You didnt read carefully enough, Yes, non-profits are exempt from (a)(2) - but they are not exempt from (d), where it says they have to (1) clearly identify thermselves at the beginning of the call, and (2) provide their OWN telephone number as well.
How about being able to use one's phone line for the purpose they have it for? Eg, if it rings, its someone they've given the number to, and/or are expecting a call from?
What if a loved one is in an accident, and the hospitcal tries to call them only their number is busy with the telemarketing call? Or if it goes to an answering machine, but it cant take any more messages becuase its full of telemarketing drivel?
And how do you tell a recording to stop calling you?
Wether its worth a lawsuit is entirely up to the person getting the calls. I suppsoe you are ok with email spam too? Just hit Delete, right? Thats the right option, only its the spammer that needs to be deleted, not just the spam.
Every community wireless project Ive read about was funded and operated by an independent ISP. No tax dollars involved in the financing (aside perhaps from the govertnment offices obtaining service themselves, which would cost them quite a bit more to obtain from big telco) All the government would be providing was some red-tape cutting in regards to tower access and rights-of-way/etc, and some PR.
I call astroturf - no one is *forced* to pay for community wifi - it is funded and operated entire by independent ISP's. No tax dollars are used. All the govt provides is help with cutting through right-of-way and tower access red tape, and perhaps give the project a stamp of approval. Oh, and pay for service for government offices at rates much better than they would pay the telco to run T1's in.
Most 'community wifi' plans specifically DO NOT fund them with taxes, nor are they run by the government. They are operated and funded by independent ISP's. All the government does is help them cut the red tape involved with right-of-way, tower access, and perhaps a little PR.
In most cases neither the city nor the taxpayers are running or funding these wifi operations. Private ISP's are. All the city/town/etc is providing is a fast-track through the rights-of-way red tape, contacts with the 'right people' to get tower access/etc, and perhaps a bit of bragging to their cities.
Face it, big telco's dont want to have to compete with ANYONE - they want to be the exlusive provider, so they get to keep their monopoly.
The ideal situation is multiple providers of service, who compete fairly on price and quality of service. Ideal for end-users, that is. It would be the absolute worst case for big telco, and they will fight anything that could possibly lead there tooth and nail at every turn.
My 'favorite media player' isnt designed so stupidly as to ever display such a message. If it doesnt understand a given media file, it just produces a meaningful message to that effect, and exits. Then, I can go look at sites I trust to see if what it identified as needed is a real codec, and where to get it.
Yeah an "if (OS = LINUX)" in a.EXE file would be so dangerous to a linux box, riiiiight.
How about this - video sites stop trying to serve codecs and special players, they just serve the video DATA, and let the user decide what software to use to play them.
If you see 'click here for the video' and its 'http:// [..] / [..].EXE' - heres a hint - its not a video, its malware.
You are confusing airtime cost with 'long distance' cost.
In the US, 'long distance' is always paid by the caller, and is entirely unrelated to wether a number is a cellphone or not. (Although some cell providers offer 'unlimted' or 'free' long distance, but see the following point) (Some types of phone providers offer effectively free/unlimited 'long distance' [mainly VoIP providers])
In the US, cell 'airtime' is paid for by the person who's name is on the cell phone account. It doesnt matter wether the call is outgoing or incoming. Most cell providers plan's include a base amount of airtime minutes which are 'included' at no charge, what amount that is depends on the plan. Sometimes airtime during 'off peak' hours is free, or more is included, than airtime during 'peak' hours. There are *some* cell providers that offer 'free incoming' airtime, with some or all plans (Nextel, Centennial)
Several mobile carriers offer 'free' incoming calls (eg no airtime charges). If you and the person you want to call both have that feature, theoretically you could use this to call each other and neither of you have to use chargeable airtime. There are better ways of doing that, though.
Speaking of that, is there a way to disable this ^w function, and revert ^w to what it has always meant in unix (delete last word typed)? I have found myself often accidentally closing tabs when I meant to delete a word.
Dont have ballot boxes. Have the counting machine(s) on site at the polling place, and as voters complete their ballots (by hand or by ATM), they deposit them directly into the counting machine. (Which does NOT display a live count of votes, since that would conflict with the 'secret ballot' part of voting)
A machine that only fills in the same ovals that a voter could also choose to fill in by hand, where the voter can look at the filled-in ballot to verify it is correct, does not need to be auditable. The verification is done by the voter, before presenting the balot to be counted.
I see your misunderstanding - you refer to barcodes. There should be no barcodes. The only marks that would get made by any GUI/ATM device are the same exact filling-in of ovals that a voter could also opt to fill in by hand instead of using the machine. The machine would be prohibited from making any other marks.
Yes, I addressed this in a reply to another post, where someone suggested the names be printed by the same GUI machine so as to avoid wasting space - the names/options would definately need to be pre-printed on the ballots, and the machine would only fill in the ovals. In fact I would think that the exact same paper ballots would be used wether the voter chose to fill it in manually, or to use the ATM.
"Operating System" and "User Interface" should be entirely seperate concepts, parts of completely seperate software sets. a GUI should not be hardcoded as part of an OS.
