Orion

Bwahahahahaha!!!!

dude, someone buy this car.

and a tutor, as well.

i used to work for tmo, and i now work for vzw. if you want my honest opinion (no bs) on both companies, you have only to ask. look up myworldphone.com for unlocked cell phones for gsm carriers. good stuff.

mind if ask if its ever been to a straight line track? and if so, what did it run?

nice car, good luck on the sale.

im from the government, and im here to help. read on. Court: FCC Overstepped Billing Authority By Mark Rockwell August 1, 2006 NEWS@2 DIRECT A federal court of appeals in Atlanta ruled the FCC overstepped its authority by telling state regulators they couldn't require or prohibit the use of line items on consumers' wireless bills. The issue is close to a larger effort by wireless carriers to keep states from regulating wireless services. States are allowed to regulate terms and conditions of bills, but not rates, which are left to federal regulators. In 2004, state regulators said that wireless carriers were using line items on bills that weren't mandated by federal rules to impose surcharges and other fees, and that truth in billing rules needed to be strengthened. State groups - the National Association of Consumer Advocates (NASUCA), in particular - filed comments on the issue at the FCC, along with consumers who "expressed confusion and dissatisfaction with their monthly telephone bills," said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit decision. In 2005, the FCC preempted state regulators from requiring or prohibiting line items on wireless bills. The Atlanta court ruled that the FCC "exceeded its authority when it preempted the states from requiring or prohibiting the use of line items. The scope of federal authority to regulate 'rates' or 'entry' does not include the presentation of line items on cellular wireless bills. This billing practice is a matter 'of other terms and conditions' that Congress intended to be regulable by the states." The wireless industry sees the decision as a setback. "This decision highlights the need for Congress to re-establish a firm and consistent national regulatory framework for wireless service," said CTIA president and chief executive Steve Largent in a statement following the ruling. "Creating a mish-mash of inconsistent state-by-state wireless regulations will do nothing to benefit consumers and doesn't make sense. Forcing wireless providers to establish different business models in different states, whether it's in all 50 or just a handful, for the sole purpose of complying with disparate regulatory regimes will only increase consumer costs and slow innovation. At the end of the day, consumers will lose," Largent said.

whoa now, is eric poking fun at someones english?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv5zWaTEVkI&feature=Views&page=1&t=t&f=b

thanks man, only a hundred bucks a night. has a kitchen and everything. the moral of the story is, if youre going to make fun of someone, you better not fuck up doing it.

lol. free agent, thats good. i guess your b/f buying the exact same car will do that. i got russell crowe... ...and kevin smith. fuck you, eli.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v507/gentilewench/hellovader.jpg have at it, folks.

woot. [butthead voice] uh...huhuh. thanks, beavis.[/butthead voice]

doc, when did you graduate?

nextel and cingular do that because they operate in a lower band than most other phones. 850.

i heart shawn.

roflsaurus rex.

im in, but im not volunteering for shit. *grin* when you stoppin by to get this bluetooth stuff?

*waits for some fool to chime in about how "cell phones cause cancer!"*

welcome newb (kinda). nice to see some fellow groveport-ians in here.

could you ask him if hes sellin his hids?

wow, that price is sick. wonder if hell sell his hid's...

i like you too, doc. thanks for the smiley.

ya know, like nukes, and emp weapons. the tomcat was a plane designed to be a long range bomber interceptor. they basically built that plane around one weapon, the AIM-54 phoenix missle, and its corresponding radar and avionics suite. with a range of over 100 nautical miles (!), but very limited manueverability, that missle was designed to take out long range bombers (like the bear, or the backfire) before they could launch their anti-ship missles. given that not too many nations have longe range bombers anymore, and with the advancement of point defense systems (aegis, phalanx), its main role has become combat air patrol. add to that the fact that it is virtually worhtless againt ground and hardened targets, and you have a very specialized, old, fighter jet. im just as big a fan of that jet as any who hasnt actually flown one (top gun is like my favorite movie), but you have to accede that there are much better dogfighters in our arsenal.

doc, once again, your ego has gotten the better of you. i expect that from eli, but you disappoint me. you guys act like youre the only people that read books around here.