Comcast Gets Hard Up At FCC Meeting

alphadogg notes a story over at portfolio.com claiming, and presenting evidence, that Comcast paid people off the street to take up room at yesterday's FCC hearing in Massachusetts. Comcast acknowledges that it paid people to hold places in line for its employees. But Save The Internet claims that people were bussed in by Comcast and then took up almost all available seats in the meeting room 90 minutes before the meeting opened, blocking scores of interested people from attending. Such tactics are not unheard of in Washington DC, but how appropriate are they in a regional meeting on a college campus?

Comments

Astroturfing?

[KublaiKhan]

What I want to know is how much one could get per hour as a professional "warm butt"--and what sort of requirements for participation there may or may not be. Are you contractually obligated to applaud, shout, and carry on? Or can you just sit and read a book?

Re:Astroturfing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love the job, but hate myself.

Re:Astroturfing?

[milsoRgen]

I couldn't imagine anything more than 20-50 dollars...

Re:Astroturfing?

[Otter]

Are you contractually obligated to applaud, shout, and carry on?

Judging from the photo, it's not a very demanding job.

I'm in the neighborhood, and wouldn't have minded getting paid to stop by for a nap, although preferably not on Camo Dude's shoulder. And I'd have happily complained about RCN for free!

Re:Astroturfing?

[spun]

Well sir, thanks for expressing interest in this exciting new career opportunity, but before we go any further, I need to measure your ass.

Re:Astroturfing?

[KublaiKhan]

And how long is this meeting? If it's only an hour, then sure, I suppose, if I'm not doing anything else that day--but if this is a multi-hour meeting, I'm going to want more than just a nice lunch out of it.

Re:Astroturfing?

[milsoRgen]

I can't find specifics, but from this article I would wager it was probably a whole afternoon. I would of jumped at the chance to be there, and get beer money for later. But I can only imagine what Joe Six-Pack and company thought of the whole event.

Re:Astroturfing?

[Em Adespoton]

The best method is to get Cisco to bus you in, and then link up to a group IM service so that you can represent all the interested parties who WEREN'T able to get in because of Cisco's seat stuffing :)

Re:Astroturfing?

[bev_tech_rob]

Alot of them sat down and went to sleep...

Re:Astroturfing?

[vtscott]

Reminds me of a similar incident with a protest group against walmart.

An article in Las Vegas Weekly reports that as part of its Wake Up Wal-Mart campaign, the UFCW hired some protestors to stand outside a Nevada Wal-Mart and protest against it. According to the article, the UFCW was being hypocritical in several ways. In particular: [1] * The protest workers were not unionized.
* The UFCW paid the protestors less than Wal-Mart paid its employees. The UFCW paid the protestors $6.00 an hour. Meanwhile, the average Nevada Wal-Mart employee was paid $10.17 an hour.
* The protestors did not have health insurance. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart provided its employees with health insurance. For example, the article mentioned a Wal-Mart employee whose husband received a liver transplant, and the $600,000 cost was paid for by their insurance policy.
* The protestors were working outside in the hot sun where the temperature was 104 degrees. One of the protestors ended up suffering from heat stoke. Meanwhile, the Wal-Mart employees were working inside a cool, air conditoined environment.

Those people had to walk around in the hot sun for $6/hour so I doubt comcast had to pay much for warm butts to sit inside and nap.

Disclaimer: I'm all for protesting walmart although I don't think it's right to pay people to do it. And I think what comcast did was much much shadier.

Re:Astroturfing?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I want to know is how much one could get per hour as a professional "warm butt"--and what sort of requirements for participation there may or may not be.

Well, I hear Vivid girls are better paid "warm butts" than at most of the other production companies.

Re:Astroturfing?

[falconwolf]

What I want to know is how much one could get per hour as a professional "warm butt"--and what sort of requirements for participation there may or may not be. Are you contractually obligated to applaud, shout, and carry on? Or can you just sit and read a book?

What if you speak out against those who pay you? "I'm here because Comcast paid me to be here, however I support net neutrality."

Falcon

Re:Astroturfing?

[geekoid]

You harbor under the myth that pay is some how tied to physically working hard.

Re:Astroturfing?

[HiThere]

Why did you say Cisco when the summary said Comcast?

It was Comcast that was reported as paying people to stuff the hearing.

P.S.: No, this isn't an ethical approach, whether in Washington DC or elsewhere. But if it isn't illegal, then immoral companies will do it. Especially if they have no rational grounds to forward in favor of the decision that they want to have reached.

Re:Astroturfing?

[SpaceLifeForm]

Apparently, sleeping is fine.

Re:Astroturfing?

[Translation Error]

What I want to know is how much one could get per hour as a professional "warm butt"--and what sort of requirements for participation there may or may not be.

I'd suggest being extremely cautious in answering any such job postings so as to avoid any unfortunate misunderstandings about the nature of the job and just what it entails. So to speak.

Re:Astroturfing?

[Anonymous Coward]

We used to get those hired protesters here in Atlanta too, though they represent the "carpenter's union". They would hire up to 50 people to scream and shout until the corporation either ignores them long enough or pays them off to go to the next building.

I wonder if drive-by-paint-balling is just a minor crime?

Re:Astroturfing?

[nolife]

A union was picketing outside of my office building for months because another tenant in the building was using non union workers for their build out. All of the picketers were some ragged looking old bums off the street and paid cash at the role call at the end of the day. Once they got paid, they caught the bus and went home.

Re:Astroturfing?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Disclaimer: I'm all for protesting walmart although I don't think it's right to pay people to do it. At first I agreed. But now I don't. And it is because of retaliation.

A wal-mart employee that protests has a fair chance of facing increased scrutiny leading to firing for some sort of jusitifiable, but trivial, violation. When the protests are outsourced to independents, the employees reduce their risk (but increase their costs since they have to pay these people).

Furthermore, despite their rhetoric, unions are about improving the situation of union members, not the population as a whole. So it may seem hypocritical to outsource the protesting, but if the end result is better for union members then so be it.

Re:Astroturfing?

[clang_jangle]

I would of jumped

It's "would have jumped"!

Re:Astroturfing?

[guruevi]

Why is everybody so much against Wal-Mart? I don't understand it, the employees get average (usually above minimum-wage) pay AND (free) health insurance. Talk to your average waitress, chances are she doesn't get paid anything or way below minimum wage (Perkins Family Restaurants and Applebee's comes to mind) since she earns too much tips (according to suits) and they usually don't get health insurance, they can hardly get their employers insurance to pay up for work related injuries.

Wal-Mart is indeed big (became big, they didn't start out that way) and they take out some local competitors (because they can't (amount of items they carry) or don't want to (lower their profit margins to compete) because of the high prices local competitors have. I've heard complaints that they rise prices when the locals are eliminated but honestly, I hardly see them rising above the prices of any local retail business. Retail businesses have to compete in other areas where Wal-Mart can't compete and that is in personalized customer service and after-sales service. I've seen people do it though, it's not impossible. I've seen a local computer store flourish when Wal-Mart came because the other computer store didn't want to compete in prices (they thought that the market would keep carrying their high prices just because they were good at fixing stuff) and people needed help or upgrades with their Wal-Mart crap or some high-end stuff that Wal-Mart doesn't carry (they don't carry stuff that only some people will want, only retail stores can do that).

Some say they are evil because they don't allow to unionize, but I've seen big companies go under because of the unions and I think it's right for Wal-Mart not to allow the mentality of we-want-more-pay-but-less-work. I've seen a local cable business go under because the workers were doing 1-2 installations per day and then took the van home for the rest of the day and then returned it later. It was proven with GPS tracking systems that workers went to the bar, home or their mistresses yet they couldn't be fired because of the unions.

Currently I work at a place (large, medical and educational) where the cleaners are unionized. My department hasn't been cleaned properly in months and every other week somebody else comes in to do it. The guy that is there now, comes in the middle of the shift in my office without asking and starts eating his breakfast. They are on the clock, in my office, eating without asking and we can't fire them because they are unionized. All of our health insurances raised to keep up with the raising costs (it's a whole whopping $5/month now compared to free before), all of us had to eat it except for the unionized ones who started protesting. They made us (the honest, hardworking people) eat the cost of their (the lazy, unionized people) health insurance and guess what, soon enough it's going to raise again because they don't want to pay for it. One of my colleagues had to go to 'sensitivity training' because she raised her voice (not yelling, I was there) at a unionized laborer who didn't want to go on the roof to check out some filter that was stenching up the area (they kept claiming there was nothing wrong with it). After a long discussion up and down the ladders of higher management, they finally came, checked out the roof and found some stuff rotting in there. The unionized laborer however got to take off a day or two for emotional distress because he got insulted.

That's what unions will do for you. I'm sure they were good back in the day, when a lot of laborers needed good labor laws, but now they are just promoting mediocreness and killing competitiveness of the company that has them.

Re:Astroturfing?

[mpe]

What if you speak out against those who pay you? "I'm here because Comcast paid me to be here, however I support net neutrality."

Best to make sure that you get your money first. Though the implication here is that these people were paid to "reserve a seat", rather than as a Comcast proxy.
Maybe the venue should have adopted the same kind of policy as many ammusment parks. Where this is considered to be "queue jumping", likely to get both people evicted.

Re:Astroturfing?

[mpe]

We used to get those hired protesters here in Atlanta too, though they represent the "carpenter's union". They would hire up to 50 people to scream and shout until the corporation either ignores them long enough or pays them off to go to the next building.

Maybe someone could start an actual "rent-a-mob" agency :)

Re:Astroturfing?

[Kwiik]

You clearly aren't evil enough..

