For those wondering: This area code is located in Indianapolis. I find that ironic since the State of Indiana has had their own do-not call list for over a year now. I also find it exciting; since the number is local for me, I can call them all the time!
Read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael (and sequels); sounds right up your alley. He explains very well how we came to be where we are today, and why that isn't necessarily good for us.
If you read the news.com article cited further up you'll realize that Yahoo states they have every intent with working with 3rd-party clients, and that they fully support a standards initiative.
They're basically just saying "Hey, we're putting this upgrade out there, and it's probably gonna break your client. You might want to talk to us and we'll tell you how to fix it."
I used that as an example. Some people might have hard time realizing how this would impact advertising and commerce in general; so I present the idea of no advertising at all. It's just a way to put things into perspective. I find it a useful tool for understanding something that is between two extremes.
Telemarketing probably helps keep more jobs than just those of the telemarketers. Most notably, the jobs of the people at the places they are advertising for.
I wonder how negatively this may ultimately affect the economy though. Imagine if we cut out any possible avenue for advertising. How would anyone know what to buy? Advertising is a significant amount of the budget for any company and encourages competition. Therefore it is important to the United States that we allow our businesses to have the avenues that they need to present their products to us in the light that they see fit.
Now, the question is whether or not telemarketing is a really a significant and/or effective portion of the advertising strength of a company.
Representative government does not mean the will of the majority is neccesarily what is right for everyone. This is more so a case of wanted to make people happy so they will get re-elected, than having any sort of respect for something higher than that.
Rest assured that those who claim to be representing the will of the people are only doing so on their own self-interests, and couldn't give two pence about whether or not you are called during dinner.
Anyway; I would have to say that I am in support of a bill that makes it possible to say "I do not wish to be called by any organization with which I do not already have a standing business association (or is not a newspaper, FOP, fire department, non-for-profit org. or any other number of exemptions)." Really all this does it make it easier for the average person to preemptively tell people to not call them rather than having to ask everyone individually not to call you.
But, my initial point was that a representative government goes beyond majority rule. It is the duty of the majority to protect the minority (perhaps telemarketing employees in this case). I would imagine if our representatives always voted along with what the people they represented wanted that women would probably not have had the right to vote when they did, and slavery would not have been abolished when it was.
I would have greater respect for one of these people who decided not to follow the herd and vote to appease the public; especially if they give a well founded reason for doing so.
So I decided to read Title 17. It looks like the subpoenas are pretty much legal, at least according to what is written there. The only thing I really found of interest is that as I see it, ISPs can not be held liable for their customers actions. Which makes perfect sense; but I know this has been an issue brought up in the past.
Aside from that, I think that the RIAA should have just sought injunctions against these individuals rather than rediculous sums of money. It should be noted that the courts can very easily reduce that amount to $200 if they wish. Anyone who settles needs to be smacked around a bit.
There is a big difference. There could be hundreds of thousands of people involved in food and clothing production. With music it's different. You have: Artist->Recording Studio->Label; with a few smaller parts thrown in like CD manufacturers. In the case of food and clothing production that money is split up between a lot more people (although probably still not fairly).
I have to agree with your interesting satirical comment here. There is a point to where modernizing the Constitution is appropriate. Appropriate changes to the Constitution as a result of "changing times:" Amendments XIII, XV, XIX, XXI (woohoo), XXIV, XXVI, etc. These all are an example of necessary changes to the Constitution as our country has matured. I see the death penalty as perhaps being the next; althought that may be awhile off yet.
However, modification of the constitution to fit the current mood of public opinion; is not in tune with previous historical changes. In fact, a lot of those changes were done by force. I imagine a great number of people disagreed with the abolition of slavery, women's rights, etc; however, the laws were all still passed, because they knew the time had come.
There are many parts of the Constitution that are timeless, there are some that will eventually need to be changed as the time comes.
Sure, but politicans will spend more time and money in office making people happy by passing laws like anti-spam and anti-telemarketing laws; than they will by doing stuff that really matters like protecting our civil liberties. Stuff like this law are done only with the intent to stay in office.
However it still leaves everything up to the discretion of the officer. Such a statement is very easily unconstitutionally vague. Just because we would expect that people would see the difference it is far too easily open for abuse. Governments often try to pass such laws with good intentions, but instead end up adding some stupid words or phrases that make it so that anyone could easily be arrested under the law.
