Slashdot Mirror

See for example here: http://consumersunion.org/news... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You'll note that (1) monensin is only one of the antibiotics used in livestock fodder and (2) that not all antibiotics used are ionophores (which means: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) that they can pass through the cell membrane in a specific way). Plain old penicillin (which is nicely broad-spectrum, so that lots and lots of bacteria get to feel the evolutionary pressure) is an example of an antibiotic that doesn't work like the "ionophore" type of antibiotics.

Wide-spread use of low-dosage antibiotics is an ideal environment for bacteria to acquire tricks like enzymes that disable certain classes of antibiotics, thus rendering them resistant. So you get reservoirs in which resistant bacteria can thrive.

Then people eat that meat, providing a direct route into humans. Besides which those bacteria exit their reservoirs in other ways and end up in the environment.

So you get resistant bacteria passing through human guts and e.g. in sewers. If there hadn't been any, there would be almost no source of antibiotics resistant bacteria.

The other main avenue is Americans demanding (and getting) antibiotics prescriptions that (a) aren't useful and (b) often enough aren't finished. Resulting in selection opportunities for antibiotics resistant bacteria inside the human body.

Now bacteria swap genetic traits with each other all the time, by simply exchanging bits of DNA. Both in the sewers and in people's guts.

Meaning you get a diffuse pathway of antibiotic resistance from foodstock to humans, from humans to other humans, and in e.g. sewers. Not something that will immediately cause problems, but one with a finite probability to, sooner or later, lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria to spread. That's where the law of large numbers kicks in, e.g. by rolling the dice continuously by routinely dosing feedstock with antibiotics.

I grant you that the actual pathways are less than obvious, and rely on the law of large numbers to deliver their payload. But that the probability is that sooner or that payload (resistant bacteria in humans) will be delivered. In fact it's all but guaranteed.

So, the best way to stop such bacteria from making the journey is to make sure that there aren't any being evolved. The second best way is to make sure that there aren't many being evolved.

Both avenues require cessation of livestock antibiotics and much tighter control on antibiotics prescriptions.

Even though it is not recommended, many, many organizations use the SSN as a unique identifier. See http://consumersunion.org/news...

Technically not legal; but doesn't stop them.

Technically - you can only use your SSN with the IRS for tax purposes; but that doesn't stop anyone.

Even though it is not recommended, many, many organizations use the SSN as a unique identifier. See http://consumersunion.org/news...

And then also the issue of some GC's have expiration dates.

Maybe and maybe not.

Many states do not allow Gift Card expiration.

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_financial_services/003889.html

Complain.

Complain to the FCC, FTC, BBB, etc ...

Some other places

There used ot be a website called "Hear me now." or something and I can't find it - at least from Google.

Write letters to AT&T.

Make a stink everywhere.

You bitched here on Slashdot? Just do the same thing everywhere else.

Stick to the facts and they won't dare sue. If they did, then every little nitty gritty detail about their business proactices will come to light - especailly to their competitors.

They can't have that.

Any ideas on who might want to take over the domains and carry on the work would be appreciated by the Internet community at large.

Sounds like something that the Consumers Union might want to take a look at.
They publish Consumer Reports and recently acquired The Consumerist website.

http://www.consumersunion.org/campaigns/learn_more/003484indiv.html

shame on you alabama, michigan, and missouri: the only states where this consumer initiated credit lock is not the law

I'm a victim of Identity theft. Some thieves got my name, address, date of birth and SSN, filled out an online form and got a credit card in my name. (Despite the mother's maiden name being wrong. Thank you very much Capital One!) The only reason I found out about it was that the thieves tripped up. They paid to have the card rush-mailed to them and *then* they changed the address from my address to theirs (or at least a drop box of theirs). The card was mailed out before the address change went through and landed in my hands.

I never did catch the thieves (slow working police who weren't prepared for an ID theft case and an uncooperative Capital One), but I learned how to prevent ID Theft: Freeze your credit. Then the thieves can't open any new lines of credit in your name. The only downside is that you can't open up any new lines yourself without first "thawing" the credit file temporarily. (Did that when I bought my new car.)

As a side benefit, people can't look at your credit file either. So jobs can't run background checks without your prior approval and banks can't pre-approve you for credit card after credit card that you don't want or need.

