I wanted to get the contact up quick to make sure people saw it, but after finishing the professor's paper, I don't see the DOC's role as implied by the submitted story. It looks to like the people to send gripes to are at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (rdesilva@ntia.doc.gov), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
Those airwaves are public property that the FCC auctions for money that, get this, is probably in the upcoming 6 trillion dollar tax cut. And it's business that has corrupted this medium, not the FCC, which is actually required support the profits of the broadcasters and prohibited from serving the public. To quote the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
"'(4) Competitor consideration prohibited: In making the determinations
specified in paragraph (1) or (2), the Commission shall not consider whether
the public interest, convenience, and necessity might be served by the grant
of a license to a person other than the renewal applicant.'. "
Democracy can't exist without regulations that allow citizens to protect themselves against this sort of deception. When profiteers run rampant it's called plutocracy, not democracy. A license to practice business is given *by* the government, and when it's abused the licensee is held accountable. Furthermore, how do you oppress a business entity? It's not a person. It's comprised of people who have all the rights given to US citizens, and just as much reason to defend themselves against the machine-like operation of a for-profit business.
Anyway, I'm repeating myself. Let me point you to my other comment.
That's fairly short-sighted. You assume that customers who are being lied to will somehow figure it out, and that without regulations and legal action they'll be able to prevent the same deception in the future. The government *is* the means through which customers fight back. Corporations are licensed (employed) *by* the government to serve the public, and when they abuse this privilege the people use the government to 'fire' or (more likely) penalize them. What's at issue here I think, is that there's many a capitalist posing as a libertarian, who would love to tell you about how the horrible government wants to push communistic restrictions on poor Corporate America. Nevermind giving consumers a mechanism to fight greed and deception when they threaten the rights and freedoms of all people, from a CEO to a garbage man. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why a business entity, that has to abide by the constitutional rights of it's customers, would set out to destroy the entity that enforces those rights, all in the name of profit. (Serving customers who have rights, and the means to enforce those rights, doesn't maximize profits). It's as if the government is simply competition to be defeated. Let's just hope the government doesn't become the victim of a hostile takeover.
I should've clarified and pointed to the webmaster's address (webmaster@jud.state.ma.us). It's not a direct contact obviously, but my thought was that if the webmaster were flooded with emails on the subject, someone in a higher position would hear about it.
US residents that don't work in law enforcement are now 2nd class citizens. Whether FBI, IRS, local police, or other, the 'commoners' are prohibited from criticizing you, identifying you to the public, or recording your actions in the same public areas that you record theirs.
I agree, and the ultimate insult here is that the digital spectrum most cable providers use was public property. It's old news, but I point it out because not many people seem to know this. The role of the FCC is to auction off 'bandwidth' (for lack of a better term) to companies in the business of Television -- and the idea is that they're thusly required to adhere to regulations on serving the public interest and providing a forum for public views and opinions. Instead , corporate lobbyists and corporate 'donations' (sic) inspired legislation that required the FCC to give away licenses to these airwaves, and to only give them away to existing broadcasters. The greatest quote you'll ever see in any law the claims to promote competition in the United States is this:
`(4) COMPETITOR CONSIDERATION PROHIBITED- In making the
determinations specified in paragraph (1) or (2), the
Commission shall not consider whether the public interest,
convenience, and necessity might be served by the grant of a
license to a person other than the renewal applicant.'.
I expect that 5 billion years from now our species will have been eradicated by disgruntled aliens who were refused a refund by Emporer Gates. The easy thing about these sort of predictions is that if me and this guy are wrong, who cares? We're both dead.
Well, my opinion is based on the EFF legal team's response to 'Barney's lawyers' which shot down their trademark case by defending it as parody also. And for the other genius who responded, it also discusses why criticizing a product with the intent of reducing it's sales is also not illegal. God forbid someone tell people that a product sucks.
If MC-Hammer is responsible for parachute pants, is he also responsible for the resulting baggy pants that, to this day, are worn by 'gangstas' and the many socially inept middle-class white boys that idolize them?
