No, there is no link to cars. My cellphone number has never been written down on any forms relating in any way to any car. In fact, I've never written it down on any form besides university forms, and not anything car related either. It could have been a transposed number on a junk form, but several other phone numbers which have never would have been connected to any vehicle or even likely written down on a form have also recieved the calls.
I'd bet good money it's an autodialer set to run through all permutations of numbers in a given area code.
That's why Cheney received only a minimal amount of heat for his Haliburton connection. Everyone knew up front what his interests were and had ample opportunity to question his motives.
I feel it's important to point out that Cheney was one of Bush's closest advisers and policy makers, not to mention second in line to the presidency. This guy Salemme on the other hand appears to be an unofficial part of the transition team, advising as an expert on this one matter. He's not mentioned on Obama's website as even being a member of the transition team, although it's clear he is, he appears to be meeting with congressmen. It's not like he's writing checks to his company or pulls Obama's strings.
To be fair, Obama's campaign wasn't really centered around "I'm going to vet every single postion I fill much more rigorously than anyone ever has before." Not that discovering the present case would have been too dificult to discover, but it's a long shot from Obama saying "You know what? Let's hire someone with conflicting interest on something fairly minor. Make a little extra cash and potentially making things just a little more interesting before I even take office."
Calling it corruption is making a mountain out of a molehill.
If so, that would be yet another reason governments tend to run worse than private enterprises.:)
So we have one example of where private enterprise bans conflicting interests and one where government also bans conflicts of interest, but it sounds like that may have been compromised.
Not to say that government as good as private enterprise or better, but that's some shady logic you're using to for a general indictment of government.
That happened to me too, which makes me think their real goal is not outright scamming. I don't know what it would be though, maybe to generate a list of unlisted numbers that are connected and have real people at the other end, to be used for a targeted scam at a later time? Maybe just to target individuals? They spoof someone's caller ID so that anyone calling the number back will call that person and their phone line will basically be tied up for a while, maybe anyone who positively responds will also be connected to that number? I don't know a lot about telephony, but it seems to me like something more wierd is up.
I was in a classroom at a public university a few years ago. There was a phone on the wall that none of us noticed until one day it rang. When I answered I heard the horrible news: the classroom's vehicle was about to lose it's warranty.
In other words, I'm pretty sure they're calling numbers completely at random. That phone number would never have been listed in any public directory and is not a recycled number. I guess there's always the chance someone could have listed it as their number just by chance, writing down a false number on a form because it was required, and that somehow ended up in a call list, but I think it's more likely they're just dialing every number.
For the most part, LSD doesn't cause true hallucinations -- it distorts things. You'll see the wood grain on your desk flowing, or the tree waving at you..
Wait wait wait... youre saying that someone who sees wood flowing and trees waving at them is NOT hallucinating? It's actually happening? Exactly how much LSD were you on when you posted?
Sarcasm aside, it is a bit annoying that suddenly, the choice of dog and the use of a communication device is "big news." It's not big news, Presidents have had communication devices for years and dogs for much longer.
You're annoyed with news like this, yet you clicked on the topic?
The article focused on a hypothetical heterosexual world in which all the men but only a few of the women were promiscuous. In this situation, the promiscuous women quickly caught the virus and became a sort of viral clearinghouse, spreading HIV to every man with whom they had contact. The men, in turn, brought it home to their wives. If the number of promiscuous women increased, the Landsburg-Kremer model posited, each man would be less likely to find an infected woman in his nightly wanderings, and the spread of HIV would slow.
Not sure of the link to flash (only skimmed TFA), but flash has apperantly cured AIDS AND made women more willing to sleep with me. Either one really would have made up for all the annoyances, both together? Can we declare Flash a saint?
But since he's a democrat, there's no (D) indicator there, it's just left off entirely, perhaps hoping some readers will just assume he's a Republican? I've noticed this before, it's a definite trend on./ Whenever it's a Republican politician doing something wonky, their party affiliation is always indicated on the parent article; when it's a Democrat politician in the hot seat, however, it almost never is.