Here's some more information on credit freezing: http://www.consumersunion.org/campaigns/learn_more/003484indiv.html

The 'corporations' referenced by corporatism does include business groups, but also includes trade unions and guilds, military organizations, religious groups, farming lobbies, etc...

So Mussolini's conception of corporatism involves rule by unions. In that case, is there a place for a consumers' union?

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_financial_services/004801.html Apparently in some states, they should not be able to do this. Of course I may not understand the full extent of the law as it applies, but it seems to me that this is a consumer product and they are refusing to sell based off of a lack of social security num...

Higher speed limits on the interstate can decrease accidents, but only if traffic already moves faster than the speed limits. It's not high speeds that are necessarily the problem, but rather variation in speeds. That should be the argument against these things, not that higher speeds save lives. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2621023 http://www.science.org.au/nova/058/058print.htm http://www.consumersunion.org/other/speedlimits/speed031500a2.htm http://www.roadsafety.org.uk/information/publish/article_127.shtml http://sense.bc.ca/disc/disc-09.htm http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

Since I froze my credit file, knowing my name, address, SSN and DOB won't help an ID thief. He'll also need to unfreeze each of my credit files and that's not something he'll find trivial to do. Could a determined ID thief work his way around it? Perhaps. But more likely, he'll find himself locked out of my identity and will move on to some other victim who didn't freeze their credit.

For the record, you can freeze your credit file online now at all 3 credit bureaus. There might be a fee depending on what state you live in. Here's a list of state laws and how to freeze your credit at each credit agency: http://www.consumersunion.org/campaigns/learn_more/003484indiv.html

The $200 billion that the telecoms got in the 1990s to wire America was squandered, and very little was actually done with it (arguably kept prices for existing services at the same level instead of having them go up, but not more than that).

Actually, looking at historical rates before and after the 1996 telecom act show that local telecom rates increased at the same rate as the CPI, long distance telecom rates started to increase but remained at very competitive rates for consumers, and the local cable rates continued their rocketing out of control increases well above the CPI.

There are two messages that can be derived from the trends. 1) Creating a competitive market as was done with long distance telecom results in huge benefits to consumers, both individuals and businesses. 2) When a market has little to no competition they will at the very least increase their rates on average with the CPI or if they can get away with it they will gouge the consumer for every penny they can get.

The two sad outcomes of the telecom plans of the 1990s is that we never received the nation wide broadband that was envisioned by the government and the broadband that has been provided does not meet the peer to peer asymmetrical data transmit rates as envisioned by the government.

For all the justified complaints about the governments poor job of meddling in business the telecom industry is one area where there was a powerful vision and direction provided by the government that was quashed by corporations who are more interested in that rates trend for cable companies than they are about building a technologically advanced telecom infrastructure that provides economic benefit to many instead of a few.

Hint: most people neither know nor care about net neutrality.

That's not accurate. Take a look at this poll, which finds that 54% not only agree with the principle of net neutrality but think that congress should pass a law upholding it.

Fine, but what seems odd to me is that according to this page, the EU is using the same test on their cattle and found 1,100 cases in a five year testing period. It says that although BSE may have a lengthy incubation period, in some cases the disease can be detected in cows that were asymptomatic while alive. In short it alleges that the test is not completely worthless after all.

I'd like to believe that the government is only looking out for our best interests as citizens and that that is its only consideration but frankly its track record is not good.

It would make more sense, IMO, for the government to allow this one company to spend money, if it wishes, on this supposedly pointless test. If nothing turns up over a period of time then the company should be allowed to label its export products as "100% BSE tested according to international standards" but should not be allowed to use any such labeling on beef meant for domestic consumption. Then foreign markets will be happy but the USDA can still uphold its aim of protecting the US consumer from possible misinformation.

The fees (if any) associated with credit freezes vary from state to state.
http://www.consumersunion.org/campaigns/learn_more/003484indiv.html

FYI, you can freeze your credit report. That prevents any lender from pulling it, which is usually a required step to open a new account. If you need to open a new account, you can phone in to temporarily unfreeze it for one transaction. There's supposed to be some sort of passcode you use for the unfreeze so the thief can't just call up pretending to be you to unfreeze it. Since you're an ID theft victim, you don't even have to pay the $5 fee for it.

Once it's locked, anyone trying to pull your credit report will be denied (unless you authorize unlocking it before they try to pull the report). Inability to pull your credit report should result in an automatic denial for things such as opening a bank account or credit card, stopping any identity theft before it happens.

