I've just come back from Europe (Spain) for the the first time with my operator and their new free roaming plan - it was amazing.
I pay Three £15 p/m for unlimited data, lots of intra-Three calls and some messages/calls to other networks (in the country I'm in at the time) and can now do that not just in the UK but in Spain, the US, Australia and more (http://www.three.co.uk/Discover/Phones/Feel_At_Home). That's cheaper than most local operators and a much better example than whats offered here.
I'd wager it won't be long before Three sims are being picked up by tourists and used as their main operator back at home.
I'm using Three too with the same plan, but when I'm in a Feel At Home destination, I still pay if I send a texts to a local number. It is not included in my general texts allowance. Am I doing something wrong?
The data itself is free though, which is the most important for me. It is definitely better than having to go to a phone store and get a cheap sim.
Yes, this is annoying. However the fees are way less than calling from UK->country.
EG: when in the UK calling the US costs 56.2p minute, which is a complete ripoff as it should be cheaper than calling a UK mobile (virtually nil cost to do these calls). However, when actually in the US it's 15.6p. Same price differential for SMS.
I've set up Google Voice -> US SIP -> UK SIP -> 3 Mobile. This gives me a US number to give out to Americans (who don't want to dial my UK number) that they can text/call. I can then make calls when on Wifi or using a Phonecard app which automatically dials my UK SIP and forwards the call via the US SIP provider. I don't have to switch SIMs or give up my UK number.
This works well for me (since I travel between the US/UK often)
When in the US, I found I have to disable "automatic" and force AT&T -- using T-Mobile blocks data for some reason. I don't know how to configure my iPhone to just block the provider (so I obviously have to disable it when returning to the UK or Europe).
In my experience (as a domestic user) both AT&T and T-Mobile can be acceptable or can suck, depending on exactly where you are in the country, and sometimes even within a city or suburban area (for example, in the city where I used to live T-Mobile sucked at home, but was great at work, while AT&T was exactly the opposite). Those nice homogeneous-looking maps of "coverage areas" are lies, to a very large degree. :-)
If you're traveling for work, maybe ask the people you're working with which carrier is best at their site.
At the speed we run, it would make no difference I would imagine. The benefits of shaving your legs only really come into effect for cyclists at the pro level ... those of us who can manage a steady 25km/h see far less benefit.
I always thought it was an urban myth that it made you go faster, and that the real reason was that road rash was easier to treat.
I am not a competitive cyclist but remove the hair on my legs with a depilator in the Spring because my leg pelt retains too much heat in the Summer. There is a noticeable improvement in cooling after it is done.
While not the most pleasant process, it avoids stubble and the delayed regrowth means the new hair is sufficiently long to begin providing warmth just in time for when cooler Fall temps arrive. I always considered that to be the real reason why the pros do it with road rash being of secondary concern. Those with shorter leg hair just went along and copied their hairier peers.
I'm not an accountant (about as far as could be from it) but in a discussion with an accountant friend of mine he suggested that there really is nothing that can be done about these avoidance schemes. He posited that the only real way to ensure all tax is paid for is to have no 'income tax' and then add a steep tax (30-40%) on everything that people buy. It seems like a hell of a large percentage to add on to everything, but then at least all money spent in a country would stay in the country.
Interesting that this is written by one half of the Analog Folk/Fictive Kin co-op.
These guys are responsible for Mapalong, a (formally great) mapping service that they abandoned early last year and for which they ignore any requests for exported data (I've been asking for a .KML file for a year to move my points somewhere else).
I'm sorry if you feel it's unfair, but it's hard not to jump to such conclusions when the Twitter account is dead and nothing (visibly) changes.
It would certainly make people feel better if, with slowly progressing software, it was made easier for these testers to feel like they could properly test such software with the full knowledge that they can get their investment out in the form of a reasonable export function - they are after all providing a service to you by testing the software and providing feedback.
Now I don't know what icon is in the Flat UI pack, but to cite the DMCA's icon as being 'kinda lifted' from theirs when it is so similar to a number of CC-licenced icons on The Noun Project seems like a poor argument in my eyes.
I think you are hitting the nail on the head - with styles/aesthetic arguments like this, when is it a copy? Adding a leaf of paper into the icon? Colouring it in? Adding a line of faux text below the faux image? Which came first? Which was the origin?
My only point was that when you are getting hammered by people and the evidence you provide is that, it looks poorly thought out.
"... they even managed to kinda lift the old DN icon ..."
I think you misunderstand. I'm not arguing as to whether the Flat UI guys copied them or not, but like the larger argument, the icon he is putting forward as copied work is itself conceptually very similar to other existing icon work(s). As a designer I would be more than a little miffed if that design appeared if I had created the Noun Project's version and not openly licensed it.
If that is the case, it somewhat undermines the claim that the assets are fully owned by them or even that ownership can be so quickly claimed.
Similarity is completely irrelevant. If we independently arrive at the same original work then that is not copyright violation. That's not what copyright is about. We then each hold the copyright of our respective works, even if they're completely identical (in practice it will probably be hard to proof that you didn't just copy the other work if they're really identical).
IANAL, but that's what I was told by a law student.
What he's claiming is not the perfect copy of the shape, but the style. It's a clear "copy" too, very very similar. In the end, if you change a pixel from that you can make a "not the same" icon, don't you think?
We can discuss on how many differences but it will end on nothing. I can express that, 2 o 3 differences are not enough to claim "different" and you can claim than 1 will not be enough too.
To me, they're clearly wrong. But if the guy copied the art and pasted it, that's another story.
We're ramping up a new internal tech team to allow us to build our own products and tools (for internal and public use) and need great developers to help us build up and potentially lead a team of likeminded individuals.