You need to set up a video conference on your PDA so that the interested parties who weren't able to get a seat can pay you for access to your built in mic & speaker

Even if Comcast doesn't pay you in advance, then the money you get from the video conference per party should exceed your seat's astro-turf value

Re:Astroturfing?

[bluefoxlucid]

Whoa. Wal-Mart has better pay rate and health insurance than Target, Best Buy, or K-Mart??? And they have good health insurance benefits? I thought Wal-Mart was the face of evil and treated its employees like crap, isn't that why everyone hates them? ... or could it be that they just make 50 times more money than the other, less employee friendly retail warehouses?

Re:Astroturfing?

[bluefoxlucid]

Talk to your average waitress, chances are she doesn't get paid anything or way below minimum wage (Perkins Family Restaurants and Applebee's comes to mind) since she earns too much tips (according to suits)

Some of those waitresses get average $15/hr tips, and on a good day you can break $30/hr for some of the day (serve a large party where the tip is like 20% of $400 and they're there for 2-3 hours). Some crappy places take everyone's tips, pool them, and distribute them flat (not fair; if you serve 40 times the people you don't get the bigger share...), and this practice needs to die.

It was proven with GPS tracking systems that workers went to the bar, home or their mistresses yet they couldn't be fired because of the unions.

Yeah, I'd just call the wife and tell her I'd be home a bit late 'cause I'm stopping to see the mistress. This usually ends surprisingly well.

Re:Astroturfing?

[cHiphead]

Sounds like bullshit to me, Target has consistently paid a higher hourly wage to employees throughout the years, but maybe they're getting a little stale and starting to slide like Walmart due to their constant expansion.

Re:Astroturfing?

[bluefoxlucid]

Dunno, some guy I know makes $8/hr at Target. Seems anyone not in Geek Squad or BBY-Business or management/supervisor level can't get $10; one stock guy was making $7.99/hr, spent 2 years begging for a 1 penny raise. By the way, "Stock" seems to encompass three separate teams at BBY: Inventory (unload truck, put boxes on shelves); Merchandising (set up displays, make the store look nice, etc); and Loss Prevention (if someone gets stabbed by a shop lifter, this is them). None of them make $8.

Re:Astroturfing?

[GooberToo]

and this practice needs to die.

Tipping is what needs to die. I'm sorry, but $10/hr for transporting a single piece of paper 100ft in one direction and a couple of plates in the other direction is waaay over paid. When we talk about numbers in the range of $30/hr, it is down right vulgar. Many skilled laborers and artisans that don't make that kind of money; and when they can, often not regularly. Add in the fact that tipping is based on a percent, it is beyond idiotic! I'm sorry, but a 3lbs plate at $5.00 does not require more skill or time than a 3lbs plate at $50.00 to carry to my table. Even worse, are people that consider you cheap if you tip less than 20%. At least it makes it easy to identify the masses that need to be removed from the gene pool as critical thinking base intelligence are completely absent.

Let's face it, minimum wage for waiters and waitresses is more than ample for the vast majority in that line of work.

And before anyone starts taking cheap shots at me, I've waited and bussed tables and also worked as a dish washer in back. I do tip, typically 10%. When service is extra ordinary, I tip 20%. Needless say, I rarely tip 20%. On the very rare occasion I find a 20% is deserved, I point it out to the manager so they can be compensated by the appropriate source.

Re:Astroturfing?

[bluefoxlucid]

You've obviously never experienced dining with an asshole waiter. The fact is, your waitress IS a skilled worker. It's fucking hard to deal with customers. You could be insignificant; you could be a dick and they actively leave; or you could inject some friendly comments and smiles in passing and good purchase/dining/whatever suggestions and make them come back purely on good service. And when you're carrying plates for 6-8 people and (by the way) at least trying to memorize who ordered what, a 20% tip might just be nice.

You may have worked the job but you sure missed the point. Try studying up on what bartenders really do (besides serving drinks... they link up social customers with each other too, it's part of being a good bar hand).

Re:Astroturfing?

[GooberToo]

Sorry, for the vast majority of wait staff, they are not skilled laborers. Pathetic tricks like memorizing my order, which increases the chance it will be screwed up (surprise, it often is), when it should have been written down in the first place, is a ploy to fool the weak minded (*cough*) into believing they are justified a higher tip. By your definition, anyone who speaks to anyone on behalf of a company is a skilled laborer. That's completely false and flatly dumb. And how is "memorizing who ordered what", deserving of a tip. It's not. Period. That's idiotic.

No one mentioned bartenders, aside from you. Unlike wait staff, they ARE skilled laborers. Not to mention, they have legal liability. Learn the difference and stop shamming the topic. You seem easily confused and it is pretty clear you don't understand what you're talking about.

And contrary to the assertions made by many, for most businesses, they can easily absorb the cost of higher wages, just like every other business already does. A small place with steady customers can easily net $40k-$80k per month in PROFITS, and that's just with something like burgers. Yet ignorance runs rampant and people believe that a modest increase in overhead for a decent size wait staff is somehow going to force the price of a meal upwards. In most small, successful restaurants, even if it was spread across the menu, you're talking about pennies per meal. In other words, for a large segment of restaurants, food prices don't have to change.

An interesting side to waiters is they are also the largest group actively involved in tax evasion.

To summarize, we double pay dolts and idiots skilled labor rates for poor or average service to then turn and pay a third time, to make up what they illegally pocket and don't pay the IRS. The final kick in the balls is that we're suppose to pay a percent, when their performance is in no way, shape, or form, proportional to the price of a meal.

In every other aspect of business or life, this is called a free ride or a scam.

Re:Astroturfing?

[bluefoxlucid]

By your definition, anyone who speaks to anyone on behalf of a company is a skilled laborer. That's completely false and flatly dumb. And how is "memorizing who ordered what", deserving of a tip. It's not. Period. That's idiotic.

So yeah, I was at IBM today trying to sell them on our new eCommerce platform; I don't know why they opted to build their own on WebSphere, I told them flat out we just knew what we were doing better than they did and they'd most probably screw it up and cost themselves assholish amounts of money and lost customers fixing it over the next few years. Even after my wonderful advice they just said not to call them, they'll call us if they want to look at our product again.

Lunch sucked though. The waitress at the Longhorn we went to didn't bother to ask us if we wanted drinks before we ordered. When she finally brought them (and our food) she just stuck the tray on the table and started asking if anyone remembered what we ordered, then had us pass it around. They actually pay people for this crap?

Re:Astroturfing?

[Em Adespoton]

Sorry; meant Comcast; I happened to be troubleshooting a pesky router problem when typing that ;) Freudian slip.

Re:Astroturfing?

[cHiphead]

Years and years ago I did a very short stint at CompUSA working as an 'Upgrades tech' (the guys that actually had face time with customers, occasionally get called onto the main sales floor when a rush hits, etc) and somehow ended up stocking the fucking store at the end of each night. Sorry but stacking 21" CRTs on the top shelf of the racks all over the store was not in the job description. All at $7/hr. I will say that it at least made subsequent employers seem a lot nicer when the work at a job actually had something to do with the job description you applied for.

Cheers.

Re:Astroturfing?

[zolaar]

What if you speak out against those who pay you?

Well, then you'd be covered under corporate whistleblower protections, provided we pass some decent ones in time for you to try that.
Still.. the communications industry isn't exactly known for its steadfast adherence to civil liberties laws...

Re:Astroturfing?

[cbiltcliffe]

Sorry; meant Comcast; I happened to be troubleshooting a pesky router problem when typing that

No, you happened to be avoiding troubleshooting a pesky router problem when typing that

It wasn't all bad

[Anonymous Coward]

It was touching when Bill the Wino, whom Comcast had been promised a fifth of vodka to fill a seat, entered a rare moment of lucidity and shouted, "I will not sell my soul for liquor anymore, net neutrality for all!"

Re:It wasn't all bad

[airedalez]

Right after that he was screaming "Don't Tase me Bro!"

Re:It wasn't all bad

[twistedcubic]

Wow, an anonymous person just won the Funniest Post of The Year So Far award.

Sounds like our ex-mayor

[nurb432]

One of the last things he did was have a 'community meeting' about property taxes, then let all his people in and fill the room before they opened the doors to the public.

Re:Sounds like our ex-mayor

[Smordnys s'regrepsA]

Well, we can only hope that Comcast gets the same outcome as your ex-mayor. :)

just like OOXML!

[l2718]

Microsoft has been using the same tactic for the OOXML meetings (remember the incident in Sweden?) I guess manipulating public meetings is the next form of business competition.

Re:just like OOXML!

[QRDeNameland]

Is it any surprise? Our political and business leaders have been teaching us more and more all that the path to success is scumbaggery. Lie, chisel, and cheat; and as long as you are powerful enough to get away with it, you will be richly rewarded. Honor, ethics, and good reputation are quaintly outmoded concepts, and those who cling to such silly traditions are in a race to be the last sucker.

The problem is not that people will attempt such venality to get ahead; this has always been the case. The problem is that, increasingly IMHO, the rest of us let them get away with this crap with their reputations intact.

Re:just like OOXML!

[shrub34]

I'm wondering now if we could kill 2 birds with one stone.
We figure out how to create a business process patent on standing in lines to hold a spot. Then we become patent trolls and start suing lobbyist and anyone else that uses this method to fill meetings. Either patent reform is done or we get to see lobbyists standing around for hours to get into meetings.

Re:just like OOXML!

[Tangent128]

Do it!

They're not unheard of tactics?

[spectecjr]

Hmmm... sounds like a bug in the political system. We should fix that.

Re:They're not unheard of tactics?