As an alternative to the fraud alert, most states now have regulated the ability to "freeze" your credit. No inquiries can be made to your credit while it is locked, period. If you want to enable a creditor to run a query, you have to "unfreeze" it temporarily, which can take up to 3 days to do.

Costs to do this vary by state, in some its free and in some there's a fee between $3 and $20. You can look it up here.

As long as you are thinking ahead on any loans or credit applications you do, it seems like a great option for almost anybody.

I call BS on you.

As to car insurance, the only time the premiums go up is if they are extending you credit.

(sigh) Next time make the slightest effort to get a clue before you "call BS".. this is not new news.

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_financial_s ervices/003579.html

Consumer Reports Warns Drivers About the Secret Score Behind Auto Insurance Rates

Yonkers, NY -- Everyone knows that if you hit another car, your auto insurer will probably raise your premiums. But Consumer Reports warns that even drivers who have spotless driving records and have never had an at-fault accident may be faced with higher premiums if they run into a new breed of credit score used by insurers.

Known as credit-based insurance scores, these numbers are computed from bill-paying and loan data collected by the major credit bureaus. They have become as important in determining annual premiums as driving records and neighborhoods.

I found this link that should answer your question.

"State Security Freeze Laws"
http://www.consumersunion.org/campaigns/learn_more /003484indiv.html#AK

According to this, the following states have this Credit Freeze option open to their residents. Use it while you can.

Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

It also lists fees and such.

Read the blog post that started it all. And then do something about it.

Perhaps under the proper conditions, but simply deregulating does not guarantee competition:

regulation vs deregulation

In 1992 the cable industry was deregulated and rather than spuring competition and better pricing for consumers we still have monopolies and cable rates increased 2 to 3 times the CPI.

Local telephone rates, which have been regulated, pretty much followed the CPI.

And long distance rates have dropped significantly and competition popped up everywhere once the AT&T monopoly was broken up.

So deregulation is not the answer and in reality the data suggests that your idea of deregulation would only make things worse, we would end up paying more for the same services.

I read an article not long ago about how medical schools are now coaching students on how to handle drug reps effectively... it's gotten that bad.
This blog has an entry on it, but the Washington Post article it refers to has been taken offline.

Would such a consumers' union evaluate products and services and produce consumer reports for the benefit of its members?

32 states have similar laws. Disclosure of identity data *only* may not be sufficient cause. But if you think there's an issue and you're in the proper jurisdiction, a letter to the firm copying the state attorney general might be helpful.

In the banking industry, the applicable regulation is fairly strict... the institution must "promptly" notify customers of a material breach and there are relatively few loopholes. So if your broker or whoever was part of a bank, then this would apply. However, if your e-mail address was all that was compromised, they don't really need to notify you. By definition, e-mail addresses are not private information, any more than your physical address is. A number of states, notably California, have privacy laws that can be invoked, but the trigger for a material breach is usually the compromise of a combination of personal identifying data such as name and address (including e-mail addresses) and sensitive nonpublic personal information such as login credentials, account numbers, etc. You might see whether there is a law in your state that applies.

Is there some way that consumers can organize and make their own demands of the terms that determine who they do business with? Kinda like a union for consumers?

In theory at least, that's the purpose of the Consumers Union.

IP Law is such a quagmire. My company even has lectures on it now and then just to ensure employees have a clue on just how messy it really is, and how important it is to the company.

This isn't the point though, the point is the the annoyance of it. It's nice to see something on Fair Use's side, but the question is should the DMCA simply be repealed, or should laws on Fair Use's side be put in place, or should the courts just erode it piece by piece?

Personally... I opt for whatever reduces court use for stupid things. Repealing the DMCA seems like it would simplify things most. Ah well. Here's some useful links with more information on the matter. More information from the public knowledge website and A direct link to the bill (PDF format).

Hmm, also, seems that the Consumer's Union is backing it...

I dunno. I'll go with "undecided" for now, though I'm leaning toward just supporting it. It's highly unlikely that the DMCA will be appealed, so at least its a step somewhat in the right direction. Albeit diagonally.

As consumer's reports is almost entiredly product orientated, I chose Consumer's Union, the parent organization. I didn't find a real good match based on the bios available or the projects, and didn't find a general inbox either. I did choose one of the employee's listed, but I think if everyone makes a choice, enough employee's will hear about it that something might be done.

