They could tell because there were several pages requiring signatures, and they were all exactly the same.
Remotely plausible... But only if the recipient is already suspicious. Which they probably were after you discussed the printing vs. e-signing with them.
They can also tell by the size/speed of the transfer.
Nonsense. You made this up.
As much as hospitals charge, do you seriously believe that they aren't staffed up enough to detect fax cheaters?
Let me tell you a story, that happened to me. I had a dedicated fax-line, its number differing from that of some medical office in another state only by the area code. Guess what? Incorrectly dialed faxes — from hospitals and other medical offices — would end up in my computer (been using Hylafax for 20 years now) a couple of times per week. PHI be damned — I got medical histories and exam results of total strangers.
Now, this was before HIPAA, but medical information was already a big deal — and yet, these much-charging organizations could not be bothered to properly verify fax-numbers... Dedicating resources/training to catch — not cheaters — people not wishing to waste paper is not going to happen...
Many concurrent last mile networks is a bad thing for the commons
No, they aren't. The same lamp-post, which brings a FiOS fiber-cable to my house, also carries a Comcast cable to my neighbors. It can easily carry 5-10 more.
We only need a single well built physical plant for last mile data
The owner of that "well built physical plant" then becomes a monopoly — an evil far worse than even a whole bunch of "unsightly" cables.
They called again and said that they could not accept e-signatures
This is why I keep a transparent-background PNG file with my signature around. Easily inserted into a LyX document and no one on the other end of the fax call can tell the difference.
I think you're under the impression that I want a government monopoly. I don't.
Yes, you do. You said it yourself:
ISPs become utilities or, better yet: must not control both the last mile and "first mile"
That means "monopoly". Whether it is nominally government-run, or simply government-guaranteed like electric companies or "transportation authorities" is irrelevant.
Because unregulated capitalism has done so well for Internet access in America.
Unregulated capitalism never had a chance — by the time of the Internet, we've had crony capitalism throughout.
Prices are low and speeds are high.
They are, actually. When I signed up for FiOS 7 years ago, I got 35Mbps up and down. Today I'm paying the same monthly fee for 50Mbps up and down — thanks to Comcast constantly breathing at Verizon's neck.
I do wish, there was more competition, of course, but even a duopoly is leaps and bounds better, than a government-owned monopoly would be.
Self-regulation was a runaway success!
It certainly is much better, than a government-run monopoly — be it Amtrak, or TSA, or public schools, which quadrupled the per-pupil costs (inflation-adjusted) since 1960ies without any increases in education-quality...
It most defiantly is a matter of public debate and regulation as long as those providers have restricted competition.
Begging the question, aren't you? Why do they have "restricted competition"? Because the government chose to regulate them to begin with — from the AT&T monopoly, to cable TV, to the cellular duopolies, the problem is the same.
Once sufficient bandwidth is in place, it costs an ISP nothing
Bzzz! Hold it right there! What is "sufficient bandwidth" and is it ever in place? What if twice more of your subscribers have signed-up with Netflix — the company is enjoying amazing growth of subscriber base? What was "sufficient" two months ago no longer is and you have to spend real money again. In this regard bandwidth really is like tangible goods.
Charging the streaming customers for downloading much more than others finances the further increases in spending.
More generally, however a private company wishes to charge its customers should not even be a matter of public debate — much less actual regulation. The only legitimate role of government here is to encourage other private companies to compete — competition being the best judge of both the possible and the affordable.
It seems much more likely that Hollywood has a looks discrimination policy
Hollywood aren't the consumers of the actors' work. They are the middlemen. We — the world-wide audience of viewers — discriminate. We want to be entertained by sexually-appealing people, which generally means younger ones. There is no escaping this — trying to legislate it away is just the kind of stupidity, for which California has been known (and mocked) for decades.
You're changing the subject from candidates to the actions of angry activists.
Nope. The "angry activists" were the subject of your post. If they can organize themselves into a mob sufficiently threatening to warrant cancelling a major campaign event in a major city, alluding to roughing them up may not be particularly outrageous.
Tempers always flare in a run-up to elections. But Conservatives, for better or worse, are always behind Democrats' "rank-and-file" in violence (and you better pray, we stay that way). Heck, absent Conservatives to beat up, Democrats some times attack other Democrats. In this recent incident in Cleveland, for example, KKK, BLM, and Westboro Baptist "Church" — three Democratic Party outfits — have been reported as throwing urine at each other!
