I wouldn't. Most residential phones are moving to VOIP; if you have Internet it dramatically cuts your phone bill.
You don't have to. But it would be nice to have the choice.
The "Callers'" number can be blocked, and some unreputable robocallers do that. But, then I block all calls that don't identify themselves via Caller ID.
Which is close to pointless, since most robocallers just use a fake caller ID number anyway.
Just curious, How many times did you report the calls to the FCC?
Doing so is essentially pointless. The FCC is well aware of the extent of the whole "cardholder services" scam, so you're not giving them any information that they don't already have. Since they fake their caller ID anyway, it's not like you're able to provide any more information about who is actually originating the call.
I still submit complaints when the calls provide real identifying information that I can report, but most of the robocalls aren't that sort.
It seems unfair to completely block legitimate VOIP calls to cell phones, but there has to be some way to block the scammers without putting undue burdens on legitimate companies.
All you need is for the information that it's a VOIP call to be carried along with the call, and then let the user decide whether they want to drop such calls or not.
Would you apply the same standard to IBM for their mainframes?
Yes. Why wouldn't I? If you buy a doohickey and want to maintain it yourself rather than pay the manufacturer for service, you should be entitled to do so, regardless of what loss-leader pricing that you got the doohickey for. Whether the doohickey is a tractor or a mainframe doesn't matter.
What I suspect is REALLY going on here is that John Deere and other manufacturers have adopted a model of selling their equipment to farmers either at a loss or at cost, with the understanding that they'll make their profit in implicit servicing contracts. And the farmers, now that they have the equipment in hand on the cheap, have decided to "alter the deal" (to quote the great Darth Vader) to save a buck.
Well then, John Deere should get a lesson on what happens when you have a stupid business model. If they want to make a profit on equipment sales, they'd better price their equipment such that they can turn a profit.
Whether or not the farmers are cheap bastards -- given human nature, they probably are -- is really irrelevant.
Maybe you should consider that to people outside your little bubble, your particular brand of insulting comments about those who disagree with you may not be particularly insightful.
Calling everyone who moderates you down a "sock puppet" account is neither a rational nor intelligent comment.
It is not a fair comparison. Cars are driven mostly by run-of-the-mill operators. There are drunkards, drug adicts, sick persons, sleep deprived individuals, etc. among drivers of cars and among amateur mechanics.
Sure, part of the reason why cars are more dangerous than airplanes has to do with the fact that most cars are driven by non-professionals. So what? Just because you've found one of the reasons doesn't make it immaterial.
No. If you want to display a label indicating that the USDA has certified your product as non-GMO
What if you don't?
Uh -- then you don't put it on your label. That's why it's called "voluntary." And if you're so scared about this scenario that you've invented, then you can refuse to buy anything that isn't appropriately certified.
Let's retrace this conversation. To start out, you said that the problem with voluntary labels is that there's no standardization -- which we've conclusively demonstrated is false. I don't even know what you're trying to argue at this point.
Various? The problem of plenty, with standards? You are making my point for me.
No, I'm not. You're being ridiculous.
Even then, following those standards cannot be mandatory if the labeling itself is voluntary.
No. If you want to display a label indicating that the USDA has certified your product as non-GMO, then there is a mandatory process that you have to follow. Same if you want to use the "Non-GMO project verified" seal. Displaying one of those logos without going through the standard certification would be fraud. So if you're really concerned about somebody playing the sorts of games that you're pretending to be afraid of, then you should look specifically for items that have been independently certified by a process that you trust.
Voluntary labels have one problem: no standardization.
That's not true. There are various governmental and non-governmental standards for certifying that a product is GMO-free. I have no objection to government being involved in that certification, and in preventing fraudulent labeling.
Only one question - if GMOs are truly safe then why can't they just be labeled as such in the store? I like to know my ingredients and I'll choose. Why are big business and government trying to hide it?
So choose the products labeled "GMO-free" (or equivalent) when you're in the store. Problem solved, without your attempt to force everyone else to feed into your fear of GMOs.
Well, then, that's a good thing to complain about, because truthful advertising should always be allowed. If you can't advertise something as GMO-free when it is -- which, based on what's available at the local grocery store, isn't actually a problem today -- then I'm happy to support changing that.
That doesn't have anything to do with trying to force companies to add a scary new label to convince people to stay away from GMO food, though.
If it's so safe, label it as GMO like other countries do and let people choose.
You know how I know that you don't just want to "let people choose"? Because if that was your real concern, you'd instead introduce voluntary labeling of GMO-free foods. Like, you know, what we already have. Then people who decide to go "GMO-free" could do so to their hearts content, and you aren't using the government to promote your anti-GMO agenda.
