Posts by Elizabeth Price2

Honestly, we might as well just shut down the "Sony Ericsson" subforum altogether—I mean, let's be real, the "Nokia" one isn't exactly breaking any records either. Especially since Nokia isn't even its own thing anymore (Microsoft snatched them up, right?). Instead of keeping those dusty old subforums around, why don't we just open a "Chinese Phone Brands" section? 😕

Everything else is honestly pretty awesome, but what’s the point when this forum's admin team is somehow 100x slower and more useless than some local DMV office?

I mean, seriously—we’ve got about ten different users arguing with a moderator's decision, and it’s been nearly 10 days without any movement? No official response, no explanation, nothing? They could at least lock the thread to keep things from spiraling!

Look, as someone who’s super active over in the "Mobile Tech & Phones" section, I really feel like we’d all be better off having one big mega-thread for phones from China, rather than opening a brand-new topic for every single model under the sun. It just clutters up the "Android" subforum—which, let's be honest, is actually a pretty awesome part of this place! We all know there are like, a billion different Chinese phones out there, right? Seriously, it feels like a new one pops up every single day. Do we honestly even need a million separate threads that only end up having two or three posts each? It just feels like overkill!

nimblemarlin6 said:Has nobody actually sat down and watched this incredible movie yet just to come over here and say how good it is? I’ve done my part—I can't exactly spend ten different posts raving about it!
Come on people, get to the theater!

So, I went last night. 😁

First off, let me say I caught this in a small local AMC theater and honestly, it was probably the best cinema experience of my life 🙏 I mean, we managed to sneak into some VIP seats, the sound system was absolutely killer—the bass was so deep it actually made the stairs creak. And the picture? Spot on. From the size to the resolution and brightness, nothing felt stretched out, blurry, or dim. As for the crowd, there were maybe like six of us 😬 (including one kid, maybe 10 years old, who tagged along with his nostalgic dad). Ticket cost $6.25.

Now, regarding the actual movie... yeah, the experience wasn't quite as positive. The main thing that bugged me throughout the whole runtime—and reading about it beforehand on IMDb only made the feeling worse
Here’s the deal: "According to director David Ayer, Sabotage was heavily cut by the studio in favor of delivering more of an action-based film rather than a mystery thriller. The original cut of Sabotage was rumored to be close to 3 hours." And man, you can freaking feel that edit in the movie. The characters feel underdeveloped, the scenes often feel disconnected—like they dropped in from nowhere—the plot is sluggish, and there's zero tension, no twists, no big reveals... just a total snooze-fest of disjointed moments. Such a shame. If the movie had actually been that original 3-hour cut, maybe it would have been an even bigger bore, or maybe it could've been a much tighter, more cohesive story with actual depth to the characters.

On the bright side, this is definitely Arnold Schwarzenegger's darkest film, and I gotta say, he does a pretty solid job with his part, even if we all know he's not exactly an A-list actor. The supporting cast is plenty talented and they're good, plus the action sequences are directed quite well (I really dug those short, punchy shots where they mount the camera to the gun barrel—felt like playing a first-person shooter).

All in all, the movie really should have been better. Look, if you knew nothing about it other than these facts: a solid cast led by Arnold Schwarzenegger, directed by David Ayer, genre: mystery thriller (cartels, bounty hunters, moles, murders)... everything sounds great. But once you actually sit through it, things aren't quite so great.

Because of the cast and that incredible sound design, I'm giving it a 6/10.

nimblemarlin6 said:(Sabotage, 2014, American color film. Dir. David Ayer, starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger)
Just the lead actor's name alone is enough to recommend this excellent piece of celluloid—it's loosely based on the Agatha Christie novel Ten Little Niggers.
Honestly, this is Arnold Schwarzenegger's best film since... well, it's been a long time.
Unlike his older action flicks, which were sort of, you know, breezy, this is a completely serious and dark action thriller—actually, it's bordering on a gritty little drama.
If you're sitting there expecting the standard Arnold Schwarzenegger one-liners and all that goofing off, you aren't going to get it—at least, not nearly as much as back in the day.
The witty remarks here feel more like curses; they're spat through gritted teeth and sound bitter and harsh—the character Arnold plays is a deeply wounded man haunted by his past, much like the former cop Jericho Cane from End of Days (that's the movie where he fights Satan himself using bursts from his shotgun)—but Schwarzenegger has matured as an actor during his years as governor; he’s grown up, he’s serious, his character just radiates presence and dominates the scene, and his charisma was never even a question!!!
The rest of the ensemble is just as great—action heroes caught up in mysterious murders—these people in this film actually act rather than just shooting things.
Sabotage is a heavy film, full of darkness, brutal murders in the middle of nowhere, backstabbing, and characters with deviant behavior and language—most of whom meet a violent end.
Blood up to the knees! Seriously—no messing around here!
Highly recommended for men with stronger nerves.
Rating: 10 out of 10, obviously!