I know BLM can get out of hand some times but to hear you talk about them it sounds like they're part of some super conspiracy
Probably, the same body, that fanned the Ferguson killing of a thug trying to get to policeman's gun beyond all proportion — and popularized the "Hands up don't shoot" lie. Now, has Hillary Clinton been behind it? Maybe not. But she certainly did try to earn the thugs' support by soliciting endorsement of the deceased thug's mother.
You should use Tor — and other systems intended to enhance privacy — just to keep it legal to use them. Rights not exercised are rights lost. This is also why you should be able to burn somebody's Holy Book every once in a while, refuse police' request to search your car, and carry (or, at least, own) a firearm.
"I haven't run an exit relay since."
Yep, that may very well have been the objective (even if secondary): let's go, guys, either we bust the porn-peddler this morning, or, at least, put the fear of God into these proxy-running hippies.
News just in - explosions send shit everywhere. Even on "the edge of the atmosphere".
Obviously, not even a nuclear blast on the Earth's surface would send anything into orbit. So, the deeper into the gravity well you get, the bigger explosions you can "afford" without creating any more space-junk.
And my "plan" did not involve very strong blast — just enough to break the contraption into several pieces. It and can be calculated so that any shrapnel would still end up burning in the air even if not right away. Besides, for all we know, their anti-satellite weapons may not be of the kinetic/exploding kind at all — simply drilling or sawing into a satellite would break it apart...
a lot of stuff goes up and stays up for a long time.
And now to my second point, which is that the Chinese may not care. Not to say, I don't — but we aren't talking about what we'd prefer...
Just letting it fall is better than a lot of other options
That may well be true. But neither of us advises Chinese government, who, for example, may have a secondary objective of showing off their orbital weapons again...
If such an invention, whatever it will be, that really cures all (or even merely most) illnesses, ever comes to fruition, why should it not be treated as Uber et al are treated today?
That is, why wouldn't Mark and Priscilla be asked pointed questions about doctors and nurses who — despite spending years and thousands of dollars on education and certification — will become obsolete? What of the hospitals and other health-care infrastructure, that is no longer necessary?
Will we be expected to sympathize with the struggling medical personnel beating up staff of whatever corporation/organization is set up to make the new method and burn their vehicles? Will we have "insightful" comments on Slashdot demanding "level playing field" between this hypothetical new method and the old ones?
Will the FDA meekly disband itself, or will they keep fighting for relevance (and their cushy jobs) the way cities' "Taxis and Limousine" commissions do today?
We've been at each other's throats over these topics over the years. I'm going to try it one more time without injuring anyone with a dialogue. Well, not really a dialogue, because my opponent shall be imaginary. But I don't expect too many people to disagree with him:
Are ideas — pure ideas — valuable? That is, if you've thought of something interesting, are you a richer person, than you were right before that?
Yes, they are valuable.
Who is the owner of that value?
Whoever thought of it!
What if multiple people have thought of the same thing?
Well, if it is so obvious, maybe, it really has no special value.
Indeed, so let's stick to the non-obvious ideas.
If multiple people think of the same non-obvious idea, I guess, it should belong to whichever one of them thought of it first.
How would we know, which one them did?
They will register their idea.
Ok, once the ownership of the idea is established, what can be done with it?
Something cool should be made based on it.
By who?
By the owner...
But he is an inventor — not necessarily an entrepreneur.
Ok, by the owner or whoever he sells/leases his idea to.
At what price?
At whatever they agree upon between themselves.
So, an idea can be sold — like more tangible property?
Yes!
Can it then be resold, if the current owner no longer wants it?
Yeah...
Can it also be stolen then? Used by someone, who neither thought of it first nor purchased it from the inventor or an earlier buyer?
Ok, yes, it pains me to admit it, but the term "theft" is not as inappropriate here as I once thought...
Can the owner — be they the original inventor or someone who honestly purchased or inherited or otherwise legally obtained it — sue such a thief for damages?
Yes, Ok, he can. But I'll still spit on him and call him names — such as "patent troll"!
Profit!!