FWIW, a Fire TV stick + Kodi is the basis of almost all my family's TV viewing; we find that it works really well for us. Considering that I got it when they offered it for $20 to people with Amazon Prime, I think it was a steal.
On the other hand, the other couple apps I've used on it -- WatchESPN and Youtube -- are both unacceptably slow. I think my wife complained about Netflix being too slow too, although that was a good excuse to just cancel our subscription anyway. Anyone who wants to use it for anything but Amazon video or Kodi should probably find one to try out first.
I really wish Google would relegate Pintrest results to the bottom of the trash bin, where they belong. Any content that requires jumping through hoops to access shouldn't come up on a general search results page unless you specifically ask for it.
You can use the chrome extension to remove it, but that doesn't help when you're using a different computer than usual.
FYI last constitutional amendment took 200 years to ratify, so not in our lifetime.
Just because one amendment (the 27th) took that long to ratify doesn't say anything about how long a new amendment would take. The 26th was ratified in 3 months.
Overturning the second amendment won't happen anytime soon, but it's because doing so doesn't have the support of the voting public, not because the process itself has to take a long time.
It's no secret that Google's Chrome browser sips a considerable amount of battery. On Monday, Microsoft announced that its Edge browser has succeeded on that front.
What, the front of "sipping" "considerable amounts of battery"? More nonsensical word salad brought to you by the new Slashdot editorial staff, who are apparently even more illiterate than their predecessors.
Seems reasonable? Really? How do poor people get mail, then? In the US, poor people used to have guaranteed mail delivery 6 days a week. Now, if, they can afford to live in the right place, and can afford to get Internet service, and the Internet service happens to work correctly, and they can afford a working computer, THEN they can pay their bills? That doesn't seem reasonable to me at all.
If they are receiving bills that are due without even two days for turnaround time, then that's the unreasonable thing. Fortunately that rarely if ever happens.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have so few friends that you are able to put every single one in your contact list?
I'm fairly certain that your phone can hold more contacts than you have "friends." Mine certainly can.
"Cortana, what percentage of people who buy top of the line i7 workstation-class computers actually CARE about running Windows on ARM?"
***DIVISION BY ZERO ERROR***
Wait, wouldn't that mean that nobody bought top-of-the-line i7 computers?
I wouldn't. Most residential phones are moving to VOIP; if you have Internet it dramatically cuts your phone bill.
You don't have to. But it would be nice to have the choice.
The "Callers'" number can be blocked, and some unreputable robocallers do that. But, then I block all calls that don't identify themselves via Caller ID.
Which is close to pointless, since most robocallers just use a fake caller ID number anyway.
Just curious, How many times did you report the calls to the FCC?
Doing so is essentially pointless. The FCC is well aware of the extent of the whole "cardholder services" scam, so you're not giving them any information that they don't already have. Since they fake their caller ID anyway, it's not like you're able to provide any more information about who is actually originating the call.
I still submit complaints when the calls provide real identifying information that I can report, but most of the robocalls aren't that sort.
It seems unfair to completely block legitimate VOIP calls to cell phones, but there has to be some way to block the scammers without putting undue burdens on legitimate companies.
All you need is for the information that it's a VOIP call to be carried along with the call, and then let the user decide whether they want to drop such calls or not.
I sure would.
Would you apply the same standard to IBM for their mainframes?
Yes. Why wouldn't I? If you buy a doohickey and want to maintain it yourself rather than pay the manufacturer for service, you should be entitled to do so, regardless of what loss-leader pricing that you got the doohickey for. Whether the doohickey is a tractor or a mainframe doesn't matter.
This has only b0rked windows on me twice, in 15 years of doing it.
You should probably find a more efficient way of b0rking Windows -- you'll be much happier. A hammer should do it.
What I suspect is REALLY going on here is that John Deere and other manufacturers have adopted a model of selling their equipment to farmers either at a loss or at cost, with the understanding that they'll make their profit in implicit servicing contracts. And the farmers, now that they have the equipment in hand on the cheap, have decided to "alter the deal" (to quote the great Darth Vader) to save a buck.
Well then, John Deere should get a lesson on what happens when you have a stupid business model. If they want to make a profit on equipment sales, they'd better price their equipment such that they can turn a profit.
Whether or not the farmers are cheap bastards -- given human nature, they probably are -- is really irrelevant.
Maybe you should consider that to people outside your little bubble, your particular brand of insulting comments about those who disagree with you may not be particularly insightful.
Calling everyone who moderates you down a "sock puppet" account is neither a rational nor intelligent comment.
Apple owns the chump market. Duh.
It also caps their market share.
I'm pretty sure that the "chump market" is way bigger than the 15% market share that Apple currently has.