I thought wonk/wonky meant complicated law/policy, not something bad per se. But more importantly, I would guess there's a little bit of scenario-building on your part (not noticing when there is evidence counter to your hypothesis, and overinterpreting data that does fit your hypothesis, unless I'm misusing that term). And of course, most/.ers are more on the liberal side and may tend to identify someone as not in their camp. It's probably not intentional even if it is actually going on.
It sounds more like this is the internet's jugular vein or carotid artery than the achilles heel, just to pointlessly analyze the metaphor. I would think the achilles heel would be people who still don't know not to click the monkey or open attachments from addresses they don't know.
And putting a warning label on something is not "just [wanting] you to make an informed decision". An informed decision requires hearing evidence and arguments from many sides and angles. A warning label only give you one side and it doesn't even give evidence or arguments
Are you actually suggesting they should put DEBATES instead of warning labels on products? And that would be better how? Is it really necessary that people understand why some people think X chemical tests prove that it will cause Y bad thing while the industry that uses/makes X disputes that because of Z? Absolutely not. As you or someone else mentioned before, most people ignore the warning labels. If you are concerned, you'll do research or avoid it to be safe. And that's a reasonable outcome: err on the side of safety. It's far better than not warning people and having some of them take risks without realizing it. Again, warning labels are harmless, it's actually banning things that is a sticky issue.
The case at hand, yes, warning labels are stupid, but warning labels when it comes to things that cause birth defects I can't understand why you would object to that. The unborn child isn't the one deciding it's worth the risk, and it's a better scenario than the government banning a chemical based on flimsy evidence.
Weird how when you lift heavy weights you get stronger, but no matter how many times you go skydiving, you'll never be able to fly.
I don't know why you would imply that because you can consciously improve your concentration with programs designed for that purpose, a violent videogame is going to make you violent. It's not rational that videogames would either have no effect or whatever effect you can think of.
They're into the "nanny-state" there. Just how many labels are forced on all kinds of products because something about that product is "known to the State of California"?
Not to stand up for the place, but Jack is from Florida, I could be wrong but I didn't think most of his stunts were attempted in California. California is not alone in worrying about the effect of videogames on children either.
And there is something to be said about putting warning labels on things rather than outright banning it. This guy isn't talking about actually censoring, he's trying to raise awareness. Obviously that's an idiotic goal, since any parent worthy of having reproductive organs is watching what their children consume, and the others are going to be bad no matter what.
Anyway, my point is that California just wants you to make an informed decision, its the moral superior bible thumper red states that are the nanny states. They're the ones talking about banning games outright.
Gamestop I know already doesn't sell mature rated games to minors as store policy, I'd be suprised if that weren't the case for walmart, best buy, and target. Blockbuster won't rent R movies to minors, so I'm assuming they don't give M rated games to minors either. That's about 99% of videogame sales there. It's PRIVATE BUISNESS that is censoring when it comes to games. Not those evil liberal government types.
Parents by and large realize the government is not going to raise their children. They would like you to stop blaming the entire parent population for the political aspirations of a small minority of self-righteous idiots.
At the very least, you should get the warning they're talking about here applied to cell phones
"warning: talking on the phone about inane stuff no one wants to hear about while in a resturaunt, bus, train, airplane on the ground, elevator, or any public place will soon be linked to violence against you."
Of course, there's still the issue of if we all stopped paying federal income tax and started giving it all to the state, we'd get indicted for tax evasion. Or maybe that would just be seen as secession and we'd get invaded. And I think a lot of other states (coincidentally the red states that take out more than they put in) already want to invade us sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
No, there is no link to cars. My cellphone number has never been written down on any forms relating in any way to any car. In fact, I've never written it down on any form besides university forms, and not anything car related either. It could have been a transposed number on a junk form, but several other phone numbers which have never would have been connected to any vehicle or even likely written down on a form have also recieved the calls.
I'd bet good money it's an autodialer set to run through all permutations of numbers in a given area code.
Yes it is. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest undermines the credibility of an organization.
Which is not unethical. Credibilty and ethics are two totally seperate things.
The guy gave Obama his opinion, he didn't make the executive decision himself.