[Jester998]

Yeah, too bad the change control process is such a bitch.

Re:They're not unheard of tactics?

[mazarin5]

Maybe we could have a big meeting and invite interested parties to voice their opinions!

Comcast branching out

[Enuratique]

Looks like the crack R&D team at Comcast has branched out and found a way to manage congestion at FCC filings too.

Re:Comcast branching out

[Anonymous Coward]

Denial of Speech attack. Maybe they will set up a Free Speech zone under some manhole cover nearby for the opposition.

Re:Comcast branching out

[Floritard]

It is strange to think they are essentially forging supporters much like they were forging packets. Small playbook they have there.

Who cares where it is located?

[garcia]

Such tactics are not unheard of in Washington DC, but how appropriate are they in a regional meeting on a college campus?

Huh? I am all for thinking that this is dick move but to ask "how appropriate" it is seems a little ridiculous. It's a fucking college campus -- if anything, it shouldn't be permitted in "Washington, DC" (whatever that means) but if someone wants to fill a campus auditorium with highlighter toting narcoleptics, so be it.

All this shows is that Comcast is willing to play dirtier than ever to ensure that their network operates in the manner they deem necessary. Normally I couldn't care less what a private business does with its customers but when they have a permitted monopoly in as many areas as they do, they should be held accountable for the bullshit they have been pulling using pipes that my tax dollars helped fund.

Re:Who cares where it is located?

[wolff000]

I'm with you 100%. Comcast should be held accountable for this. If law makers are doing it they need to get booted and brought up on charges as well. This kind of thing just makes me sick.

Re:Who cares where it is located?

[Anonymous Coward]

using pipes that my tax dollars helped fund.

that's "tubes". It's a series of tubes.

Re:Who cares where it is located?

[KublaiKhan]

Bring a suit against 'em for 'subverting the democratic process' I suppose. Or something else that sounds suitably treasonous.

Re:Who cares where it is located?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah this is total bull $hit. The higher ups should be held accountable.

Re:Who cares where it is located?

[proudhawk]

All this shows is that Comcast is willing to play dirtier than ever to ensure that their network operates in the manner they deem necessary. Normally I couldn't care less what a private business does with its customers but when they have a permitted monopoly in as many areas as they do, they should be held accountable for the bullshit they have been pulling using pipes that my tax dollars helped fund. if you really want to get the attention of comcast (and others), everyone should buy up as much stock as possible in comcast (and others), assign it to a voting block and force them to do the right thing by the power of voting stock. I know it sounds simplistic, but sometimes, its the simple things that get the job done.

Re:Who cares where it is located?

[Rob Riggs]

Bring a suit against 'em for 'subverting the democratic process' I suppose. Or something else that sounds suitably treasonous.

Is 'subverting the democratic process' illegal in the US?

A fair response would be to have another hearing with the folks that couldn't get in, and allow Comcast one paralegal in the meeting.

Re:Who cares where it is located?

[seanadams.com]

Yes, drive their stock up! That'll teach 'em.

Re:Who cares where it is located?

[Dahamma]

Are you KIDDING? Comcast is worth $60B. If you somehow managed to find people willing to buy over half of it (at which point it would inevitably be worth over $100B anyway, I'm sure...) Why would they then intentionally try to destroy their investment by working against the company's interest??

If you want to organize the masses and get the attention of Comcast, wouldn't just having people switch to a competing service (satellite TV, DSL Internet, etc) be the sensical way to send a message?

If you don't think so, then I have an amazing plan to destroy all the oil companies involving not buying gas on Tuesdays...

Re:Who cares where it is located?

[unitron]

Lawmakers don't do this, lobbyists do. They hire people to stand in lines for them so that when a committee meeting that's considering a matter of concern to them finally starts they have a guarantee of getting one of the limited number of seats available to the public in the room in which the committee is meeting. While their stand-in is standing in for them they're off somewhere else getting something else done instead of just standing around in a line waiting for congresscritters to start a meeting.

Dude!

[Anonymous Coward]

This has to be illegal, right? Any lawgeeks here who can explain this?

Brought to you by the letters....

[Anonymous Coward]

A, O, and L.

That's right, most of the Sr. Mgmt has been imported from AOL. And if you think of how successful they've been over there, you can imagine just how good a job they are going to do at Comcast.

Buying free speech

[AndyAndyAndyAndy]

It wasn't as much for blocking competition from other companies but from blocking the public from speaking out. There's gotta be some law against this kind of thing...
Oh wait...

What does this say

[palegray.net]

... about the people who accepted money to "attend" a meeting they knew nothing about? Pretty shitty ethics on both sides of this transaction.

Re:What does this say

[urbanriot]

Hahah what planet are you from? I don't know many people that *wouldn't* accept a few bucks for sitting in a court room while they listen to their ipod or txt their friends, let alone people that might be down on their luck.

... about the people who accepted money to "attend" a meeting they knew nothing about? Pretty shitty ethics on both sides of this transaction.

Re:What does this say

[vajaradakini]

Especially if one is paid in advance... I would personally just take the money and duck out 5 mins into the meeting for a bathroom break and not come back.

Re:What does this say

[palegray.net]

Sorry, I care about the ethical implications of things people want to pay me to do. You could just as easily say "what person in their right mind *wouldn't* accept a few bucks for selling crack to high schoolers, let along people that might be down on their luck..."

Please note that I'm not implying that selling crack should be illegal (actually, I think it along with other drugs should be legalized), only that I consider it an unethical way of earning income.

The fact that a lot of people are willing to do anything for a buck is likely a true one, but it doesn't excuse the lack of ethics on these peoples' part. Note that I'm actually taking the optimistic view that they were aware of the implications of their actions; the truth may in fact be that they're too dense to realize it and have shown us a keen demonstration of the age-old saying that democracy is a system of government under which the people get no better than they deserve.

Wow. I'll stop with the run-on sentences now. Sorry about that.

Re:What does this say

[palegray.net]

That's a sort of "Robin Hood" approach... and a can't decide whether I like it or disagree with it :/. On the one hand, it defeats the jerks at Comcast who were trying to pack the house with a non-involved audience. On the other hand, if they were to get people to commit to stay for a certain period of time and they left early (while keeping the money), that would be unethical. Hrm...

Re:What does this say

[roguetrick]

You compare sitting in a do-nothing meeting to selling crack, and you clarify that you're not implying crack should be illegal(which you never implied). I really don't think I'm going to listen to you about ethics my man. No offense.

Desperation

[milsoRgen]

It almost seems like a move of desperation, I can't imagine why they would be that desperate though. Granted public opinion seems to be against what they are doing, but when has public opinion ever generated decent regulation from the FCC.

Re:Desperation

[arbiter1]

why take chances on that being same now? stack it with ppl that will back your ppl and not what anyone else says.

Re:Desperation

[Anonymous Coward]

It does seem kind of pointless. They're already having the meeting in Massachusetts, a state that hasn't had a tech industry for a good 15 years now. It's already across the country from the biggest proponents of net neutrality (like, say, Google).

Apparently Comcast is really desperate. They're doing everything they possibly can to stack the deck in their favor. I really don't understand why.

Why in Massachusetts?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to ask, why was this meeting held in Massachusetts in the first place? Why not in Washington DC, where there are more likely to be interested parties? Why not in California, where interested tech companies could make it?

Why in Massachusetts? Is the FCC purposely trying to make sure that the tech companies effected by a lack of net neutrality couldn't make the meeting?

Seriously, this seems like a move designed to try and prevent companies like Google, Yahoo!, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo - all companies that have a vested interested in offering online services - can't participate without sending someone on a cross-country trip.

But the cable companies in the area doubtlessly could send local people.

Why Massachusetts? Why not a state with a tech industry? I guess the cable companies really are desperate to stack the deck in their favor.

Re:Why in Massachusetts?

[Em Adespoton]

Doesn't Massachusetts have some sort of a technology institute? Wouldn't the intellectuals at such an institute be excellent people to have weigh in on such a debate?

Also, I don't know about Y!, but Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo all have branch offices in that area.

Re:Why in Massachusetts?

[Richthofen80]

Why not in Washington DC, where there are more likely to be interested parties?
You mean, Lobbyists.

All of the companies you mention have offices is Massachusetts.

As much as I'm going to get modded down for this, Comcast has been royally fucked in Massachusetts. Comcast is required to license their business with every town / city before delivering cable to them. This means that each city can set the terms of their cable service, including such pain in the ass things as 'even though you set aside channel x for our local access, we demand local access on channel 7. I don't care that major networks use this channel, its what our town wants!' and 'we demand you share your lines with other telcos, even though you spent all this money to run a fiber-optic ring and they didn't'.

Verizon's FiOS service isn't required to reach agreements / licensing with each town. Heck, FiOS isn't even required to bring service to all customers. That's why FiOS is rolled out here in select communities; those communities are wealthy and are more likely to require service, meaning they don't have to waste money deploying to towns that are less likely to buy. Also, wealthy customers spend more and are more attractive to local advertisers, so FiOS makes money that way too. (Both Verizon and Comcast sell advertising on top of the network signals they reproduce). I'm not saying things should be done one way or another, but that the rules for both should be the same... its hard to compete when your competitor has to jump through way less government hoops.

And you fuckwit, Massachusetts has a huge tech industry. the 128 belt was/is silicon valley east. Oracle, Sun, MS all have buildings on 128 you can see from the highway. If you live in Massachusetts and have a Computer Science degree, you're probably screening calls from recruiters these days.

Re:Fr1ST POST !!!1111one

[snoyberg]

Comcast paid me to post this: FRIST PSOT!!!!!11

Hope they didn't pay too much...