Since the effects of the earths gravity are a lot less that far out
They don't have to hit it now — but wait for it to get a lot closer in its spiral towards Earth during the 2017. Then hit it on the edge of the atmosphere.
I suggest you look up space junk for some ideas about how it's not just going to fall down quickly in a few harmless bits.
Why would the Chinese, who, obviously, are fine with their space-station falling to Earth uncontrollably and unpredictably, worry about a little bit more space-junk?
So, Hillary Clinton is a racist too, in your opinion?
Trump lied through his teeth about Duke.
Even if he did, lying is not racist. I already explained several times here, why any disavowals of David Duke would've been a mistake for Trump.
Show me proof that he's biased against other races.
Whether he is or not, it is not racist to suspect him of being. Unless you are willing to "disavow" all suspicions of White judges being biased against non-White defendants.
The Middle East has nearly 400 million muslims spread apart in the various countries in the area.
Dude, however you spin it, "Muslim" does not mean "Arab" and religion is not race...
He could have easily said "I condemned him 15 years ago, and I am again today."
If condemned him back then, why is he being asked to condemn him again? Who else should he condemn — and would he have the time to talk about anything else, if he undertook to disavow each and every character, his opponents wish him to disavow?
If all of your citations come from sites like brietbart, theamericanfreedomparty.us, or other OBVIOUS biased, partisan sources, you have no foundation for a legitimate argument.
They may be partisan, but the information is still valid. You obviously wish to extricate yourself from an inconvenient argument... You have my permission to bugger off — I do not wish to repeat myself for your sake.
So would you say that denying entry to people based on their religion is in line with American ideals?
I would say, it depends on the religion. One of the major aspects of Islam is Sharia and the (world-wide) Theocracy. Both directly contradict the US Constitution — holding any religion with such tenets is valid grounds for suspicion and extra scrutiny.
If people believed that then I would wonder why they would voluntarily move to a country that is not a Theocracy.
For its higher level of living — "it is the economy, stupid".
The percentage of Muslims preferring Sharia in the US is often-cited as 51%. The number for Canada is 60%, the U.K. — 40%. The problem is real...
If anyone expressing a sincere religious belief were denied entry, I think that our country would be better for it
Then you are a fool. Sadly, an alternative to religion is not the cheerful agnosticism, or the sophisticated atheism. Absent a coherent religion of some kind, the void is filled by dark superstitions (think "bad omens", witch-burning, and black cat-chasing), that are worse than even Islam.
Slashdot Mirror
Trying to imagine people behind setting up the UN in the 1940-ies dreaming about the organization sending up space ships some day... Failing...
Whatever this undertaking costs, President Trump is likely to cut UN funding by exactly that amount. And he'll be right.
Remotely plausible... But only if the recipient is already suspicious. Which they probably were after you discussed the printing vs. e-signing with them.
Nonsense. You made this up.
Let me tell you a story, that happened to me. I had a dedicated fax-line, its number differing from that of some medical office in another state only by the area code. Guess what? Incorrectly dialed faxes — from hospitals and other medical offices — would end up in my computer (been using Hylafax for 20 years now) a couple of times per week. PHI be damned — I got medical histories and exam results of total strangers.
Now, this was before HIPAA, but medical information was already a big deal — and yet, these much-charging organizations could not be bothered to properly verify fax-numbers... Dedicating resources/training to catch — not cheaters — people not wishing to waste paper is not going to happen...
No, they aren't. The same lamp-post, which brings a FiOS fiber-cable to my house, also carries a Comcast cable to my neighbors. It can easily carry 5-10 more.
The owner of that "well built physical plant" then becomes a monopoly — an evil far worse than even a whole bunch of "unsightly" cables.
This is why I keep a transparent-background PNG file with my signature around. Easily inserted into a LyX document and no one on the other end of the fax call can tell the difference.
Yes, you do. You said it yourself:
That means "monopoly". Whether it is nominally government-run, or simply government-guaranteed like electric companies or "transportation authorities" is irrelevant.
Unregulated capitalism never had a chance — by the time of the Internet, we've had crony capitalism throughout.
They are, actually. When I signed up for FiOS 7 years ago, I got 35Mbps up and down. Today I'm paying the same monthly fee for 50Mbps up and down — thanks to Comcast constantly breathing at Verizon's neck.