Are you kidding me?! 😁 Now I'm seriously thinking about checking this movie out.

mistybear10 said:Spirou, you think it's totally fine that I'm paying a wireless tax on my work phone when my company already covers the fees? You seriously don't see the massive paradox there!?

Sent from iPhone using Reddit

For the millionth time now—look, forget about what feels "normal," "fair," or "right"—you really just need to focus on what the actual law dictates.

Just set aside what you *wish* would happen (honestly, we all wish that!) and deal with how things actually work in reality.

If you think Tintin is wrong, go ahead—quote a specific article or section and give us some actual explanation for why you think that's the case. Just drop the whole "is this normal?" thing already.

Like, seriously, read up on the cancellation terms for these services. It basically says an inspector can show up whenever they feel like it to check if you even have a receiver. If you refuse them, your subscription or whatever fee you're paying just automatically renews. So, tell me—is *that* normal to you? This whole debate about computers or smartphones is nothing compared to those kinds of loopholes.

edit: Okay, let's pivot back to the small business owners and their work phones/laptops for a sec—Section 36 states the following:

Individuals mentioned in Section 34, paragraph 4 of this Law are exempt from the monthly fee for other devices used to receive radio or audiovisual programming (computers, mobile communication devices, etc.) provided they are used exclusively for business purposes, as well as radio and television broadcasters who use receivers solely to monitor their own broadcasted programs.

And honestly, that pretty much answers the question for all the skeptics (or the charlatans and the ones totally out of the loop) regarding what exactly counts as a "secondary receiver"—not that I ever got a straight answer from them since they figured it wasn't relevant to this specific thread.🙄

Look, I didn't write that myself and, honestly, I don't even know how you're supposed to interpret all that stuff about official cell phones, TVs, cars... whatever else you want to throw in there.
But seriously, I feel like some of you aren't really helping the conversation move forward—you're being pretty narrow-minded about certain things, which brings me back to what nimblelynx7 was saying earlier: there’s a massive difference between actual reality and just someone's personal wish list of how things *should* work.
And hey, the reason I quoted that part of the Law is because it lays out the specific conditions regarding who pays and for how many devices—so people can interpret it however they want! I'm not trying to start a fight or get labeled as some greedy forum troll trying to scam anyone. Nobody is out here deceiving anyone. We all have working eyes and access to the public Law whenever we feel like checking the facts.

mistybear10 said:It honestly blows my mind how these forum scammers try to play people. According to them, you should be paying some ridiculous fee a hundred times over for the exact same device! Give me a break.
It’s based on what, exactly? Just because I happen to have this official work phone? Sure, I’ve got it, but the company that actually owns the device already covered the fees. Case closed. End of story.

I can't stand this fee and I'm not paying it—not because I think it's unnecessary, but because I refuse to fund the massive salaries of a bunch of lazy bureaucrats and those lying collectors who lie the second they open their mouths.

Once they actually fix the public broadcasting system and start offering decent programming, then maybe I'll consider paying. Right now, they just take the money and give nothing back, since they wrote the laws to make sure they don't have to do a single thing while they just rake in the cash.

Sent from iPhone using Reddit

Well, what blows *my* mind is how lazy you're being by not just checking The New York Times or looking up the Public Broadcasting Act:
Section 34.
(2) Households that own or possess two or more receivers shall pay the monthly fee established by Section 35, paragraph 2 of this Act as if they only had one receiver.

(3) Individuals who do not pay the monthly fee and are not members of a household that pays the fee are required to pay the fee for any receiver located in a motor vehicle registered in their name.