No big deal, they did it before

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at who is running the FCC these days. Comcast, Time-Warner, the telcos, have all paid 'campaign contributions' to pack the FCC with anti-consumer/anti-competition appointees. I'm sure that they also sleep through meetings since all they need to do is get their orders from industry and pass it on to staff for implementation. The only decision making is when the telcos and cable operators disagree on who gets to screw consumers harder.

Re:No, no, no

[Shakrai]

Comcast got hard, up at the FCC meeting. Like I got hard, up at your mom's house last night.

Oh, ok. We were wondering where his Dad was ;)

Commonplace in Washington

[KookyMan]

For those who aren't aware, its common practice for Lobbyists to pay professional "line waiters" in Washington D.C.

Since lines form hours ahead of time for meetings and other public discussions, its a waste of time to force the lobbyist themselves to be waiting in line for 2-3 hours, so they pay someone to hold a place. I believe it was the Colbert Report that actually did a piece on this within the last couple of months. I think there was possibly some legislation being floated that would make some judgments on this practice.

Re:Commonplace in Washington

[KublaiKhan]

Seems to me that if it's your job to go to a meeting that you should sit your own rear end in line.

Besides, the more you have these lobbyists tied up waiting, the less you have them actually lobbying--so perhaps the congresscritters might have to listen to their constituents for once, if only out of sheer boredom.

Re:Commonplace in Washington

[Anonymous Coward]

Daily Show.

A rep is trying to make it illegal. If a lobbyist wants to get in, they have to wait inline, not pay someone else. Sounds good to me.

Re:Commonplace in Washington

[geekoid]

Yep. It's called "No Savies"

Ask any 1st grader.

This should not be allowed at all. You can have the person behind you save your seat, briefly. But if you are gone longer then 10 minutes, or the doors open while you are away. Too Bad, So sad.

"no Swappies", or "Cutsies" either.

Re:Commonplace in Washington

[Stanislav_J]

Yes, but you make the erroneous assumption that D.C. lobbyists are as mature as 1st graders...

Re:Commonplace in Washington

[bandini]

I was a bike messenger in DC for several years, and did a number of line standings. Messengers are often hired for this purpose, being familiar with the Hill offices, and being still more familiar with working as dispensable help for some of the worst people in the world.
I never liked doing line standings, though they usually paid well (relative to my average income back then); besides being deadly boring, there was always a sort of bitter ethical aftertaste, it's true. I think the last one I did was for one of the asbestos hearings; I'll never forget seeing the looks on the faces of what appeared to be genuine concerned citizens, showing up at what they thought was an early hour only to find themselves effectively locked out of the room by a ragged bunch of guys in rain jackets and shoes that close with velcro - who were only proxies for three-piece suits and wing tips, but whatever.
The deal (for whoever's interested in these things) is you show up at one of the Senate or House office buildings at some crazy hour, usually well before dawn or even a day or two ahead of time, and wait. The building isn't open yet, so you have to wait outside, and then march in to the hallway near the assigned hearing room, trying to preserve the order of the line as it was. Sometimes the hearing room is a ways from the open entrance; guys want to move up in line or at least not lose too many places, everybody starts walking faster and the line will break into a sprint. Kind of fun to run across the floor of the Hart building at 5am, bike cleats ringing on marble, but as things are generally a lot more locked down on the Hill these days I doubt if this happens much anymore.
So one problem, for the waiter, is that while this is basically an accepted practice the Capitol Hill police don't really fully condone it, either. I'm guessing that there's no clear regulations, let alone laws, covering these things, but once you're inside the cops will threaten to kick you out if you try to sit down, or leave a bag or other placeholder in line while you use the bathroom. If they catch you holding someone else's place in line (besides the one person who's paying you to be there, natch) they'll wait for the other guy to come back and throw you both out. Their right to do any of these things is pretty vaguely defined, but good luck trying to lodge a complaint.
Of course for important hearings where people are waiting for many hours beforehand, some bending of these rules has to happen, and so it does, but you have to defer to the cops by not doing it in front of their faces. They in turn give a little leeway; right up until an hour or so before the hearing, they only walk down the line once in 20-30 minutes, then as the time approaches they come by more and more often. By the time the lawyers and lobbyists show up it's a reasonably orderly scene. You're not really supposed to just have a sign out, airport-limo style, because somehow that is considered too blatant. So there's this funny school-dance thing that happens where a bunch of suits are walking up and down the line, looking for their guy or guys, both sides murmuring the names of various client firms. Once you find each other you switch out, and the cop who was diligently making sure you didn't hold your buddy's place for five minutes while he went to take a piss will stand there and watch and not say a damn thing.

I have a very low opinion of the Capitol Hill police, for reasons only tangentially related to the above, so excuse me if that colors my description; I'm just describing the phenomenon from the underling's perspective for anyone who cares to know about it.

Re:Commonplace in Washington

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the Daily Show. 1/17/2008

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=148056&title=wait-and-switch

Re:Commonplace in Washington

[Red Flayer]

From a political standpoint, I agree.

But from an economic standpoint, the market has decided that lobbyist time is very valuable (yeah, yeah, this is due to restrictions on supply of lobbyists, as well as constaints on who has access to politicians). In a capitalist system, we must assume that lobbyists produce something of value, since the market has assigned value to their labor.

So what we're left with is that it's a very inefficient use of resources to have the lobbyists waiting in line. We're all better off economically if someone whose labor is less valuable does the line-waiting instead. Otherwise, we'd need more lobbyists to fulfill the market demand for them, and other than the sharks themselves, who wants that?

/Where Alph the sacred river ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.
:)

Re:Commonplace in Washington

[powerlord]

Otherwise, we'd need more lobbyists to fulfill the market demand for them, and other than the sharks themselves, who wants that?

Well, the way I see it, there are other possibilities.

1) More lobbyists (which would cost their backers more)
2) The same number of Lobbyist, but spread out thinner (since each would campaign less)
3) Less Lobbyists (since some might decide that sitting in line for hours is not something they care to do), or perhaps less "Competent" Lobbyists, combined with more cheap and less competent lobbyists.

There are lots of possibilities, I say let them have to wait in line, and see how the market adjusts and responds. If it truly a detriment to our Democratic Process, then we can always change things again. Right?

Gets hard up?

[sunahama]

I guess it's better than them getting a hard on.

Getting paid to sleep through an FCC hearing...

[BUL2294]

It's Comcastic!

Frankly, someone should open an investigation as to how many hundreds or thousands of $$$$ of cash were paid. I'll bet Comcast doesn't have 1099s for the people they paid, which they probably illegally did with CASH...

Re:Getting paid to sleep through an FCC hearing...

[Neanderthal Ninny]

Remember the lobbyist that Comcast really pays well so they can get Congress to pass laws to allow them to do this to us.

Re:Getting paid to sleep through an FCC hearing...

[theskipper]

IIRC, a 1099 is only required if the total amount is >$600 by Dec 31.

Using petty cash for this type of thing is interesting though. Although it's barely a rounding error in a company of their size, even a $2 pack of Bics from Staples produces a receipt. Can't imagine there's any paper trail in a scheme like this.

Re:Getting paid to sleep through an FCC hearing...

[Anonymous Coward]

But, the line waiters don't make their own hours. They are plainly employees, not independent contractors, and should get W-2s, with all the trimmings. FICA, FUTA, and income tax withholdings are all being conveniently ignored, and the IRS could impose SEVERE penalties for that.

Bribery is illegal... Comcast should be penalized.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Nuff said.

Comcast should lose for that

[kawabago]

Comcast should be censured for it's behaviour but it's Amerika, if you've got money, it doesn't matter what you do. That's what's really wrong with America too.

Re:Bribery is illegal... Comcast should be penaliz

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Who got bribed? Are you replying to the right article?

Comcast

[Funnydaddy]

With the rising unemployment in the US, Comcast could come to the rescue! Why don't they employ all the unemployed to 'reserve' spaces for their employees? What did they really hope to achieve with this blatant show of trickery?

Re:Viagra

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, clearly cialis is much better than viagra. Tag article with "cialis"!

Re:No, no, no

[Anonymous Coward]

Should have gone with offtopic, not troll. Cya at meta-mod!

Re:Fr1ST POST !!!1111one

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast paid me to post this: FRIST PSOT!!!!!11

Hope they didn't pay too much...

How do you know that the grand parent doesn't work for comcast as his day job, and/or wasn't surfing /. on the clock?

business

[falconwolf]

Honor, ethics, and good reputation are quaintly outmoded concepts, and those who cling to such silly traditions are in a race to be the last sucker.

While a lot of businesses may not operate this way some do, and they are doing well. One of the fastest growing grocery store chains is Whole Foods Market which does. Their mission statement, Declaration of Interdependence goes over what they work on.

I know this is only one example but there are others.

Falcon

Re:business

[sheldon]

I would hardly hold up Whole Foods as an example in Ethics

Re:business

[falconwolf]

I would hardly hold up Whole Foods as an example in Ethics

I hadn't seen that before, thanks.

Falcon

Re:Commonplace in Washington - Segment Link

[KookyMan]

My Mistake, it wasn't Colbert, it was on A Daily Show, and here's the segment. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=148056&title=wait-and-switch

I was in line

[GabrielF]

My colleague and I run free wireless networks in housing projects. We both schlepped to attend this event and we were both turned away by Harvard cops because there was no room. It really drives me crazy that people whose livelihood is effected by net neutrality couldn't get in because comcast paid to pack the room.

