun violence. You don't. I can
                                            accept that.
                                            \_ Could you explain, then, why
                                               our murder rate is double
                                               that of comparable countries?
                                                 -tom
                                               \_ I do not think there are
                                                  any comparable countries.
                                                  Every where else on earth
                                                  is less free than the US.
                                                  Perhaps the price for my
                                                  freedom is that some nut
                                                  will kill me using a gun
                                                  he bought at Walmart, but
                                                  I'm willing to pay that
                                                  price.
                                                  \_ Uh, how is the U.S. any
                                                     more "free" than the
                                                     U.K. or Australia?  Other
                                                     than gun ownership.  -tom
                                                     \_ We do have a more open
                                                        legislative process than
                                                        at least the UK.
                                                        -scotsman
                                                     \_ Can you walk down the
                                                        street without being
                                                        watched by the gvt?
                                                        You can't and no.
                                                        They are on track to
                                                        1984.  Only lack of
                                                        funds for cameras in
                                                        every home is holding
                                                        them back, they have
                                                        them every- where
                                                        else.  The people are
                                                        certainly suffici-
                                                        ently brow beaten for
                                                        it.  You can't even
                                                        legally defend
                                                        yourself or another in
                                                        the UK.  If the UK is
                                                        your idea of a free
                                                        place, I'd rather risk
                                                        getting shot, thanks.
                                                        \_ You didn't mention
                                                           Australia.  And
                                                           there are plenty
                                                           of government
                                                           cameras in the US.
                                                            -tom
                                                           \_ I don't know
                                            \_ Drawing on this argument, are
                                               there any studies/documentaries
                                               showing how hard/easy it is to
                                               obtain a gun on the so-called
                                               black market? Are there studies
                                               comparing black market sales of
                                               of firearms in countries that
                                               ban guns and those that, like
                                               the US, regulate irregularly?
                anything about Australia so I didn't comment.  Unlike a number
                of people here I restrict myself to things I know something
                about.  And no, the number of cameras in the US which are
                mostly in gas stations and banks is trivial next to what the
                UK has done and plans to expand to.  There's no way you can
                make any serious claim that the US == UK on watching their
                citizens.  It's even worse there because the intent of the
                cameras is to exert social control, not improve security such
                as here with banks.  Do you really not know what is going on
                in the UK with their 1984 style camera plans?
                \_ Do you really not know what's going on in the U.S.?
                   There are cameras at almost every intersection in
                   San Francisco now.  They're starting to show up on
                   speed limit signs, too.  Also, you stated that
                   "there are no comparable countries," and
                   "everywhere else is less free than the U.S."  That
                   implies knowledge of why Australia is not
                   comparable to the U.S.  Certainly, not including
                   Australia in your response is a dodge.  -tom
                     \_ We need a War on Guns.
           \_ not everyone sprays and prays like the runner buttorper u r
              \_ "I was addicted to Netrek.  The fame, the success, the
                 glory."  Good to see you back, Duck.  -tom
                 \_ 2 INL rings baby! CMU and GB! hehe
                 \_ Tom. so what happens when your ship if fueless?
                   you get scummed (killed).. what happens if you have
                   fuel? Tom runs away.. Ergo.. possession of firearms
                   (fuel) leads to peaceful situations - duck
                   \_ Fuel is not a firearm; torps and phasers are.  If you
                      try your to SC-ogg when I have fuel, I'll just kill
                      you and take the planet.  Ergo, possession of
                      firearms leads to genocide.  -tom
                      \_ NO!.. SOunds like Self-Defense to me!
                       So you do have it in you!! u just dont know it-duck
        \_ The funny thing about this story is that it basically goes like
           this:
           1) Minor traffic accident
           2) Minor argument
           3) Unknown person allegedly pulls out a gun
           4) Robinson pulls out a legal gun and starts shooting
           5) Robinson puts gun away
           6) Yahoo in pickup truck pulls out a legal gun, threatens Robinson

           The funny part is that this is being posted as an example of why
           we need *more* guns!  Like this interaction went better because
           people had guns.  If anything, it points out the stupid things
           people do when they have guns, and that one doesn't need to be
           a "criminal" to do something stupid with a gun that could get
           someone killed.  -tom
           \_ That's one version.  How about this version: not knowing Robinson
              had a gun, they figured they push him around and maybe beat him
              up.  But they were wrong.  Then another armed citizen comes up
              and is fortunately armed and defuses the whole thing.  Without
              guns involved, this could have easily turned into, "Man in minor
              fender bender beaten to death, police seek possible witnesses".