As it is written such a law is very troublesome. It could very easily be rewritten though to be more clear. In the instance of what is mentioned in this article, if the law would be stated in such a way so that only those who would be using such tools for unlawful purposes would be arrested and convicted, then it would work.
Of course, it's kind of a silly law anyway. Sort of like when Chicago made it illegal to loiter in the presence of gang members. Good intents, poorly written law. Hence it was declared unconstitutional after a few years.
The one thing that may keep this bill from happening is that it would also repeal any taxes that previously had been grandfathered in. Several localities currently have such taxes, and stand to lose about $80 million a year total in revenue.
I just reviewed the text of the original bill as well as the amendment that is being proposed, and you are right; there is nothing stopped a federal tax.
Your last comment reminds me of the movie Five Bucks. It's pretty decent, but at the beginning two little boys are watching a cartoon where some guy keeps getting shot and he gets back up; then they witness their dad beating their mom in the bedroom. So the one boy takes a gun and shoots his dad; then wonders why he didn't back up.
That wasn't so hard now was it. The big thing about passive voice, is that while it can be used for certain purposes; most of the time it is better to have nouns doing things than having things being done to nouns. It's easier to read and understand.
Of course, the alternative to bending reality in a space movie would be fight scenes in space with either complete silence, or just music and heavy breathing of the pilot. Take your pick.
1. That which has mass and occupies space; matter.
Let's see; that means every thing on earth that has mass and occupies space is a chemical weapon by this definition; since you could probably very easily devise a way to cause death or serious injury with any matter.
Could probably challenge the whole thing on the vagueness of that definition =]
Slashdot Mirror
Newspapers are exempted too.
For those wondering: This area code is located in Indianapolis. I find that ironic since the State of Indiana has had their own do-not call list for over a year now. I also find it exciting; since the number is local for me, I can call them all the time!
Read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael (and sequels); sounds right up your alley. He explains very well how we came to be where we are today, and why that isn't necessarily good for us.
There are great research options available on the Internet; the problem is that a lot of people think Google is one of them.
While it is useful for finding information, it is important that you realize the integrity of any source of information.
You do realize that beer actually did at one time come in cans that said nothing more than 'Beer'?
If you read the news.com article cited further up you'll realize that Yahoo states they have every intent with working with 3rd-party clients, and that they fully support a standards initiative.
They're basically just saying "Hey, we're putting this upgrade out there, and it's probably gonna break your client. You might want to talk to us and we'll tell you how to fix it."
I used that as an example. Some people might have hard time realizing how this would impact advertising and commerce in general; so I present the idea of no advertising at all. It's just a way to put things into perspective. I find it a useful tool for understanding something that is between two extremes.
Telemarketing probably helps keep more jobs than just those of the telemarketers. Most notably, the jobs of the people at the places they are advertising for.
I wonder how negatively this may ultimately affect the economy though. Imagine if we cut out any possible avenue for advertising. How would anyone know what to buy? Advertising is a significant amount of the budget for any company and encourages competition. Therefore it is important to the United States that we allow our businesses to have the avenues that they need to present their products to us in the light that they see fit.
Now, the question is whether or not telemarketing is a really a significant and/or effective portion of the advertising strength of a company.
Representative government does not mean the will of the majority is neccesarily what is right for everyone. This is more so a case of wanted to make people happy so they will get re-elected, than having any sort of respect for something higher than that.
Rest assured that those who claim to be representing the will of the people are only doing so on their own self-interests, and couldn't give two pence about whether or not you are called during dinner.
Anyway; I would have to say that I am in support of a bill that makes it possible to say "I do not wish to be called by any organization with which I do not already have a standing business association (or is not a newspaper, FOP, fire department, non-for-profit org. or any other number of exemptions)." Really all this does it make it easier for the average person to preemptively tell people to not call them rather than having to ask everyone individually not to call you.
But, my initial point was that a representative government goes beyond majority rule. It is the duty of the majority to protect the minority (perhaps telemarketing employees in this case). I would imagine if our representatives always voted along with what the people they represented wanted that women would probably not have had the right to vote when they did, and slavery would not have been abolished when it was.