That's why Cheney received only a minimal amount of heat for his Haliburton connection. Everyone knew up front what his interests were and had ample opportunity to question his motives.
I feel it's important to point out that Cheney was one of Bush's closest advisers and policy makers, not to mention second in line to the presidency. This guy Salemme on the other hand appears to be an unofficial part of the transition team, advising as an expert on this one matter. He's not mentioned on Obama's website as even being a member of the transition team, although it's clear he is, he appears to be meeting with congressmen. It's not like he's writing checks to his company or pulls Obama's strings.
To be fair, Obama's campaign wasn't really centered around "I'm going to vet every single postion I fill much more rigorously than anyone ever has before." Not that discovering the present case would have been too dificult to discover, but it's a long shot from Obama saying "You know what? Let's hire someone with conflicting interest on something fairly minor. Make a little extra cash and potentially making things just a little more interesting before I even take office."
Calling it corruption is making a mountain out of a molehill.
If so, that would be yet another reason governments tend to run worse than private enterprises. :)
So we have one example of where private enterprise bans conflicting interests and one where government also bans conflicts of interest, but it sounds like that may have been compromised.
Not to say that government as good as private enterprise or better, but that's some shady logic you're using to for a general indictment of government.
At the very least, he would have known he was "team killing" which should also be a criminal offense.
That happened to me too, which makes me think their real goal is not outright scamming. I don't know what it would be though, maybe to generate a list of unlisted numbers that are connected and have real people at the other end, to be used for a targeted scam at a later time? Maybe just to target individuals? They spoof someone's caller ID so that anyone calling the number back will call that person and their phone line will basically be tied up for a while, maybe anyone who positively responds will also be connected to that number? I don't know a lot about telephony, but it seems to me like something more wierd is up.
I was in a classroom at a public university a few years ago. There was a phone on the wall that none of us noticed until one day it rang. When I answered I heard the horrible news: the classroom's vehicle was about to lose it's warranty.
In other words, I'm pretty sure they're calling numbers completely at random. That phone number would never have been listed in any public directory and is not a recycled number. I guess there's always the chance someone could have listed it as their number just by chance, writing down a false number on a form because it was required, and that somehow ended up in a call list, but I think it's more likely they're just dialing every number.
For the most part, LSD doesn't cause true hallucinations -- it distorts things. You'll see the wood grain on your desk flowing, or the tree waving at you..
Wait wait wait... youre saying that someone who sees wood flowing and trees waving at them is NOT hallucinating? It's actually happening? Exactly how much LSD were you on when you posted?
Sarcasm aside, it is a bit annoying that suddenly, the choice of dog and the use of a communication device is "big news." It's not big news, Presidents have had communication devices for years and dogs for much longer.
You're annoyed with news like this, yet you clicked on the topic?
This is DOCUMENTED FACT as established by Dr. Paul C. Lauterbur in 1971 through research papers (suppressed as unpublished)
Aha, an undocumented documented fact. Well, I'm convinced.
The article focused on a hypothetical heterosexual world in which all the men but only a few of the women were promiscuous. In this situation, the promiscuous women quickly caught the virus and became a sort of viral clearinghouse, spreading HIV to every man with whom they had contact. The men, in turn, brought it home to their wives. If the number of promiscuous women increased, the Landsburg-Kremer model posited, each man would be less likely to find an infected woman in his nightly wanderings, and the spread of HIV would slow.
Not sure of the link to flash (only skimmed TFA), but flash has apperantly cured AIDS AND made women more willing to sleep with me. Either one really would have made up for all the annoyances, both together? Can we declare Flash a saint?
But since he's a democrat, there's no (D) indicator there, it's just left off entirely, perhaps hoping some readers will just assume he's a Republican? I've noticed this before, it's a definite trend on ./ Whenever it's a Republican politician doing something wonky, their party affiliation is always indicated on the parent article; when it's a Democrat politician in the hot seat, however, it almost never is.
I thought wonk/wonky meant complicated law/policy, not something bad per se. But more importantly, I would guess there's a little bit of scenario-building on your part (not noticing when there is evidence counter to your hypothesis, and overinterpreting data that does fit your hypothesis, unless I'm misusing that term). And of course, most /.ers are more on the liberal side and may tend to identify someone as not in their camp. It's probably not intentional even if it is actually going on.