(4) Legal entities, unincorporated associations, sole proprietors, and other individuals engaged in independent business activities shall pay a monthly fee for each receiver in an amount determined by Section 35, paragraph 2 of this Act, unless otherwise specified by law.

(5) Any individual who owns or possesses a receiver but is not a member of a household paying the fee under this Act is obligated to report the receiver to PBS no later than 30 days after the purchase of the receiver or the registration of a motor vehicle with a built-in receiver, and must report any change of address, residence, or headquarters within 15 days of the change.

(6) For the purposes of this Act, a "household" refers to any family or other community of persons who live together and pool their income to meet basic living needs (housing, food, etc.).

(7) PBS maintains the registry of monthly fee obligors within the United States. Data protection regulations apply to the management and use of this registry.

(8) Exceptionally to the provisions of paragraph 4 of this section, legal and natural persons engaged in the hospitality industry according to specific laws may, by paying the monthly fee established by Section 35, paragraph 2 of this Act for one receiver in a hospitality establishment, earn the right to use three additional receivers in the same establishment without paying further monthly fees.

nimblelynx7 said:Let's break down the infamous Section 34 in more detail.
The requirements for being liable for the public broadcasting fee:
- owning both a radio and a television receiver
- owning any other device used to receive radio OR audiovisual programming

- being located within the US
- having access to a "broadcast signal."

You might be able to dodge a single requirement, but hitting all of them at once is a tall order. The only way to evade payment is by nitpicking the definitions of "radio and television receiver," "other device for receiving radio or audiovisual programming," and "broadcast signal."

Regarding the radio and TV receiver—if you stretch the logic, you could argue that you shouldn't pay for just a radio, since a radio isn't a television receiver, and a TV receiver doesn't necessarily have to function as a radio (that's a logical AND operation). This brings us back to the old debate: do you owe the fee if you use a TV without a digital tuner? That loophole closes fast if the TV has a built-in digital tuner.

Then there's the "other device for receiving radio OR audiovisual programming." Since it uses an OR operator here, the device just needs to receive either radio or audiovisual content. This raises the question: what exactly constitutes "audiovisual programming"? Does this mean anyone with access to a YouTube video or an MP3 is liable for the fee, regardless of whether they ever tune into PBS, as long as they are on US soil?

As for the "broadcast signal"—there might be some room to maneuver if you stretch the definition of what a "broadcast signal" actually is.

A signal is defined as a phenomenon that carries information—or, in electrical engineering terms, a function of one or more independent variables. PBS offers streaming on its website. The only potential loophole I see is trying to prove through legal channels that such access doesn't constitute having access to a "broadcast signal"—essentially arguing that an internet connection isn't a broadcast signal. That won't be easy. Unless, of course, you can successfully argue that a string of bits isn't a signal?
Furthermore, the wording in Section 34 works in favor of PBS because it never specifies "a PBS broadcast signal"; it simply says "a broadcast signal." It fails to define the nature of that signal, specifically omitting any requirement that it must exist within the RF spectrum.

According to Section 34, the prerequisite for the fee is the *possibility* of receiving a broadcast signal, not just the act of receiving it. It implies that if you have the capability to receive it, you are liable. You could attempt to argue that you are being forced to utilize something against your will, potentially linking this to consumer protection laws, human rights, or even criminal statutes regarding extortion.

For the record, I'm rooting for those dodging the fee, and I generally despise the fee itself. But here, I am merely providing my interpretation of how the law stands, not how I wish it were.

Preach! 👍

But apparently, that’s a hard pill to swallow for certain folks on this thread. It’s basically a classic case of personal wishes hitting the brick wall of reality. That's what's tripping them up.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:The thing is—I’m smart enough to actually stay on track here—and the real issue is just how nonsensical your writing is and how much you're spinning falsehoods. Sorry if I'm sticking to the actual point instead of being one of those mindless trolls you're used to dealing with—which apparently forced you to resort to personal attacks? My bad, truly.

Yeah, totally—defining what a "secondary receiver" is has absolutely zero bearing on this debate, so yeah, we're definitely drifting off course. 🙄 I just honestly have no clue what we've even been talking about for the last two pages! And hey, you were the one who brought up being "untuned" in the first place.
I see how it is, though—you were "smart" enough to get all worked up over some nitpicky thing about glasses/visors, so that clearly wasn't an issue for you, right?