I do wish, there was more competition, of course, but even a duopoly is leaps and bounds better, than a government-owned monopoly would be.
It certainly is much better, than a government-run monopoly — be it Amtrak, or TSA, or public schools, which quadrupled the per-pupil costs (inflation-adjusted) since 1960ies without any increases in education-quality...
Begging the question, aren't you? Why do they have "restricted competition"? Because the government chose to regulate them to begin with — from the AT&T monopoly, to cable TV, to the cellular duopolies, the problem is the same.
Have you ever run a business? Anything? I think not...
Spoken like a true Statist — the government knows best, does not it? Down with the greedy KKKapitali$ts!!
Two choices:
There is no magical third option.
Bzzz! Hold it right there! What is "sufficient bandwidth" and is it ever in place? What if twice more of your subscribers have signed-up with Netflix — the company is enjoying amazing growth of subscriber base? What was "sufficient" two months ago no longer is and you have to spend real money again. In this regard bandwidth really is like tangible goods.
Charging the streaming customers for downloading much more than others finances the further increases in spending.
More generally, however a private company wishes to charge its customers should not even be a matter of public debate — much less actual regulation. The only legitimate role of government here is to encourage other private companies to compete — competition being the best judge of both the possible and the affordable.
Free Pluto! Equal gravity for all!!!
How about this?
Hollywood aren't the consumers of the actors' work. They are the middlemen. We — the world-wide audience of viewers — discriminate. We want to be entertained by sexually-appealing people, which generally means younger ones. There is no escaping this — trying to legislate it away is just the kind of stupidity, for which California has been known (and mocked) for decades.
(Heinlein's Friday (1982) is a good example of such mocking...)
Nope. The "angry activists" were the subject of your post. If they can organize themselves into a mob sufficiently threatening to warrant cancelling a major campaign event in a major city, alluding to roughing them up may not be particularly outrageous.
Tempers always flare in a run-up to elections. But Conservatives, for better or worse, are always behind Democrats' "rank-and-file" in violence (and you better pray, we stay that way). Heck, absent Conservatives to beat up, Democrats some times attack other Democrats. In this recent incident in Cleveland, for example, KKK, BLM, and Westboro Baptist "Church" — three Democratic Party outfits — have been reported as throwing urine at each other!
They certainly are a conspiracy, though, of course, not the "civilization-ending" kind. 70% of the protesters arrested in Charlotte, for example, were from other states — somebody organized them and paid their travel (and lodging) expenses.
Probably, the same body, that fanned the Ferguson killing of a thug trying to get to policeman's gun beyond all proportion — and popularized the "Hands up don't shoot" lie . Now, has Hillary Clinton been behind it? Maybe not. But she certainly did try to earn the thugs' support by soliciting endorsement of the deceased thug's mother.
His opponents are all about violence. They openly advocate it. Trump's rally in Chicago had to be cancelled, because of the threats of violence. A US President better be ready to respond to violent threats with overwhelming violence of our own. The era of apologizing and paying off the little bullies is over.
Now, has Donald Trump used violence in personal matters? Evidently not...
All three, pal, all three. Deplorable me...
Is it?
Maybe, it should be — but any attempts to legally require such labeling, would violate the First Amendment.
Lobbying and "this" are both about citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. Deal with it.
You should use Tor — and other systems intended to enhance privacy — just to keep it legal to use them. Rights not exercised are rights lost. This is also why you should be able to burn somebody's Holy Book every once in a while, refuse police' request to search your car, and carry (or, at least, own) a firearm.
Yep, that may very well have been the objective (even if secondary): let's go, guys, either we bust the porn-peddler this morning, or, at least, put the fear of God into these proxy-running hippies.
Obviously, not even a nuclear blast on the Earth's surface would send anything into orbit. So, the deeper into the gravity well you get, the bigger explosions you can "afford" without creating any more space-junk.
And my "plan" did not involve very strong blast — just enough to break the contraption into several pieces. It and can be calculated so that any shrapnel would still end up burning in the air even if not right away. Besides, for all we know, their anti-satellite weapons may not be of the kinetic/exploding kind at all — simply drilling or sawing into a satellite would break it apart...
And now to my second point, which is that the Chinese may not care. Not to say, I don't — but we aren't talking about what we'd prefer...