It sounds more like this is the internet's jugular vein or carotid artery than the achilles heel, just to pointlessly analyze the metaphor. I would think the achilles heel would be people who still don't know not to click the monkey or open attachments from addresses they don't know.
Sorry, I mean Jack Thompson.
And putting a warning label on something is not "just [wanting] you to make an informed decision". An informed decision requires hearing evidence and arguments from many sides and angles. A warning label only give you one side and it doesn't even give evidence or arguments
Are you actually suggesting they should put DEBATES instead of warning labels on products? And that would be better how? Is it really necessary that people understand why some people think X chemical tests prove that it will cause Y bad thing while the industry that uses/makes X disputes that because of Z? Absolutely not. As you or someone else mentioned before, most people ignore the warning labels. If you are concerned, you'll do research or avoid it to be safe. And that's a reasonable outcome: err on the side of safety. It's far better than not warning people and having some of them take risks without realizing it. Again, warning labels are harmless, it's actually banning things that is a sticky issue.
The case at hand, yes, warning labels are stupid, but warning labels when it comes to things that cause birth defects I can't understand why you would object to that. The unborn child isn't the one deciding it's worth the risk, and it's a better scenario than the government banning a chemical based on flimsy evidence.
Weird how when you lift heavy weights you get stronger, but no matter how many times you go skydiving, you'll never be able to fly.
I don't know why you would imply that because you can consciously improve your concentration with programs designed for that purpose, a violent videogame is going to make you violent. It's not rational that videogames would either have no effect or whatever effect you can think of.
Leave it to the Democrats and their Nanny Government to save us from ourselves.
You're right, because no republican ever tried to outlaw violent videogames. I mean, Jack Thompson is clearly a democrat
They're into the "nanny-state" there. Just how many labels are forced on all kinds of products because something about that product is "known to the State of California"?
Not to stand up for the place, but Jack is from Florida, I could be wrong but I didn't think most of his stunts were attempted in California. California is not alone in worrying about the effect of videogames on children either.
And there is something to be said about putting warning labels on things rather than outright banning it. This guy isn't talking about actually censoring, he's trying to raise awareness. Obviously that's an idiotic goal, since any parent worthy of having reproductive organs is watching what their children consume, and the others are going to be bad no matter what.
Anyway, my point is that California just wants you to make an informed decision, its the moral superior bible thumper red states that are the nanny states. They're the ones talking about banning games outright.
Gamestop I know already doesn't sell mature rated games to minors as store policy, I'd be suprised if that weren't the case for walmart, best buy, and target. Blockbuster won't rent R movies to minors, so I'm assuming they don't give M rated games to minors either. That's about 99% of videogame sales there. It's PRIVATE BUISNESS that is censoring when it comes to games. Not those evil liberal government types.
If you still think smoking causes cancer, why?
Because smoking is a thing, and everything causes cancer.
Parents by and large realize the government is not going to raise their children. They would like you to stop blaming the entire parent population for the political aspirations of a small minority of self-righteous idiots.
At the very least, you should get the warning they're talking about here applied to cell phones
"warning: talking on the phone about inane stuff no one wants to hear about while in a resturaunt, bus, train, airplane on the ground, elevator, or any public place will soon be linked to violence against you."
"Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior" Except that it hasn't been.
Well, we'll just have to put a disclaimer on the disclaimer
"Warning: the above warning is somewhere between misleading and complete bullshit."
This story has been up 8 minutes and I only see 5 posts of the same obvious joke, out of 13 posts. Come on /. get you asses in gear.
Well, I was indeed way off!
Of course, there's still the issue of if we all stopped paying federal income tax and started giving it all to the state, we'd get indicted for tax evasion. Or maybe that would just be seen as secession and we'd get invaded. And I think a lot of other states (coincidentally the red states that take out more than they put in) already want to invade us sometimes.
Wow, I really read that backwards the first time! That is a bit of a puzzle... Still an encouraging preliminary study.