Man, you are seriously just lying to yourself at this point. 🙂

Anyway, I'm done. I am officially checking out of this conversation with you. There's a pretty good chance I might catch a warning or a strike because of this back-and-forth, but I really don't want to end up getting banned just because of some total hack and know-nothing.

So, yeah... take care. 👋

Look, I gave you my two cents, but you just totally brushed me off like I didn't even say anything.

So, basically, not only are you a total fraud, but you’re being pretty thick-headed too.

Seriously though—why are you so terrified of actually answering the questions people are throwing at you? What's the deal? 🤷

"Unplugged"? "The legendary second receiver"?

To that charlatan 😉

Honestly, what you’re claiming is such a massive stretch—like, seriously—and if you ever actually end up in court over this (which, hey, I really don't wish for you!), good luck trying to prove any of that.

It’s just like me saying, "Hey, listen, I pointed my antenna in the complete opposite direction of the PBS transmitter, so there's zero chance I'm picking up their signal. I'm just watching stuff from Canada/Mexico/the UK/Italy (...)."

Or even: "I set my satellite dish up so there's no way I can catch the PBS signal (assuming I could even get it via satellite without some fancy decoder or subscription anyway). Screw all of them, I'm just here for Eurosport."

Or maybe: "I'm a DirecTV/Comcast user and my cable package doesn't include PBS channels (if a package like that even exists around here). In other words, I am receiving absolutely zero signal from PBS."

Look, there are a million excuses out there. But what you're stubbornly ignoring is the simple fact that you own a device that has the capability to receive the PBS signal. Just because you aren't actually catching that signal doesn't mean anything at all, and it definitely doesn't excuse you from paying the fee.
Did I write that law? Of course not. Do I agree with it? Heck no, probably even less than you do! But, like the user spirou pointed out, American laws are just the way they are—they're cooked up by the jokers sitting in Congress who were legitimately elected by the American people 🤷
And yeah, just because you're unhappy with my answer doesn't mean you get to dodge answering my questions, so please, do us both a favor and address them if you want to keep this conversation going. 🙂

Basically, any signal being sent through some kind of medium (if we're keeping it simple, anyway)—and in this specific context, I'm talking about the signals used to broadcast radio and audiovisual programs.

Happy now?

Alright, your turn.

What’s the deal with the word "untuned," and what exactly is this "famous second receiver" you keep bringing up?

🙂

Alright, let's just sit tight and wait for our resident legal gurus (and apparently, world-class electrical engineers too!) to finally spit out some actual useful advice—maybe even something from Pollux if we're lucky. 🙂

Michael Perez5 said:Are you really trying to equate "receiving radio and audiovisual programming" with streaming over the internet?

Man, I think you've got things mixed up... those aren't apples and oranges... they're apples and airplanes... please, just try reading with a bit more comprehension. It's really quite simple...

Look, buddy, why don't YOU be the one to explain the actual difference between standard broadcast radio or TV—you know, the stuff you pick up via an antenna—and the content you stream over the internet. Go ahead, enlighten me.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:I don't need Google to tell me we're actually talking about shutter speeds. Blinkers are something else entirely! 🙂

And no, you haven't answered me once. ☕

As soon as you can describe what a "portable signal" actually is. 😉

Just for you, a quick three-second search: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...6151357AA9WLml 😘

"Untuned" doesn't mean there's no antenna or anything, so yeah, the antenna is still the thing catching all that "snow" 😉
That term sounds like some weird regional slang from the Midwest or something. Honestly, who cares? It basically means the same thing either way.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:So why the shocker? You show up, drop something stupid, and then act surprised when—get this—Michelle Alvarez8 gets a little sassy with you. 😂
Don't post nonsense and nobody will be snappy with you. It's just simple cause and effect. 🙂

I have no idea where you read that I'm advocating for letting tax collectors into your home.
🙂 And yeah, you can talk on your phone right in front of a collector without any issues—I don't see the problem?
Even if they start grilling you about what kind of phone it is or if it has a radio receiver, you don't owe them a single word. You don't even have to say "hello" if they greet you.
🤷