I would have greater respect for one of these people who decided not to follow the herd and vote to appease the public; especially if they give a well founded reason for doing so.
So I decided to read Title 17. It looks like the subpoenas are pretty much legal, at least according to what is written there. The only thing I really found of interest is that as I see it, ISPs can not be held liable for their customers actions. Which makes perfect sense; but I know this has been an issue brought up in the past.
Aside from that, I think that the RIAA should have just sought injunctions against these individuals rather than rediculous sums of money. It should be noted that the courts can very easily reduce that amount to $200 if they wish. Anyone who settles needs to be smacked around a bit.
There is a big difference. There could be hundreds of thousands of people involved in food and clothing production. With music it's different. You have: Artist->Recording Studio->Label; with a few smaller parts thrown in like CD manufacturers. In the case of food and clothing production that money is split up between a lot more people (although probably still not fairly).
I have to agree with your interesting satirical comment here. There is a point to where modernizing the Constitution is appropriate. Appropriate changes to the Constitution as a result of "changing times:" Amendments XIII, XV, XIX, XXI (woohoo), XXIV, XXVI, etc. These all are an example of necessary changes to the Constitution as our country has matured. I see the death penalty as perhaps being the next; althought that may be awhile off yet.
However, modification of the constitution to fit the current mood of public opinion; is not in tune with previous historical changes. In fact, a lot of those changes were done by force. I imagine a great number of people disagreed with the abolition of slavery, women's rights, etc; however, the laws were all still passed, because they knew the time had come.
There are many parts of the Constitution that are timeless, there are some that will eventually need to be changed as the time comes.
Does someone have a copy of one of these subpoenas?
I will pay $1 per song when the artist is getting at least 90 cents of that $1. Until then, yes, it is too much.
Sure, but politicans will spend more time and money in office making people happy by passing laws like anti-spam and anti-telemarketing laws; than they will by doing stuff that really matters like protecting our civil liberties. Stuff like this law are done only with the intent to stay in office.
Who says you get the money? I would assume such a fine would be payable to the State; although you could try to file a civil suit against the person.
However it still leaves everything up to the discretion of the officer. Such a statement is very easily unconstitutionally vague. Just because we would expect that people would see the difference it is far too easily open for abuse. Governments often try to pass such laws with good intentions, but instead end up adding some stupid words or phrases that make it so that anyone could easily be arrested under the law.
As it is written such a law is very troublesome. It could very easily be rewritten though to be more clear. In the instance of what is mentioned in this article, if the law would be stated in such a way so that only those who would be using such tools for unlawful purposes would be arrested and convicted, then it would work.
Of course, it's kind of a silly law anyway. Sort of like when Chicago made it illegal to loiter in the presence of gang members. Good intents, poorly written law. Hence it was declared unconstitutional after a few years.
Yes, this is correct; mod it up. Although nobody knows that this is the true definition (even people in Chicago).
The one thing that may keep this bill from happening is that it would also repeal any taxes that previously had been grandfathered in. Several localities currently have such taxes, and stand to lose about $80 million a year total in revenue.
I just reviewed the text of the original bill as well as the amendment that is being proposed, and you are right; there is nothing stopped a federal tax.
Your last comment reminds me of the movie Five Bucks. It's pretty decent, but at the beginning two little boys are watching a cartoon where some guy keeps getting shot and he gets back up; then they witness their dad beating their mom in the bedroom. So the one boy takes a gun and shoots his dad; then wonders why he didn't back up.
Anyway, watch it, good movie.
After some random human being (probably YOU) presses the button, the printer proceeds.
After pressing the button, the printer proceeds.
That wasn't so hard now was it. The big thing about passive voice, is that while it can be used for certain purposes; most of the time it is better to have nouns doing things than having things being done to nouns. It's easier to read and understand.
Of course, the alternative to bending reality in a space movie would be fight scenes in space with either complete silence, or just music and heavy breathing of the pilot. Take your pick.
substance n.
1. That which has mass and occupies space; matter.
Let's see; that means every thing on earth that has mass and occupies space is a chemical weapon by this definition; since you could probably very easily devise a way to cause death or serious injury with any matter.
Could probably challenge the whole thing on the vagueness of that definition =]