More evidence of misplaced priorities:

http://www.newstarget.com/000757.html
155 ephedra deaths called "tragic" while 100,000 prescription drug deaths ignored by FDA

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_product_saf ety/000721.html
December 30, 2003
CONSUMERS UNION PRAISES FDA MOVE TO BAN EPHEDRA
Yonkers, NY--December 30, 2003--Consumers Union (CU), the independent nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, praised the FDA on Tuesday for taking action to ban dietary supplements containing ephedra.

As reported in the January issue of Consumer Reports, ephedra, an herbal substance also known as "ma huang," is a dangerous heart and central nervous system stimulant similar in effect to amphetamines and speed. The FDA has received at least 16,961 adverse event reports regarding ephedra supplements, including reports of heart attacks, strokes, seizures and fatalities.

For this reason I belive there should be some form of consumer union.

There already is. It publishes a monthly magazine titled Consumer Reports, and it has spoken out against at least the FCC's (temporarily defunct) broadcast flag.

Several years ago, I decided I'd like to subscribe to Consumer Reports and tried to do it on their web site. It wouldn't work with the browser I was using (Opera, I think) because of some non-portable code in the site. When I attempted to find a way to contact them online to say their web site was costing them a sale, I couldn't. Now, three years later, they haven't improved.

CU continues to stand fully behind its testing and report on the Samurai, has issued no retraction or correction, and has paid nothing to Suzuki.

We accept no advertising, and buy any products we test on the open market. We are not beholden to any commercial interest.

I'm sorry, some guy who writes reviews, even ostensibly fair ones, in exchange for free product can't stand up to this.

Seeing as that was a federally mandated act, I don't think congress is going to think too highly of this company's actions. This really might lead to patent reform, since the only two ways of getting congress to act seem to be to either pay them lots of money (or should I say "donate" lots of money to their reelection campaigns) or piss them off. The last time they really got fed up over something we got the do not call list which has been pretty successful.

So more power to this crappy little IP company, I can't wait to see what remains of them after congress is done. :)

The funny thing is, the FCC could increase taxes and regulation of internet services more generally, if they really want. They chose not to do this. Instead, they're choosing to single out one category of internet service that is poorly defined and certain to be redefined as time goes on.

Here's something the mass media conveniently was distracted from reporting.

U.S. oil companies' profits for the first nine months of this year have increased by more than 35 percent over last year, with the bulk of those profits coming from charges for domestic oil and gas refining, not from higher crude oil prices, consumer groups say.
...
For all but the wealthiest 20 percent of American families, rising petroleum prices have eaten up the entire Bush Administration tax cut.

So even if Iraq was for oil, why would the commoners benefit and not our feudal^H^H^H^H^H^Hcorporate lords?

Those in power in America are the most keen to keep the status quo or even push us backwards in some areas. If anyone is going to break from coal/oil it will be developing countries that don't have an overwhelming negative stigma towards nuclear power, and America won't change until it realizes it's behind.

Don't believe the tax cut part? Here's some fun math: Let's compare our budget between $1/gallon and $2/gallon. For the average mileage for a car a year we'll use the used car standard of 15,000. For mileage, let's use 25 mpg to get us 600 gallons. That's $600 a year 4 years ago, vs. $1200 this year. Have two cars? Double that. Have an SUV? Well, let's be generous at 15 mpg and get $1000 vs $2000 each. And this is just gas for your own cars, not heating oil, natural gas, or price inflation/profit loss in services that depend on any of the three.

If you want to calculate your specific amount, take the miles you think you drive in one year and divided by your estimate of your miles per gallon. That number will be the cost of your gas if it were $1/gallon. Double it to get this years amount.

For a lengthy discussion of this subject, read this paper.

For a brief (albeit slanted, but not untrue) summary, check out this.

For a discussion of an exciting and viable alternative, one which really is just an extension of selective breeding, read about marker-assisted breeding.

Our friends at the EFF have provided a handy online way of emailing or faxing(I suggest faxing) your sentor.

The form can be found at http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item =2918

Or you could use a sample letter produced by the Consumers Union, publishers of Consumer Reports, urging Congress debate the issue. A copy can be found at http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/0628%20InduceCon sumerLetter.pdf

And finally a petition by Mac fans has also produced a sample letter, available at http://www.savetheipod.com/index1.php

So instead just predicting a public outcry/backlash, help create the public outcry and backlash.