Yeah, well, you think I'm playing dumb because I actually know what I'm talking about. Great. 😁 Just a second ago, you were quoting legal articles about receiving radio and TV signals, right? So, you turn on your TV and pick up signals without an antenna. Then you turn on your computer and... Windows boots up.
😁

The Public Broadcasting Act doesn't say anything about paying a fee for computers—you're just making things up now! wtf Quote 🤷

I'll bite—so what exactly falls under this "broadcast signal"? Here's your chance to school the guy who's acting like a know-it-all. Go for it. ☕

Look, I feel like I’ve already explained this to you a dozen times—along with everything else you brought up in your last post—but it's clearly going in one ear and out the other. You're acting like a horse wearing those blinders that force you to look in only one direction (I think Google calls them "blinders," if I recall correctly!) 😉

Anyway, why don't you tell *me* what actually falls under your definition of that "so-called second receiver"—you know, that "device for receiving radio or audiovisual programs"?

And yeah, just curious—when you turn on the TV without an antenna, what kind of "signals" are you actually picking up? 🤣

Man, you are being so incredibly flaky, I can't even deal! Seriously, what is up with you? 😁

I can't even begin to describe how much I love this guy—seriously, he's such a legend! Just sitting here thinking about him and honestly, my heart is just full. He’s got that vibe, you know? That one-in-a-million energy that just makes everything better. I could talk about him all day, though I probably wouldn't sound nearly as cool doing it—I'm way too much of a rambling mess most of the time! But yeah, seriously, what a total gem. kaže:
And why are you acting like such a big shot all of a sudden? Seriously! 🙂

Look, if someone comes at me with that massive ego, I’m just gonna give that same energy right back to them—total action-reaction style. It’s honestly pretty simple!

I can't even begin to describe how much I love this guy—seriously, he’s just such a vibe! He’s got that energy that just hits different, you know? Like, honestly, if more people were like him, the world would be a way less stressful place. Just pure, unadulterated good vibes! kaže:

Look, we’re just not on the same page here—mostly because you kept trying to feed me all that NPR's propaganda and junk news like it was actually legit. Sorry about that, buddy! 😁

Just because some debt collectors are out there doing their thing doesn't mean what they’re doing actually makes sense—or that it should be allowed to happen! I mean, seriously, you've got people practically breaking into folks' homes, intimidating them, and shaking them down for cash. If you're totally cool with that kind of shady behavior, then hey, feel free to let them target you next time! All I'm asking is that you don't go around telling everyone else they just have to sit there and take it. 😉

Look, I’m not out here trying to pull any fast ones on anyone—I’m just sticking to what the Public Broadcasting Act actually says! If anyone’s trying to play games or dodge the rules around here, honestly, that’s on you. Because if people actually listen to your logic, they’re gonna end up walking right out the door to meet the tax man while clutching a smartphone—which, let's be real, probably has an FM radio anyway—or they'll just happily invite the whole situation into their house thinking, "Hey, I don't have a TV, I just have a PC!" and then try to act all tough when it comes to paying their dues. It's just common sense, really!
Look, before you even dive into this—and I’m just putting this out there now—we aren't actually debating whether or not people should be allowed into someone's house or apartment. Seriously, we totally settled that argument ages ago!

I don't have any text to work with yet! Send over the post you want me to overhaul, and I'll get right on it—turning it into something fresh, punchy, and totally American while keeping that specific, high-energy vibe intact. Ready when you are! kaže:
I mean, whatever that show happens to be, I seriously cannot get it to run on my computer—it's just not happening! So, like, why am I even footing the bill at this point? It feels totally pointless! 😕

I mean, obviously a computer can't just magically pull in NPR's programming out of thin air! It’s like saying a TV won't work without a built-in tuner—or like my car radio being totally useless if I don't have an antenna, right? It's just how things work. But that doesn't mean you can't make it happen with a little extra gear—you know, like adding a TV tuner card, setting up an antenna, or just hopping onto the internet. So, seriously, why are you acting like this is some impossible mystery?
Look, like I was saying before—it’s honestly kind of ridiculous! It’s like someone walking around claiming they own this vintage TV that only ever gets used to hook up a PlayStation. You know what I mean? There isn't an antenna in sight, no satellite dish, nothing—zero connection to any broadcast. So, seriously, why on earth should they be stuck paying those fees? It just doesn't make sense! 😕 Look, I don't know how else to lay this out for you—it’s pretty straightforward! Just the simple fact that you own a TV means you're on the hook for the fee. It's basically built into the system—how else am I supposed to explain it to you?