The event was run by the Berkman Center and even people who identified themselves as working for Berkman were turned away. Even a reporter who just wanted to stand in the back and take photos was hassled by the cops - I didn't stay long enough to see if they let him in. There were a lot of people who arrived around the time I did (fifteen minutes early) and insisted that someone was holding their seat, so maybe there is some truth to the part about the people holding seats for Comcast employees - but - the Harvard cops wouldn't let these people by unless they called the person holding the seat and that person came out, so unless Comcast provided their employees with the cell numbers of the seat fillers they wouldn't have gotten in anyway.

I'm so mad about this that I want to tell everyone I know to cancel their comcast service, but because of the telecom duopoly most of the people I know who have comcast would probably have to pay a lot more to switch.

Got Frat-boys?

[Amilianna]

Honestly, I understand the point but I think it is silly. How acceptable is it for Comcast to pay people to take up seats? About as acceptable as you to ask your 50 frat buddies to show up and do the same thing. If the meeting is open to anyone who gets there and gets a seat, then anyone is freely able to coerce their friends to come as well - or the stranger on the street. If you want a meeting that is only open to the people you want to be there, then find a way to make it a closed session. I'm sure that you would have a decent time if you mentioned this particular instance as a fear for future meetings.

Re:Got Frat-boys?

[GabrielF]

If the frat boys are showing up because they have an agenda or they are generally interested in a topic than thats fine. I wouldn't even have minded if Comcast employees had shown up en masse, but paying people who are going to sleep through the event is despicable since it prevents members of the public who have a legitimate interest in participating in government from attending.

Re:Got Frat-boys?

[Amilianna]

Despicable? Yes. Generally, anything you do to try to circumvent the system is despicable. But plenty of people (even average, everyday, regular people and not just big evil corporations) do things every day to circumvent things they find inconvenient or to try to tip the scales their way. I'm just pointing out that this wasn't that different. The trick is for you to circumvent better than they do, if you care about stopping them in any form. The author made Comcast sound like some big horrible devil for doing this immoral action, but realistically they are just everyday-evil, especially since this could have been easily dealt with by having a closed session or by other people showing up even earlier than the paid butts. And, from the article, it sounded like the people who were there didn't stay for the meeting, they were just place-holders for the employees, but that could just be a spin that Comcast put out to make themselves seem less evil.

I was on campus today

[ystar]

I'm a student at Harvard, and for what it's worth, I can confirm the Widener stretch of Massachusetts Ave was lined with an unusual (and infuriating) number of peter pan buses today (maybe 4-5 buses total). I had assumed it was a group of foreign tourists or a big alumni meeting (two busloads of said travelers are a common sight every month or so) but now that I know the truth, I'm fuming at the ears over this.

I'm contacting some friends in the Crimson to see if they plan to cover this in tomorrow's paper.

Re:I was on campus today

[ystar]

Sorry, I meant yesterday (obviously). I've been awake for the past 48 hours +/- a nap, working on a pset, if that serves as an excuse.

Comcast got a WHAT?!?!

[JoeDuncan]

Am I the only one that read this as:

"Comcast Gets Hard On At FCC Meeting"?

before doing a double take...

Having worked for Comcast tech support...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you that Comcast are cocksuckers, starting with CEO Briana Roberts and working down through all the layers of manglers.

Someone has to say it...

[merc]

I for one welcome our conference-room-encroaching net-neutrality-astroturfing chair-sleeping overlords.

Just a good thing Ballmer wasn't there, they wouldn't have been any chairs for THEM to sit on!

The Problem is a Lack of Ethics and Honesty

[mlwmohawk]

Ethics are a lost cause. Ethics and being unethical used to be a serious issue. Honesty and Ethics used to be the characteristic of a great person. These days, no one expects ethics, no one even values ethics. When the majority of people act ethically and honestly, there is negative feedback to unethical behavior. When the majority of people don't care about ethics, unethical behavior is the norm.

So much of a free society depends on ethics and the deal of ethics will be the death of freedom.

Re:The Problem is a Lack of Ethics and Honesty

[Anonymous Coward]

A free society doesn't depend on ethics, it depends on incentives and disincentives for certain behaviors. Predation is punished to preserve freedom.

In any case, as an amoral, agnostic nihilist, I just wanted to chime in and confirm your suspicions.

Re:The Problem is a Lack of Ethics and Honesty

[Anonymous Coward]

These days, no one expects ethics, no one even values ethics.

I do and I'm very bothered that you don't.

This IS the FCC, after all

[DynaSoar]

Do it again, but

(1) provide broad- and net-cast of the proceedings, and

(2) provide for text and voice reception to the panel for questions from the audience, local and remote, and

(3) provide a moderator whose job it is to see that the relevant questions are answered, or else specifically and overtly note that the relevant questions were non-answered with misdirection through irrelevant and worthless answers.

Announce that this is how it's going to run, and I'll give 10 to 1 that Comcast will refuse to participate. Announce that independent testing has confirmed they've lied about their "packet shaping" blockage of P2P traffic, and I'll raise it to 100 to 1.

Any day now one or another of these traffic blocking ISPs is going to blame participation in the goobermint's wire tapping program for the "unavoidable periodic slowdowns of certain types of traffic due to redirection of 'traffic of interest'" for analysis by the spooks. It's a lie that they all know will be recognized a such, but will be allowed to slip by the sheeple since it's for catching the terrorists who might want to blow up the Grand Canyon or some such.

NSA:
War Is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
We're Running a Little Behind

New Technology

[zieroh]

This is all part of Comcast's new Public Hearing Shaping technology.

Re:New Technology

[kingsack]

That's it Comcast is violating my patent on Public Hearing Shaping! I will be slapping them with a Patent Troll suit for millions hahahahahah

Re:Bribery is illegal... Comcast should be penaliz

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Comcast paid people off the street to fill up the hearing.

Re:Bribery is illegal... Comcast should be penaliz

[Anonymous Psychopath]

True, but bribes? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

They weren't saving anyone's place

[selfevident]

To assume they were genuinely seat savers, we'd have to also assume that dozens of lobbyists intended to show up but were somehow all delayed, and thus all missed the panel they'd flown in for.

I was there. The "seat savers" sat there all morning, applauded loudly for David Cohen (the Comcast guy), and left immediately after that first panel. They were not replaced by lobbyists or Comcast employees simultaneously muttering "Darn that flat tire" under their breaths. They were replaced mainly by students.

Well...

[vegiVamp]

Regardless of the usual stereotypes about the average (USAian) punter, it seems to me that by bussing in totally unrelated people, they're actually *broadening* the range of people who are at some level aware of their antics. Sure, most of them might care little, but there's bound to be at least a few in each bus who'll be sufficiently interested to check up on things.

Or am I underestimating the amount of Soma in the water supplies that much ?

Re:Well... no.

[wonkavader]

Coming from a background in psychology, I can tell you things don't work out the way you'd expect.

The people Comcast brought in were paid to do something they won't feel good about themselves for. People don't like that feeling, and rationally, you'd expect them to get mad at the person who paid them, but the way this ACTUALLY works is that the people rationalize their misbehavior by siding with the people who paid them.

So Comcast just bought themselves a bunch of irrational supporters. You can guess that 20% of the people they bussed in who actually think about this ever again will be anti-Comcast. The rest who think about it will support them, in a subconscious effort to not make themselves a bad person.

A pity. I'd like your scenario a lot better.

Re: Viagra

[arizwebfoot]

Why would you mod me offtopic when the question was valid?

Re: Viagra

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a tag of Viagra, but it's gone now.

Tipping Rocks

[EgoWumpus]

As I see it, there are two possible systems. In the one you seem to support, you pay a higher meal fee - as determined by the restaurant - and that restaurant compensates the wait staff accordingly. Presumably, ethically, this also means that the wait staff has an at-least-equal-to-minimum-wage salary, rather than the commonly held less-than-minimum-wage salary legal by law because tips are assumed.

In the second system, the one we are under now, the restaurant has lower prices but it is, essentially, off-loading part of the cost to you, the customer, for it's wait staff - in the form of tips.

Now, I find this an ironic stance, given that in this very thread people are ranting against unions - yet the former model suggests a very union-like structure; given that there is no immediate customer->manager feedback in *most* situations, wait staff cannot expect compensation to result from improved performance. With little such incentive, one can hardly expect (though may still receive) superb service.

In the latter case, however, you have a number of distinct benefits that the former, what I shall go ahead and call 'impersonal' system - for the fact that the consumer can abscond from having any responsibility for an overall equitable interaction - does not have. In particular, tipping provides a very useful social experience. In my three favorite restaurants I'm treated like family whenever I come in, and am often lavished with free food, drink, other presents, and most importantly superb service simply because I've fostered a good relationship with the wait staff and proprietors. A large part of this is tipping well, as it sends a signal that says, "Hey, I respect you and your service."

Further, I have to imagine that restaurant owners prefer it. Apart from the staff having an independent source of motivation, there are certainly fiscal benefits - and my understanding is that the restaurant business is quite harsh, where the margins are not large most of the time. Being able to outsource a major expense (labor, the most major expense) to independently motivated agents is a very good thing.

Finally, though, let me note that it seems to me as though everyone who is against tipping is somehow under the impression that a tipping-free system would obviate the need to pay that money. The fact of the matter is that the market dictates that there is a certain value to being served at a restaurant. It may seem to you like it is a trivial thing; the statement "transporting a single peice of paper 100ft in one direction and a couple of plates in the other direction is waaay overpaid" certainly suggests that. There is a host of complementary skills and tasks, however, and I think anything other than a cursory look at the matter would reveal it. Wait staff often have to memorize a changing menu, be able to recall it accurately, often make suggestions. They have to be able to remember orders accurately, and balance attention between tables. Speaking of which, they have to be constantly aware of the people looking for attention. They have to carry food, deal with customers who are less than gracious, often in hot or less-than-comfortable environments. And, finally, they are giving up their time to serve you food. Simply because food is a basic need does not mean you're entitled to it, with full service, for basically no money.