              \_ Unlike yours, my version is supported by the actual story
                 as reported.  -tom
                 \_ Duh.  My version is the hypothetical if guns weren't
                    involved.  Try again with reading comprehension > 0.
                    \_ According to the article, there was only one guy
                       left *before* any guns were involved.  Try again
                       with clue > 0.  -tom
                       \_ Yeah, a big thug who was looking to beat him up,
                          like I said.  He didn't pull the gun for nothing.
                          Back to reading class.
                          \_ ??? R says he was tailed by 6 dudes in car. He
                             gets out of his truck. They get out of their car
                             five of them split. The remaining guy pulls gun.
                             R pulls gun and starts shooting. Bros. arrive and
                             draw gun on R. Large dude disappears. Bros. place
                             R under citizen arrest. By any reading of the
                             article, the five dudes split before R pulled his
                             gun. -!tom
        \_ here is a related question. The whole second amendment thing is
           wrt a "well-regulated militia".  So how does that allow someone
           to own a gun unless they are part of such a militia. And , last
           I checked, state militias went out with the civil war and laws
           against treason/overthrow of the government. So, shouldn't
           the whole second amendment thing be moot as a justification for
           personal handgun use /ownership? --not a troll
           \_ Because the "militia" at that time was all adult males capable of
              using a firearm, not something like the National Guard we see
              today.  Remember that at that time most people were farmers or
              tradesmen and the government was trivially small.  There was little
              "well regulated" government anything at the time.
                \_ I understand the past relevance; but not the current one.
                   Gov't is very different now than it was back then. As I
                   understand, it was supposed to also act as a stopgap to
                   an overreaching Federal gov't (or a king). I just don't
                   understand the contemporary relevance. Unless of course
                   you beleive in the right/need for the violent overthrow of
                   the government. No sane person would think that way.
                   (At least I hope not).
                   \_ one could say the contemporary purpose is the same as
                      the past one:  as a deterrent.  no sane person would
                      want to start a global thermonuclear war.
                      \_ Every NRA member should be issued a thermonuclear
                         device to be used in self-defense only.  Because
                         who can you trust, if not NRA members?  -tom
           \_ This is actually a good question for which there is no
              clear answer (depending on your politics).
              I am not a 2d expert, but what I know from my Con Law
              class, and related, is that there are two views re the
              rights in the 2d. To inform our discussion, the amend.
              is quoted below:
                  [i] A well regulated militia, [ii] being
                  necessary to the security of a free state,
                  [iii] the right of the people to keep and
                  bear arms, [iv] shall not be infringed.
              (I have numbered the phrases for reference purposes.)
              Phrase iii seems to recongize that that "the people"
              have a right to "keep and bear arms." This is what
              many people call the "personal right" to arms.
              The difficulty comes when one tries to determine the
              import of phrases i and ii.
              One view is that these phrases qualify the personal
              right. Thus the right recongized is a right of the
              states to maintain an armed militia. The modern view
              on this is that the term militia means something like
              the national guard, which can be deployed by a state's
              governor. Basically, Congress couldn't pass a law that
              prevented the states from arming thier national guard
              units.
              A different view is that phrase i and ii recognize a
              separate right (the right of the states) or merely
              explain the personal right; the personal right exists
              separate and apart from the other language. This view
              comes from the fact that many of the other amendments
              recognize multiple rights in condensed language. It is
              also supported by fact that at the time the amendment
              was adopted, the term militia was widely understood to
              mean all adult males. (Some dispute whether this is
              strictly true, b/c why would the framers use the term
              "people" and "militia" if the terms were basically the
              same).
              If you are really interested, you should read the
              following cases:
              [1] PARKER v. D.C., No. 04-7041 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 9, 2007),
                  http://urltea.com/ec4 (cadc.uscourts.cov - pdf)
                  (holding that the 2d amend. recognizes a personal
                  right).
              [2] US v. EMERSON, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001),
                  http://urltea.com/ec6 (findlaw.com)
                  (holding that the 2d amend. recongizes a personal
                  right).
              [3] SILVEIRA v. LOCKYER, 312 F.2d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002)
                  http://urltea.com/ec8 (ca9.uscourts.gov - pdf)
                  (holding that the 2d amend. does not recognize a
                  personal right).