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Actually, we aren't on the same side since you're trying to push all that PBS propaganda on me. Sorry, buddy, but no. 😁

And why the ego? 🙂

Just because collectors are enforcing something doesn't mean it actually makes sense or should be happening! People are having folks barge into their homes, threatening them and extorting money from citizens. If you're cool with that kind of behavior—be my guest! But please, don't try to tell people they *should* be letting this happen. 😉

Whatever is in that programming, I can't even watch it on my computer. So why on earth should I pay? 😕

A computer doesn't count as one of those "other receivers"—it just doesn't pick up radio signals. Sorry, folks! 😁

Seriously, just give the text right before that last quote a quick read—it totally applies to this little gem you dropped. And I'm gonna say it again just so we're clear: there is zero connection to "radio" or any other kind of signal here. The Public Broadcasting Act mentions "portable signals," which is such a super broad category that it definitely covers way more than the one specific thing you keep insisting on.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Since we're already tossing links around like crazy—honestly, it's pure chaos! 😂 😂 Come on, be a pal and swing by! Ever wonder how things actually work? I was just browsing through HowStuffWorks—it’s honestly such a trip! Ever find yourself falling down those rabbit holes where you start with one question and end up learning about quantum physics three hours later? Anyone else? Just take a look at how radio waves work and the basics of how the internet actually functions. Once you've got those fundamentals down—then we can really get moving!

All these stories they're telling about... On air! Only people who have zero clue how the internet actually works fall for online streaming programs. Don't get me wrong—there’s absolutely nothing shameful about not understanding certain technologies; we live in a world full of specialists, and honestly, nobody knows everything about everything! But please, just listen to me for a second: calling what they do "internet broadcasting" is a total scam—it’s technically impossible to pull off that way.

CNN has their on-demand streaming now—which is fine, I mean, we're living in the 21st century after all! But calling that "broadcasting" just to justify those license fees? Using it as a way to scare people who don't know any better is nothing short of criminal.

It’s not even that you don't get how this works—it's that you're trying to push it as if you do! And honestly? You aren't helping anyone. Not yourself—since you aren't actually learning anything—not me, because I have to waste my time correcting you, and definitely not everyone else, since you're just spreading misinformation.
Just take it slow and play it smart. 🙂

First off, why the attitude? We're on the same side here! 😉

Secondly, the public service fee is paid because you own a device capable of accessing the internet—that’s just a straight fact. I didn't make it up; it's right there in the Public Broadcasting Act, and the collectors enforce it.
So, let me say it again: if a device can access the internet, it can receive PBS radio and audiovisual programming. Period. Nowhere in the Law does it say the programming has to be received exclusively via radio waves. Get it now?

If you want to be extra clear, go read Article 3 of the Public Broadcasting Act where it defines what counts as PBS radio and audiovisual programming. And finally, check out that famous Article 34 (1): Anyone who owns or possesses a radio or television receiver, or any other device for receiving radio or audiovisual programming (hereafter referred to as a receiver) within the United States of America covered by a broadcast signal is required to pay PBS a monthly fee as determined by Article 35, paragraph 2 of this Act, unless otherwise specified herein.

mistybear10 said:I didn't say subscription, I said fee. 😉
Since when is my laptop a TV receiver!? I don't have a TV tuner card for it, and from what I know about tech, I can't even catch their signal without one. My laptop is a computer, not a TELEVISION RECEIVER!
I'm telling you, just because they started putting some—but not all—of their programming online doesn't give them the right to charge me a fee for owning a computer. Period. At this rate, I'll be paying a fee for my fridge or my washing machine soon just because they can connect to the internet!

Sent from iPhone using Reddit

Wait, what do you mean your TV isn't a receiver (since it doesn't have built-in digital tuner)? If you don't even have an antenna, you aren't paying anything. You're totally mistaken there.