And even if you disagree with any specific task and it's appropriateness, you have to admit that no one is going to be wait staff without some degree of compensation. Given that tips often replace equitable wage, benefits, and normal working hours (oh, wait, did I forget that? That most wait staff are working when most people prefer not to be? That does carry a price...) to include it as a normal wage would still have a price tag. That price shows up on the menu.

So, my feeling is this; embrace the tipping system - which at least lets you trade your self-respect, consideration for the work of others and good reputation for a cheaper meal.

Re:Tipping Rocks

[Kelbear]

There's more than the two possible systems. The value of waiting vs. fast-food establishments is blurred by the discrepancy of the foods being served.

It's just that the two most common systems are cheap food with no service, or good food with service.

There is still the possibility of good food with no service(priced accordingly), which is what the GP wishes for. It occurs here and there in varying forms(buffets, order&pick-up diners), and the GP's desire is shared by others who have lamented the tip-based system.

A system without waiters also has the added benefit of determining your own level of self-service. If you want water, you don't have to wait for someone to come around until you can drink, you can just get up and get some yourself immediately. Ready to order? Then go ahead and order.

It's not a binary decision, there are other possibilities. However, having a different protocol for dining in every restaurant would have inevitable bouts of confusion for first-time customers. There are network-effects for those that adhere to the common guidelines. Just like the popularity of Windows as an OS, is it the best choice because it's the best system or because it's too inconvenient to deviate from the standard?

Re:Tipping Rocks

[EgoWumpus]

"Just like" the popularity of Windows may be an overstatement; tipping has been around for millenia, after all, whereas the Windows OS has most certainly not. A better analogy might be taxes; sure, it might be, in some respects, better if all the various land and property owners paid for their own services - allowing them to vote with dollars which are more important. But the needs of the overall society are not exactly served. Taxes are an imperfect but workable solution.

That said, I'm not sure you're sufficiently showing it's not a binary system. Assuming, fundamentally, that you're paying for people to serve you the only question remains is how - through tipping or through the price on the menu; that is, the price you pay the restaurant.

I suppose, with modern technology, you could avoid wait staff altogether - but I both don't think it's feasible as a societal movement, nor do I think it's pertinent to the discussion. Naturally, if the task is removed you don't have to pay for it - I think we're basically just discussing services that utilize the staff.

I did think of a third possibility, though; personal wait staff. That is, you hire someone to be your wait staff on a retainer basis - rather than relying on the restaurant to provide you with staff. Feasibility seems low on first pass.

Re:Tipping Rocks

[GooberToo]

Finally, though, let me note that it seems to me as though everyone who is against tipping is somehow under the impression that a tipping-free system would obviate the need to pay that money. The fact of the matter is that the market dictates that there is a certain value to being served at a restaurant.

No one is arguing that. The primary problem with tipping is that value is not proportionate the the service. Not even close. Add to the fact that you already PAID for that service (it's included in your meal; at least a portion thereof, if tipping were to disappear) and we all wind up paying a third time to compensate for the monies due but not paid to the IRS. Waiters and topless dancers represent the largest group of tax evaders in the US.

You also ignore that even small, moderately successful restaurants can easily absorb a labor increase. Even if they choose not to, the price per plate is still far less than a 10% tip, let alone 10%-30% common these days. You need to keep in mind, we're talking about dollars in the range of $10k-$60k PROFIT, per month, for a *successful*, restaurant, where margins are thin (e.g. burgers and pizza). For many owners, a modest labor increase isn't worth talking about; ignoring the false stink they would otherwise create. There is a reason why people want successful restaurants, and it isn't the long work hours.

Re:Tipping Rocks

[EgoWumpus]

"The primary problem with tipping is that value is not proportionate the the service. Not even close."

How do you figure? A $20 meal with a 20% tip is $4. Assuming a meal length of 45 minutes, I have to ask, would you serve someone for less than $6 an hour?

But that is actually beside the point; if the general populace is willing to pay $6/hr, $30/hr or $300/hr for personal service, that is the going price. That is what the service is worth because that is what people are willing to pay for it. The removal of tipping would simply see this price go into the price of the meal - and you can't argue that it's already there. The $2.50/hr that wait staff have to be paid is there, yes, but no one takes a wait staff on the assumption that their base pay is all that they're taking home. They want to be paid a certain amount, and will often quit if the tips are insufficient to reach that nebulous amount.

Moving that cost to a mechanism that routes through the restaurant really doesn't solve anything. The cost is still there; I have to believe that wait staff would ask for more in the way of wages, but I recognize that they might accept less and be unhappier about it. Personally, I'd rather they were equitably compensated, and I find that difficult to ensure if I'm relying on the business owner.

"Waiters and topless dancers represent the largest group of tax evaders in the US."

In terms of numbers of people or dollars?

Warren buffet had the following to say recently:

"We did an informal office survey by looking at the total tax footprint versus the total income. I earned 46 million and paid a tax rate of 17.5%. My rate was the lowest, the average was 33%, and my cleaning lady paid 40%. The system is tilted towards the rich." ... "Even though the per capita GDP is $47,000, 20% of the population makes less than $20,000."

Given that, given that wait staff and strippers are not making a bazillion dollars, are we really so upset to give people in that classification of income more money? They're not the people who are ripping you off. Car companies, cell phone companies, HMOs; these people rip you off. They know you need the service, so they can inflate the price. On the other hand, wait staff is a luxury you're choosing to paying for. It hardly seems mannerly to resent them for it.

Re:Tipping Rocks

[GooberToo]

The first part is so riddled, I'll just leave it be. You seem like a smart person so I have no doubt you'll be able to figure out where the huge holes are at.

In terms of numbers of people or dollars?

In terms of number of people, which is not to say the dollar figure is small (frankly I don't remember, but it's a large figure). The problem with chasing these people is that from each, the loss to our coffers are relatively small, but there are a lot of them. Worse, proving it is problematic and time consuming so the IRS would rather chase other people.

On the other hand, wait staff is a luxury you're choosing to paying for. It hardly seems mannerly to resent them for it.

That's just a dumb statement. I'm sorry. With two parents working the typical case these days, eating out in many house holds is not a luxury. Rather, luxury is better defined by the price per plate, location, and added amenities. This is not to say wait staff should not be compensated. I'm saying the compensation should be commensurate to the value added; which is that of an unskilled worker. If one can accept his position as anything other than idiotic, then truly skilled laborers are **drastically** underpaid. I guess next time you go to the mechanic you won't blink when they tell you your minor engine service is going to cost $5,000. But hey, having someone work on your car is a luxury you're choosing to pay for. It hardly seems mannerly to resent them for it. ;) And don't cringe when you pay a fixed percent of your income to have your hair cut. So what would be fair? $200, $500, what percentage of your income is fair? 1%, 2%, 5%? After all, appearance is directly related to your income. It's been said that appearance can create a wage gap by as much as 20%-40%. You willing to pay that 20%-40%/yr to have your hair cut? Of course the satire could endlessly go one showing how ridiculous such a out of touch statement really is. Hopefully you're laughing at my idiocy and realize the folly of the entire tip system. It sucks as is.

You can rationalize anything, and it's easy to do when it's the status quo. Or you can attempt to hold them to the same standard that everyone else must work within. If you do so, you'll forced to agree wait staff are significantly over paid.

Re:Tipping Rocks

[EgoWumpus]

"Worse, proving it is problematic and time consuming so the IRS would rather chase other people."

Yes. As they should. No one is benefited by the IRS going after pocket change from lots of people. In fact, given that that money is going to people who are not hoarding it, but rather turning around and spending into the system again, one might argue that the downsides are twofold. This what they classify as a 'little' problem.

With two parents working the typical case these days, eating out in many house holds is not a luxury.

Bullshit. Eating out is not a necessity, it is a choice. There are many, many easy methods of cheaply prepping your own food, many of which do not require dishes or any other of the attendant needs of normal food prep. I don't recommend them, but then I don't recommend eating out on a regular basis if you can't afford it - or the appropriate tip.

"I'm saying the compensation should be commensurate to the value added"

Yes. It should. And further, what you consider to be no value added is not the general consensus. The general consensus is that wait staff add a lot of value. If you don't think they do, eat at home. What is it about dining out that you want, if not the wait staff?

"If one can accept his position as anything other than idiotic, then truly skilled laborers are **drastically** underpaid."

I totally agree with you here. The position is both not idiotic, and truly skilled laborers are underpaid. You wonder why your house is built like crap? Or why the roads are always filling with potholes? Or why your car costs so much to repair? The ironic thing to observe about each of these systems is that none of them use tipping - they rely on you paying a central authority who doles out the money as they see fit. Typically, that causes the skilled worker to become interchangeable, because no given worker is going to be motivated to do anything but a mediocre job. The software industry is heading this direction as well, as less and less of the income is tied to actual performance.

And, for the record, I do think it is entirely ungracious to resent people for demanding a fair market value. But, then, I don't own a car because I am unwilling to pay that price. When I am willing to pay that price - balanced against other things I want to spend money on - then I will choose to own a car. This is a choice I'm capable of making, just like I'm capable of saying that if I don't want to compensate my wait staff what they're worth, to me, then I won't go out to eat. It's just a sign of poor character and disregard for others.

"And don't cringe when you pay a fixed percent of your income to have your hair cut."