It is not a fair comparison. Cars are driven mostly by run-of-the-mill operators. There are drunkards, drug adicts, sick persons, sleep deprived individuals, etc. among drivers of cars and among amateur mechanics.
Sure, part of the reason why cars are more dangerous than airplanes has to do with the fact that most cars are driven by non-professionals. So what? Just because you've found one of the reasons doesn't make it immaterial.
No. If you want to display a label indicating that the USDA has certified your product as non-GMO
What if you don't?
Uh -- then you don't put it on your label. That's why it's called "voluntary." And if you're so scared about this scenario that you've invented, then you can refuse to buy anything that isn't appropriately certified.
Let's retrace this conversation. To start out, you said that the problem with voluntary labels is that there's no standardization -- which we've conclusively demonstrated is false. I don't even know what you're trying to argue at this point.
Various? The problem of plenty, with standards? You are making my point for me.
No, I'm not. You're being ridiculous.
Even then, following those standards cannot be mandatory if the labeling itself is voluntary.
No. If you want to display a label indicating that the USDA has certified your product as non-GMO, then there is a mandatory process that you have to follow. Same if you want to use the "Non-GMO project verified" seal. Displaying one of those logos without going through the standard certification would be fraud. So if you're really concerned about somebody playing the sorts of games that you're pretending to be afraid of, then you should look specifically for items that have been independently certified by a process that you trust.
Voluntary labels have one problem: no standardization.
That's not true. There are various governmental and non-governmental standards for certifying that a product is GMO-free. I have no objection to government being involved in that certification, and in preventing fraudulent labeling.
Only one question - if GMOs are truly safe then why can't they just be labeled as such in the store? I like to know my ingredients and I'll choose. Why are big business and government trying to hide it?
So choose the products labeled "GMO-free" (or equivalent) when you're in the store. Problem solved, without your attempt to force everyone else to feed into your fear of GMOs.
Well, then, that's a good thing to complain about, because truthful advertising should always be allowed. If you can't advertise something as GMO-free when it is -- which, based on what's available at the local grocery store, isn't actually a problem today -- then I'm happy to support changing that.
That doesn't have anything to do with trying to force companies to add a scary new label to convince people to stay away from GMO food, though.
If it's so safe, label it as GMO like other countries do and let people choose.
You know how I know that you don't just want to "let people choose"? Because if that was your real concern, you'd instead introduce voluntary labeling of GMO-free foods. Like, you know, what we already have. Then people who decide to go "GMO-free" could do so to their hearts content, and you aren't using the government to promote your anti-GMO agenda.
FWIW, a Fire TV stick + Kodi is the basis of almost all my family's TV viewing; we find that it works really well for us. Considering that I got it when they offered it for $20 to people with Amazon Prime, I think it was a steal.
On the other hand, the other couple apps I've used on it -- WatchESPN and Youtube -- are both unacceptably slow. I think my wife complained about Netflix being too slow too, although that was a good excuse to just cancel our subscription anyway. Anyone who wants to use it for anything but Amazon video or Kodi should probably find one to try out first.
If you have $400K to spend on a home theater, somebody will show up to take your money.
I really wish Google would relegate Pintrest results to the bottom of the trash bin, where they belong. Any content that requires jumping through hoops to access shouldn't come up on a general search results page unless you specifically ask for it.
You can use the chrome extension to remove it, but that doesn't help when you're using a different computer than usual.
FYI last constitutional amendment took 200 years to ratify, so not in our lifetime.
Just because one amendment (the 27th) took that long to ratify doesn't say anything about how long a new amendment would take. The 26th was ratified in 3 months.
Overturning the second amendment won't happen anytime soon, but it's because doing so doesn't have the support of the voting public, not because the process itself has to take a long time.
Wow. One in four to nearly one in three. So that's, what, a jump from 25% to 30%? At this rate, it will be all Linux by 2030.
It's no secret that Google's Chrome browser sips a considerable amount of battery. On Monday, Microsoft announced that its Edge browser has succeeded on that front.
What, the front of "sipping" "considerable amounts of battery"? More nonsensical word salad brought to you by the new Slashdot editorial staff, who are apparently even more illiterate than their predecessors.
#ItsEasierToMakeMoreHumans
Seems reasonable? Really? How do poor people get mail, then? In the US, poor people used to have guaranteed mail delivery 6 days a week. Now, if, they can afford to live in the right place, and can afford to get Internet service, and the Internet service happens to work correctly, and they can afford a working computer, THEN they can pay their bills? That doesn't seem reasonable to me at all.
If they are receiving bills that are due without even two days for turnaround time, then that's the unreasonable thing. Fortunately that rarely if ever happens.