That may well be true. But neither of us advises Chinese government, who, for example, may have a secondary objective of showing off their orbital weapons again...
If such an invention, whatever it will be, that really cures all (or even merely most) illnesses, ever comes to fruition, why should it not be treated as Uber et al are treated today?
That is, why wouldn't Mark and Priscilla be asked pointed questions about doctors and nurses who — despite spending years and thousands of dollars on education and certification — will become obsolete? What of the hospitals and other health-care infrastructure, that is no longer necessary?
Will we be expected to sympathize with the struggling medical personnel beating up staff of whatever corporation/organization is set up to make the new method and burn their vehicles? Will we have "insightful" comments on Slashdot demanding "level playing field" between this hypothetical new method and the old ones?
Will the FDA meekly disband itself, or will they keep fighting for relevance (and their cushy jobs) the way cities' "Taxis and Limousine" commissions do today?
We've been at each other's throats over these topics over the years. I'm going to try it one more time without injuring anyone with a dialogue. Well, not really a dialogue, because my opponent shall be imaginary. But I don't expect too many people to disagree with him:
Are ideas — pure ideas — valuable? That is, if you've thought of something interesting, are you a richer person, than you were right before that? Yes, they are valuable. Who is the owner of that value? Whoever thought of it! What if multiple people have thought of the same thing? Well, if it is so obvious, maybe, it really has no special value. Indeed, so let's stick to the non-obvious ideas. If multiple people think of the same non-obvious idea, I guess, it should belong to whichever one of them thought of it first. How would we know, which one them did? They will register their idea. Ok, once the ownership of the idea is established, what can be done with it? Something cool should be made based on it. By who? By the owner... But he is an inventor — not necessarily an entrepreneur. Ok, by the owner or whoever he sells/leases his idea to. At what price? At whatever they agree upon between themselves. So, an idea can be sold — like more tangible property? Yes! Can it then be resold, if the current owner no longer wants it? Yeah... Can it also be stolen then? Used by someone, who neither thought of it first nor purchased it from the inventor or an earlier buyer? Ok, yes, it pains me to admit it, but the term "theft" is not as inappropriate here as I once thought... Can the owner — be they the original inventor or someone who honestly purchased or inherited or otherwise legally obtained it — sue such a thief for damages? Yes, Ok, he can. But I'll still spit on him and call him names — such as "patent troll"! Profit!!They don't have to hit it now — but wait for it to get a lot closer in its spiral towards Earth during the 2017. Then hit it on the edge of the atmosphere.
Why would the Chinese, who, obviously, are fine with their space-station falling to Earth uncontrollably and unpredictably, worry about a little bit more space-junk?
So, Hillary Clinton is a racist too, in your opinion?
Even if he did, lying is not racist. I already explained several times here, why any disavowals of David Duke would've been a mistake for Trump.
Whether he is or not, it is not racist to suspect him of being. Unless you are willing to "disavow" all suspicions of White judges being biased against non-White defendants.
Dude, however you spin it, "Muslim" does not mean "Arab" and religion is not race...
If condemned him back then, why is he being asked to condemn him again? Who else should he condemn — and would he have the time to talk about anything else, if he undertook to disavow each and every character, his opponents wish him to disavow?
Still waiting for Clinton to disavow Al Sharpton the anti-Semite. And Seddique Mateen — the homophobe and Taliban-supporter. and Lezley McSpadden, whose sole claim to fame is raising a robber-son...
They may be partisan, but the information is still valid. You obviously wish to extricate yourself from an inconvenient argument... You have my permission to bugger off — I do not wish to repeat myself for your sake.
I would say, it depends on the religion. One of the major aspects of Islam is Sharia and the (world-wide) Theocracy. Both directly contradict the US Constitution — holding any religion with such tenets is valid grounds for suspicion and extra scrutiny.
For its higher level of living — "it is the economy, stupid".
The percentage of Muslims preferring Sharia in the US is often-cited as 51%. The number for Canada is 60%, the U.K. — 40%. The problem is real...
Then you are a fool. Sadly, an alternative to religion is not the cheerful agnosticism, or the sophisticated atheism. Absent a coherent religion of some kind, the void is filled by dark superstitions (think "bad omens", witch-burning, and black cat-chasing), that are worse than even Islam.