Here you have jumped a logical divide. No one pays a fixed percent of their income to have their hair cut. Nor do they pay a fixed percent of their income on tips, or on a car. None of these services are tied to (as in derived from) the consumer's income. I certainly don't tell my barber how much I make so he knows how much to charge me. If you do, let me know where you live because I would be fascinated to visit and observe such a place.

"After all, appearance is directly related to your income."

No, it is indirectly related. The difference between "directly" and "indirectly" is that if it were directly related, looking better would net you more money. This is easily disproven, as Bill Gates has never won "Sexiest Man of the Year".

It's been said that appearance can create a wage gap by as much as 20%-40%. You willing to pay that 20%-40%/yr to have your hair cut?

Orly? By whom? Do you have any numbers to back that up?

I hesitate to get into your logical fallacies here, but they are rife. "Haircut" is not equivalent to "appearance". Not even the best haircut in the world will save someone who is legitimately ugly. That said, it makes no sense to pay for any thing that is going to cost you as much as it earns you; at t

Re:Tipping Rocks

[EgoWumpus]

"You seem like a smart person so I have no doubt you'll be able to figure out where the huge holes are at."

By the by, this is the worst sort of contemptuous rhetoric. If you can't cite a specific hole in the argument, don't pretend like it's there and everyone around you is too stupid to see it. I think everyone on Slashdot - myself included - could do to remember this better.

Re:Tipping Rocks

[GooberToo]

Yes. As they should. No one is benefited by the IRS going after pocket change from lots of people.

You've completely missed the point. If they were not on a tipping system which encourages tax fraud, there would be no reason for the IRS to be concerned with these point in the first place.

Bullshit. Eating out is not a necessity, it is a choice. There are many, many easy methods of cheaply prepping your own food, many of which do not require dishes or any other of the attendant needs of normal food prep. I don't recommend them, but then I don't recommend eating out on a regular basis if you can't afford it - or the appropriate tip.

I should be more clear. No one needs to eat out every night, I completely agree. Having said that, having gone through the treadmill with kids, several times a month, it's either feed shit food to your family or eat out. Those that care for nutrition and their kids often elect to eat out. After having typed that, it's rather obvious we were a minority because the majority of parents have no idea what nutrition is and a "good" meal for them often ranks as unacceptable for us. And take a look at the "fast" home alternatives. Most are incredibly unhealthy, but especially fast food. Granted some of that has started to change in the last couple of years but your "bullshit" is uninformed at best or your are indifferent as to what constitutes nutrition for your self and family.

Yes. It should. And further, what you consider to be no value added is not the general consensus. The general consensus is that wait staff add a lot of value. If you don't think they do, eat at home. What is it about dining out that you want, if not the wait staff?

You've misunderstand. I do not consider it "zero" value. I considering it of little value, especially once you take FACTUAL look at what you get for your money; which **almost** does translate into zero for the majority of restaurants.

The general consensus is that wait staff add a lot of value. If you don't think they do, eat at home. What is it about dining out that you want, if not the wait staff?

Now that is pure bullshit! Few people, save only the wait staff, consider it a significant value. The value to be had by the VAST majority eating out is simple: you don't cook and you don't clean. Period. Both of which are 100% built into the price of a meal, be it fast food or formal. Fine, you want to pay a waiter minimum wage, I'm fine with that. My problem is, in no way shape or form does their job qualify as a $15/hr job, let alone something like $30-$40/hr. There are some exceptions to this, but only a faction of wait staff qualify and these are in very high end establishments where they truly qualify as skilled laborers.

I totally agree with you here. The position is both not idiotic, and truly skilled laborers are underpaid.

I agree, they are underpaid, but that's not really the point. The point is, to be one same scale, that is proportional pay for skill and labor, you need to either triple (or more) the pay of all skilled laborers, or cut in third (or more) the pay of wait staff. Since skilled laborers, by in large, are not undervalued 3x their actual value, common sense demands waiters are far, far, far overpaid.

And, for the record, I do think it is entirely ungracious to resent people for demanding a fair market value.

Once again, you missed the point. I agree everyone should be paid a fair market value. But waiters are far OVER paid as is...so what is ungracious is for waiters to bitch and complain about being underpaid while providing little value added and generally poor service while already being over paid.

Here you have jumped a logical divide. No one pays a fixed percent of their income to have their hair cut.

Obviously that was silly but it seems you missed the point. At least hair **IS** factually accountable for some of your income, like it or not! Period. That's the world we live in, which is with biased huma

Re:Tipping Rocks

[GooberToo]

That was a sincere comment and only presumed you would take a critical look at your position as it related to the paragraph in question.

I guess *I* presumed too much. It would seem you're incapable of self reflection so a request for critical examination of your position is nothing but rhetoric. I was sincere when I wrote that and continue to be. You do come across as smart. Sometimes isn't easier to ask for someone to look within than it is to bang them over the head while writing a book which is likely to be ignored on forums such as this. Ya, it's a scapegoat for me from wasting time...but sincere nonetheless.

Re:Tipping Rocks

[EgoWumpus]

I think your basic misconception is that the amount you are compensated for a job should be a direct function of the work and skill it requires. This is basically untrue; you may not wish to pay wait staff for the luxury of them serving you, but the fact is that that task is valued in our economy. If it were not, it would not be paid for. It then simply becomes a matter for how you pay for it.

Further, you seek to obfuscate this by niggling over peripheral issues. If you're actually concerned with waitstaff avoiding the IRS - or your strippers - you should pay with a card, and tip on that card. Regardless, the service economy has traditionally been paid less than what would otherwise be legal as a result of tipping. It must be predicated in any such discussion that they're paid a fair wage before you can even begin to talk about whether or not you want it paid through tips or another means. You seem more concerned about your 10%-20%.

I'm afraid, though, that further discussion on the matter is unlikely to lead to more clarity. When I last got my performance review at work, no where on it did they rate my smashing good looks, and increment my pay accordingly. As such, I'm forced to believe two things: one, that if my appearance is affecting my pay, it is on an indirect basis. After all, there is no function that describes how much I will get paid based solely on the percent of my paycheck I spend on my haircut. There simply is no direct causation, even if the two influence each other. There IS indirect causation; namely that the people in charge of deciding my pay may in fact take into account what they think of me, and that my appearance might affect that. Still, it's a factor that is mutable by a lot more than my appearance, and if you're not familiar enough with scientific analysis of that nature to grok the basic difference - well, I'm afraid I can't help.

Two, that you're unable to back away from what you're saying long enough to be precise about your language use. I don't hold that against you; lots of people fail to, myself included. Still, you're unable to grasp basic tautologies; ugly people are, well, not attractive. Regardless of haircut. Haircuts may shift the degree of attractiveness, but utilizing 'appearance' and 'haircut' to mean equivalent things is clearly an error. I think if you look up 'equivalent' and 'precise' you'll have an idea as to where I'm going here; namely that you're hiding your argument behind vagueness of words.

Flat out, though, it's rude to not tip. There are strong societal reasons to tip, and for tipping to exist. You try to write them off, but the only result that you seem to accept is not having to pay for the service. You're unable to accept that the service has a price, and it's a service that is attendant to eating out. (Which, by the way, is not the way to achieve a healthy meal for yourself or your family.) In order to prove your argument you have to show that wait staff is either unnecessary or can be achieved for a cheaper price. And for that latter you have to accept that they're human, and that they may not want to serve you or your contemptuous attitude towards them for the pittance you seem to think they're worth. It really makes no never mind to me, but that is the heart of why the 'nix tipping' movement will never gain any traction. It totally fails to take into account what how rational individuals react, seeming instead to only care about entirely abstract, entirely imagined task difficulties and prices.

So yeah, it's been delightful.

Re:Tipping Rocks

[GooberToo]

I think your basic misconception is that the amount you are compensated for a job should be a direct function of the work and skill it requires.

I know it is untrue. That's the basis for my entire rant! ;) It's not unreasonable. It's just not how it works.

Since you're still in denial about looks versus pay, I sincerely invite you to do some home work. You're clearly uninformed on the topic.

Regardless we don't see eye to eye, the exchange was pleasant. Enjoy.

Walmart and Unions

[EgoWumpus]

"Why is everybody so much against Wal-Mart?"

I give you these:

Article describing the impact of Walmart on local economies and the 'cost' of raising their floor wage to $10/hr

Book describing what it's like living on minimum wage in America

In short; Walmart is exploitative of it's workers. Greed keeps it that way, and supporting Walmart supports that same sin.

As to the rest of it; I know everyone dislikes Unions, but I'm always taken aback when people rail against them. Unions protect you as much as they do everyone else; the cost is some inefficiency, yes. But I, for one, would rather work in an inefficient world than one in which people are regularly used, abused, and even killed in order to be paid a pittance. Do you really want to go back to when they had kids crawling through deadly machines, or locked women in buildings to get their work done? Unions provide a necessary push-back against the corporation. This balance of forces is necessary for an economy that focuses on the benefits of everyone, rather than the few at the top.

Could unions be better? Of course! Name me one thing that couldn't, though. The real question is; are we better off with them or without them? And that takes a cold hard look at what the tradeoffs are. Happily, there is historical evidence!

History of Unions!

Retaliation: A Human Rights Abuse

[EgoWumpus]

"At first I agreed. But now I don't. And it is because of retaliation."

Note that according to Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that is a human rights abuse and should be prosecuted as such; it's the sign of a sick governmental body that can't manage it.

Re:Retaliation: A Human Rights Abuse

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Note that according to Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that is a human rights abuse and should be prosecuted as such; it's the sign of a sick governmental body that can't manage it. You should note that the UDHR is not enforceable anywhere, it's not a law of any nation.