Make your opinion and voice heard, damn it!

Linux Journal is a great magazine too. Their articles are incredibly rich in technical details - and the coverage isn't just linux kernel focused. They also have great articles about system administration tools, embedded systems, new hardware and general open source software development. They do accept advertising, but the ads are actually useful and relevant -- embedded h/w suppliers, cluster computing manufacturers, hosting providers, etc. I'm sure this is all preaching to the choir, though.

The short answer is yes.

Consumers Union

In short, Consumers Union reported in their magazine, Consumers Report, that the 1995-1996 Isuzu Trooper was dangerous because they tipped under minimal conditions and gave them a failing grade. Lots of people read Consumers Report. Isuzu sued for libel and eventually lost.

Carefully reading the article now, it cost Consumers Union over USD$100,000 to defend themselves which they received after the verdict.

The true question is: Do you have or does this researcher from Yale who does work in France have $100,000+ available to defend yourself/himself before a verdict is handed out?

But then the concrete on your roads would nver set for cable companies laying down cable.
Not true. If the first cable company lays a fat enough conduit, the follow-on companies only need pull cable, not tear up the street. Wet concrete is not the problem.

The problem is, the cities get a kickback from the cable company in exchange for the monopoly license. The city is loathe to give up the revenue source and so grants the monopoly. You, the cable consumer, pay the tax in the form of higher cable fees. Sometimes, the city screws you both ways - both by collecting the hidden tax in the form of the kickback and being up front and tacking on a cable tax.

It's the city's fault that the cable fees are so high - not the FCC's. Let two or more cable companies do business in your area and watch your cable fees drop.

I like the idea in theory, but I don't think that it would be beneficial in practice. I'm a programmer for a mid-sized business, and I'm already hugely annoyed by bureaucratic red tape. Why create more?

Instead, what if there was a review body similar to the Consumers Union? They could test and review a variety of software (business, home productivity, entertainment) and produce their reviews similar to the magazine Consumer Reports.

Supposedly, this is what the magazine shelves are already filled with. In practice, those magazines are concerned only with following whatever is hyped as "the hot new thing", instantly forgotten after its release. Or sometimes recalled in the December-issue "year in review".

Consumers Union, on the other hand, is not concerned with "sneak previews" of new products. Instead it reviews stuff over the long haul, bringing the name of the manufacturer back into discussion with each new review. It asks the same review questions (does the reality match the marketing), but after the product has already been in use by consumers. They pool their member's money in order to purchase actual products, which they then test to the point of destruction.

This kind of review is very useful to people who aren't addicted to buying the latest gadget on its release day. For people who are addicted, they don't have the moral authority to blame the manufacturer for the bad stuff they're selling. Stop buying it first, then complain so that neophytes aren't suckered into becoming new addicts. (For instance, I never paid George Lucas one red cent for his Clown Wars. I boycotted after the disaster that was Episode I. If it's garbage, then stop buying it.)

Chris is a guy according to
this

Deregulation always lowers prices and improves customer service. Governement meddling will never help the improve the situation.

Hopefully the consumer watchdog groups around will pick up on this. Groups like Consumer Federation of America and Consumer's Union (publisher of Consumer Reports do some good work. They are a little slow and behind the times in some ways but they are some of the few groups that confront the cable industry, mostly over the issue of rates. They've been involved in the open access issue which has been important.

You could also organize your community to be your own consumer advocates, rather than hope these organizations will do it for you. Since its an Internet related issue you'll have a much easier time organizing because the people you want to reach are mainly online. Get in touch with the public utility commission, city council, the local news media and the cable company itself. Usually these people here nothing at all from the public on issues like this, if they get 10 calls they'll piss in their pants. Mail the local Linux Users Group, Internet Society Chapter, and other computer related fora and suggest people do the same.

First I'll mention that over 100 comments have been posted so far and not one of them mentions the phrase "open access", nor the Consumers Union press release on the decision.

In its decision the court in part agrees with Time Warner's contention that the rules violate its First Amendment rights. I just finished reading the excellent Rich Media, Poor Democracy by Robert McChesney, which contains a chapter entitled "The New Theology of the First Amendment: Class Privilege over Democracy" devoted to this subject. McChesney criticizes the invokation of First Amendment rights to protect anti-democratic control of the media. He notes that if the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect citizens from the government's control of speech, it is unfortunate that it is being used as a weapon by corporations to do just that.