              [4] US v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 175 (1939)
                  http://urltea.com/ec9 (findlaw.com)
                  (questioning whether the 2d amend. provided any
                  personal right, absent evidence tending to show
                  that possession of a particular weapon had some
                  reasonable relationship to the preservation or
                  efficiency of a militia).
           \_ the "well regulated" modifier I believe was meant to address
              a real fear of mob rule and other acts of the unwashed
              citizenry.  thus, we see the correct interpretation of the
              second amendment - a balance between gun ownership as a
              fundamental right and guarantee against government tyranny,
              and regulation to prevent going loco with your Glock.
              the core issue is in where you strike this balance.
2007/4/19 [Reference/Military] UID:46374 Activity:nil
4/19    Tom does believe in Self defense and the right to bear arms
        (see evidence)
        Tom. so what happens when your ship if fueless?
        you get scummed (killed).. what happens if you have
        fuel? Tom runs away.. Ergo.. possession of firearms
        (fuel) leads to peaceful situations - duck
        \_ Fuel is not a firearm; torps and phasers are.  If you
           try your to SC-ogg when I have fuel, I'll just kill
           you and take the planet.  Ergo, possession of
           firearms leads to genocide.  -tom
           \_ NO!.. SOunds like Self-Defense to me!
           So you do have it in you!! u just dont know it.. - Duck
        (see.. Tom needs fuel for self defense and will use it)
        \_ SMACK!  -tom
        \_ DOOSH!! - duck
        \_ Just let the clue CCW , don't allow the clueless twinks to CCW
           and hope for the best.. - duck
2007/4/19-21 [Computer/Networking] UID:46375 Activity:nil
4/19    After installing Logitech wireless mouse, my friend cannot connect from
        his PC to his wireless broadband router via a USB wireless network
        device.  It said that it cannot obtain IP address from the router.  Even
        uninstalling the Logitech wireless mouse doesn't help.  Do you know how
        to fix the wireless LAN problem, so that his PC can obtain IP address
        again?
                depends on the security level of the router. Does it have
        the macid of the wireless card?
        \_ depends on the security level of the router. Does it have the macid
           of the wireless card?
2007/4/19-20 [Politics/Domestic] UID:46376 Activity:nil
4/19    A message all of us, liberals and conservatives, can get behind:
        http://www.thepoorman.net/2007/04/14/a-little-bit-country
        \_ already posted and boring
2007/4/19-21 [Uncategorized] UID:46377 Activity:nil
4/19    This motd post dedicated to ALBERTO ... i suspect everybody would
        rather be branded a liar than a fool, but if you had to pick between
        say a 12mo sentence for some perjury/contempt/obstruction charge or
        be outed as a fool, what would you pick:
          ex-con:
          fool:
        And once again GOPAT!
2007/4/19-21 [Uncategorized] UID:46378 Activity:nil
4/19    Anyone following Life on mars ( the BBC version)?
        \_ I've watched a couple.  Enjoyed it, but not enough to make the
           TIVO.  Now the Robin Hood BBCAmerica is running is lots o' fun.
                \_ RH is a lot of fun. Lucy is also nice on the eyes too.
2007/4/19-21 [Consumer/CellPhone] UID:46379 Activity:low
4/19    I've been on verizon for a few years now, and haven't had many problems,
        but I don't like their selection of phones. I'm considering Cingular.
        Does anyone have any significant pros/cons for a Verizon to Cingular
        switch? Thanks.
        \_ You can't ask anything about phone companies and expect a consistent
           answer. It's like a game of the musical chair. Company A gives you
           a better deal and advertise heavily for the time being till they
           oversubscribe to get a higher margin, while company B is waiting for
           company A to oversubscribe, etc etc. It goes on and on.
        \_ If it's not broke don't fix it. -Verizon shareholder
        \_ All the mobile companies seem to suck equally in the United States.
           Ever make a cellphone call in Europe?
                \_ No, but part of the reason I want to switch is to be
                   able to have a phone that works internationally (and
                   cingular offers such phones).
                   \_ keep in mind that the phones offered by Cingular while
                      compatible with Euro/Asian networks won't actually work
                      on them because they'll be locked on the Cingular
                      network. You'll need to either get it unlocked on the
                      black market or pay a premium to get an unlocked phone.
                      \_ Verizon also offers such phones, but you also have to
                         pay someone to unlock it.
        \_ I just switched from T-Mobile to Verizon last December, and the
           Samsung SCH-a930 I have now seems good.
2017/09/21 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/21    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:April:19 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>