Furthermore it's impractical to enforce any actual laws against that sort of under-cover retaliation because it is extremely difficult to prove - you'd waste all available resources weeding out all the false positives. Sure, the egregious cases are easy, but we aren't talking about egregious cases.

Re:Retaliation: A Human Rights Abuse

[EgoWumpus]

I very much recognize that the UDHR is not particularly enforceable at present. But the United States is bound by treaty to at least recognize it, and even that aside, there are laws against retaliation in the United States. While they are difficult to prove, I don't think that difficulty is an excuse for not pursuing an injustice. If the government cannot manage to enforce it's laws, then it's not doing it's job - and that undermines the whole system.

I think that in particular, when you have a large company persecuting dissenting employees, the government has a duty to advocate for the people. Even if that advocacy never results in 'won' cases, it increases the friction, the energy cost, of doing business in a people-adverse way. If the government absconds from that duty, then it is, as I mentioned earlier, probably diseased.

Re:Retaliation: A Human Rights Abuse

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

But the United States is bound by treaty to at least recognize it Which has zero meaning.

I think that in particular, when you have a large company persecuting dissenting employees, the government has a duty to advocate for the people. Even if that advocacy never results in 'won' cases, it increases the friction, the energy cost, of doing business in a people-adverse way. You are advocating for justice through barratry. In effect, the presumption of guilt.

Re:Retaliation: A Human Rights Abuse

[EgoWumpus]

"Which has zero meaning."

I refer you to the Constitution. In Article 6 we find;
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

While you may ascribe zero meaning to it, you'd be wrong.

"You are advocating for justice through barratry. In effect, the presumption of guilt."

I am advocating no such thing. Rather, I am advocating that as per the aforementioned legal document everyone has right to bring suit for grievances against them. The government should encourage and support this right, not discourage it through inaction and fear of failure. There is no presumption of guilt, but there is the presumption of oversight. The larger and more influential and entity gets, the more it needs to be inspected. Walmart falls into that category; it is just and right that it is under scrutiny because of the profound impact it has and can have. When you take away or put barriers in front of that scrutiny - that is where you start to develop problems.

Re:Retaliation: A Human Rights Abuse

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

While you may ascribe zero meaning to it, you'd be wrong. The UHDR is not a treaty. Thus article 6 has ZERO MEANING in relation to the UHDR.

I am advocating no such thing. Sorry dude, but there is NO OTHER WAY to interpret, "Even if that advocacy never results in 'won' cases, it increases the friction, the energy cost, of doing business in a people-adverse way." except as advocating for barratry. You are welcome to retract that statement though.

Re:Retaliation: A Human Rights Abuse

[EgoWumpus]

I give you The UN Charter, a treaty signed by the United States in 1945.

As for your difficulty in interpreting statements, try this; even if an infinite number of suits are brought by one entirely abstract entity against another, more influential entity, it would be within the duty of the government to advocate for the less influential - regardless of the success rate of those suits. Perhaps you're running to the idea that they would be suits without cause - perfectly understandable, really. However, I tend to exclude those, as they're thrown out pretty easily. More to the point, though, you're not going to get a large number of people bringing arbitrary suits against the same entity for the same thing unless there is a culture of adversity. If Walmart is treating it's employees poorly, those employees should have every right to appeal to the courts, how many ever times it takes. And the courts should not be hard of hearing; to be so would, effectively, be to say that it's alright to misbehave, so long as you misbehave vaguely enough to enough people that it's hard for them to get justice. You should not have a system that encourages behavior that makes seeking justice difficult; rather the opposite. The system should support justice.

It's perhaps a subtle idea, and I am perhaps not making it clearly, but I don't retract it. It's not barratry. It would be barratry if I suggested the government bring these suits, or any singular entity bring them in a repeated fashion. Quite differently, I support the idea that the government not be adverse to the suits, even given their difficultly. That should not be the government's role. And that is a far cry from stirring up the suit.

Re:Retaliation: A Human Rights Abuse

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I give you The UN Charter, a treaty signed by the United States in 1945. Oh boy you got me now! Totally proved your point! How could I have ever questioned you? It's right there in the first chapter of the UN Charter - ALL DECLARATIONS BY THE UNITED NATIONS HAVE THE FULL FORCE AND BINDING OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES. Why didn't I know that?

You should not have a system that encourages behavior that makes seeking justice difficult; rather the opposite. The path to hell is paved with good intentions. You might want to investigate the law of unintended consequences, even though Congress never passed it, the UN never made it a non-binding declaration, it is still one of the highest laws of the land.

Re:Retaliation: A Human Rights Abuse

[EgoWumpus]

Alright... so let me get this straight. You're for the seeking justice being hard? Because to do the opposite would somehow magically conjure (negative, I assume?) unintended consequences? Whereas if you refuse to support individual rights, it's all going to be magically ok?

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your case if you had any sort of actual basis to believe that protecting the corporations here is the smart governmental move. But I'm not seeing it. Much like I'm not seeing how you seem to object to my earlier statements, namely, "I very much recognize that the UDHR is not particularly enforceable at present. But the United States is bound by treaty to at least recognize it, and even that aside, there are laws against retaliation in the United States." I've laid out the legal reasons the US is bound by treaty to recognize it... and your response is to get hysterical. Which is probably a good sign that this isn't going to go anywhere, mm?

Re:Retaliation: A Human Rights Abuse

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You're for the seeking justice being hard? Because to do the opposite would somehow magically conjure (negative, I assume?) unintended consequences? Let me get this straight, you are for murdering babies because you haven't said a word against it? When did you stop beating your wife?

You are the one who has clearly decided that the presumption of innocence does not apply since even if you can't prove their crimes in court, the defendant should still be punished. You want to magically hand-wave away the profound cost to society of such an approach to justice.

But the United States is bound by treaty to at least recognize it, Do you have some private, hysterically funny definition of non-binding that no one else does? Do you think "recognize" means to see and identify? Because you have not laid out one reason that the US, or any other country, must recognize the UHDR in any significant sense, so as to give it more than ZERO MEANING.

This Was the Last Straw

[juancnuno]

I canceled my Comcast. Both Internet and TV.

Re:This Was the Last Straw

[funchords]

Excellent! Kudos to you!

I ashamed to be a Comcast customer

[JrnyFan]

Here I am paying them good money each month so that I can download all 7 seasons of ST:TNG and they have the audacity to restrict my bandwidth AND pack the room with their paid stooges? Where is the justice? What code of terrible ethics to they live by?!?! I want to be able to torrent my movies and tv shows in peace! Down with shady ethic filled people! BOO Bad Ethics!

Re:I ashamed to be a Comcast customer

[Anonymous Coward]

haha...now that's the definition of irony!

Re: Viagra

[arizwebfoot]

WTF? I get mod'd down for asking a valid question? There was a tag that said Viagra and I wanted to know if there was a reason for it. Jeez, some of you assholes need to shove your mod points up your collective noses until your little pointy heads implode.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, can anyone tell me why the following are tagged to the story, crowdshaping, astroturf, and desparateidiots ?

My first-hand FCC hearing report

[jsundman]

I was one of the people kept out of the FCC hearing at Harvard by the Comcast drones. I did get in, after 2.5 hours, for the remaining 3 hours or so. At the reception afterwards, I spoke about Net Neutrality with Kevin Martin, FCC Chairman. My report is here: http://www.wetmachine.com/item/1084

Ah, Hysteria

[EgoWumpus]

"You want to magically hand-wave away the profound cost to society of such an approach to justice."

The profound cost to society for actually pursuing grievances? Are you for real? The profound cost to society, the one that should be avoided at all cost is, sir, yourself; the sort of person who advocates for people not getting their day in court, in not raising a fuss or a seeking redress when they've been wronged. Corporations aren't real people. And they're not being punished if cases are not won against them. And if they are won, then that says a great deal. You would rather, though, that they are never challenged - and I think you should introspect that notion a great deal, if you are at all capable of that.

As to the other, I can only hope your hysteria comes from having been shown, point by point, why the US is in fact obligated to recognize the UHDR. I'll leave the consequences of it not living up to it's obligations out of it, and instead suggest that you work on your defensiveness. In the meantime, a definition for you to contemplate:

"an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc."

Re:Ah, Hysteria

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The profound cost to society for actually pursuing grievances? Are you for real? Are you in the habit of regularly quoting out of context?
Do you think that doing so somehow magically makes your argument valid?

"Even if that advocacy never results in 'won' cases, it increases the friction, the energy cost, of doing business in a people-adverse way." You are the one who has clearly decided that the presumption of innocence does not apply since even if you can't prove their crimes in court, the defendant should still be punished. You want to magically hand-wave away the profound cost to society of such an approach to justice. Here's a clue egowumpus - the fact that you left out the crucial point in the original quote just shows that you understood it, realized it knocked the shit out of your argument, but don't have a strong enough ego to accept it.

I can only hope your hysteria comes from having been shown, point by point, why the US is in fact obligated to recognize the UHDR. I'll leave the consequences of it not living up to it's obligations out of it, and instead suggest that you work on your defensiveness. Project much? Tell me, have you stopped beating your wife, or was I wrong about that?

As soon as you posted citing the UHDR it was like waving a big flag that said "idiot poster" - I've encountered a couple of other people who did exactly the same thing. When pressed on it, they did exactly what you did this time too - citing all kinds of baloney that did mean one damn thing to back up their claims about the UHDR, but absolutely refused to admit just how wrong they were. You know the UHDR has zero meaning in the USA, I know it, and so does any other poor soul has bothered to read even your second reply in this sub-thread. But, true to form, you just can't admit you were wrong.

Peace out jackass.