I guess the etc/hosts thing is for Linux? Windows users can use a hosts file also, but it goes in the windows folder and the name has to be "hosts" with no extension. (check the link for all the info).
Slashdot Mirror
I wanted to get the contact up quick to make sure people saw it, but after finishing the professor's paper, I don't see the DOC's role as implied by the submitted story. It looks to like the people to send gripes to are at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (rdesilva@ntia.doc.gov), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
This is another example in case anyone is wondering what that term means. There are several ways to contact The Department of Commerce to tell them what you think, (check the bottom of the page).
Anyway, I'm repeating myself. Let me point you to my other comment.
That's fairly short-sighted. You assume that customers who are being lied to will somehow figure it out, and that without regulations and legal action they'll be able to prevent the same deception in the future. The government *is* the means through which customers fight back. Corporations are licensed (employed) *by* the government to serve the public, and when they abuse this privilege the people use the government to 'fire' or (more likely) penalize them. What's at issue here I think, is that there's many a capitalist posing as a libertarian, who would love to tell you about how the horrible government wants to push communistic restrictions on poor Corporate America. Nevermind giving consumers a mechanism to fight greed and deception when they threaten the rights and freedoms of all people, from a CEO to a garbage man. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why a business entity, that has to abide by the constitutional rights of it's customers, would set out to destroy the entity that enforces those rights, all in the name of profit. (Serving customers who have rights, and the means to enforce those rights, doesn't maximize profits). It's as if the government is simply competition to be defeated. Let's just hope the government doesn't become the victim of a hostile takeover.
'Linus is an imperfect being, created by an imperfect being. Finding his weakness is only a matter of time.'
*dun-dun-duuuuuhhh*
I should've clarified and pointed to the webmaster's address (webmaster@jud.state.ma.us). It's not a direct contact obviously, but my thought was that if the webmaster were flooded with emails on the subject, someone in a higher position would hear about it.
I love you too, AC.
Awwwww, shaddap.
Ok, so I guess police misconduct is acceptable if the police who aren't expecting to be taped.
Tell the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts what you think.
US residents that don't work in law enforcement are now 2nd class citizens. Whether FBI, IRS, local police, or other, the 'commoners' are prohibited from criticizing you, identifying you to the public, or recording your actions in the same public areas that you record theirs.
Cause if the lens flare on the moon is that horrible I'm staying home.
I meant to include this here link that gives the short version of the story.
I expect that 5 billion years from now our species will have been eradicated by disgruntled aliens who were refused a refund by Emporer Gates. The easy thing about these sort of predictions is that if me and this guy are wrong, who cares? We're both dead.
Well, my opinion is based on the EFF legal team's response to 'Barney's lawyers' which shot down their trademark case by defending it as parody also. And for the other genius who responded, it also discusses why criticizing a product with the intent of reducing it's sales is also not illegal. God forbid someone tell people that a product sucks.
Sounds like Adobe's PR people pulled the plug on Adobe's legal team.
Yeah, Phil's got it. There wasn't enough room for the name *and* the position, or a link, so I cut it down to size.
Is there a satellite repoman or do they just hire a few southcentral gangs to shoot them down if they don't pay?
Maple leaf to mother tree -- maple leaf to mother tree -- the Slashdotter's know too much. Recommend redeployment of Celine Dion.
If MC-Hammer is responsible for parachute pants, is he also responsible for the resulting baggy pants that, to this day, are worn by 'gangstas' and the many socially inept middle-class white boys that idolize them?
Oops
I swear I clicked the preview button.
One more thing, because I assume by 1x1 images you mean , right? If you block the server the bug is on, the actual .gif file won't be saved to your drive (under temporary internet files in Windows).
I guess the etc/hosts thing is for Linux? Windows users can use a hosts file also, but it goes in the windows folder and the name has to be "hosts" with no extension. (check the link for all the info).