If the GUI/ATM end of the machine was printing out the names for the selections, you are opening up for it to print them in a different order/places than the scanner was expecting them to be. Eg, if one voted for 'Joe Schmoe', and they wanted to change that vote to be for 'Sam Shit', it could print Joe Schmoes name where Sam's was supposed to be, and mark that oval. To the voter it would look like the machine correctly marked their vote, but the scanner would count it differently.
One, the pens for marking the ballots could be specifically provided at the polling place, with clear instructions that only those pens will cause the vote to be properly registered. They could even be special magnetic or flourescent ink designed specifically for the scanning devices. (The ATM/GUI machines would use the same type of ink, of course)
Two, scanning tech has evolved quite a bit from the old #2 pencil days. With large enough ovals, and properly sized marking pens, it wouldnt be that hard to avoid mis-scans - Think bingo markers, even little old ladies manage to mark ther bingo sheets properly. I'm not suggesting the ovals be quite *that* large, but they certainly dont need to be the historical tiny dots that the school standardized tests used.
But the reason everyone wants the ATM's is so that people who cant punch out a chard or cant figure out which oval lines up with which name have an easier time of it.
Thats exactly what I meant, an ATM/terminal whatever with the sole purpose of marking a paper ballot. And those voters who choose to do so, for whaever reason, could still choose to fill theirs out by hand. Either way once they have a paper ballot that they have verified has their correct selections, they then insert it into the counting machine, which *MUST* be auditable and transparent.
You get your paper trail, you get your 'easy to use for morons', and (hopefully) the accountability and transparency.
The human readable print *IS* what is counted. Im not suggesting two sets of marks, Im suggesting that the one set be such that they can be read by a human *AND* by a machine. (Much like the fill-in-the-oval forms)
Eg
President: "Mr John Jackass" (Republocat) [oval] "Mr Fred Sneegle" (Demonica) [oval] "Mr Sam Nochance" (Ingependent)[oval]
Slashdot Mirror
You didnt read carefully enough, Yes, non-profits are exempt from (a)(2) - but they are not exempt from (d), where it says they have to (1) clearly identify thermselves at the beginning of the call, and (2) provide their OWN telephone number as well.
How about being able to use one's phone line for the purpose they have it for? Eg, if it rings, its someone they've given the number to, and/or are expecting a call from?
What if a loved one is in an accident, and the hospitcal tries to call them only their number is busy with the telemarketing call? Or if it goes to an answering machine, but it cant take any more messages becuase its full of telemarketing drivel?
And how do you tell a recording to stop calling you?
Wether its worth a lawsuit is entirely up to the person getting the calls. I suppsoe you are ok with email spam too? Just hit Delete, right? Thats the right option, only its the spammer that needs to be deleted, not just the spam.
I think the key point in why a judge isnt likely to giev you double your deposit is that you *did* get the deposit back, but it was just a bit late.
If the landlord didnt give you your deposit back at all, then I suspect your chances would be better.
Every community wireless project Ive read about was funded and operated by an independent ISP. No tax dollars involved in the financing (aside perhaps from the govertnment offices obtaining service themselves, which would cost them quite a bit more to obtain from big telco) All the government would be providing was some red-tape cutting in regards to tower access and rights-of-way/etc, and some PR.
The USPS does not receive any funding from federal taxes. At all. It is funded entirely from postage paid by the senders of mail.
I call astroturf - no one is *forced* to pay for community wifi - it is funded and operated entire by independent ISP's. No tax dollars are used. All the govt provides is help with cutting through right-of-way and tower access red tape, and perhaps give the project a stamp of approval. Oh, and pay for service for government offices at rates much better than they would pay the telco to run T1's in.
Most 'community wifi' plans specifically DO NOT fund them with taxes, nor are they run by the government. They are operated and funded by independent ISP's. All the government does is help them cut the red tape involved with right-of-way, tower access, and perhaps a little PR.
In most cases neither the city nor the taxpayers are running or funding these wifi operations. Private ISP's are. All the city/town/etc is providing is a fast-track through the rights-of-way red tape, contacts with the 'right people' to get tower access/etc, and perhaps a bit of bragging to their cities.
Face it, big telco's dont want to have to compete with ANYONE - they want to be the exlusive provider, so they get to keep their monopoly.
The ideal situation is multiple providers of service, who compete fairly on price and quality of service. Ideal for end-users, that is. It would be the absolute worst case for big telco, and they will fight anything that could possibly lead there tooth and nail at every turn.
My 'favorite media player' isnt designed so stupidly as to ever display such a message. If it doesnt understand a given media file, it just produces a meaningful message to that effect, and exits. Then, I can go look at sites I trust to see if what it identified as needed is a real codec, and where to get it.
Yeah an "if (OS = LINUX)" in a .EXE file would be so dangerous to a linux box, riiiiight.
.EXE' - heres a hint - its not a video, its malware.
How about this - video sites stop trying to serve codecs and special players, they just serve the video DATA, and let the user decide what software to use to play them.
If you see 'click here for the video' and its 'http:// [..] / [..]
s/most OS's/a certain mainstream OS (but very few others)/
You are confusing airtime cost with 'long distance' cost.
In the US, 'long distance' is always paid by the caller, and is entirely unrelated to wether a number is a cellphone or not. (Although some cell providers offer 'unlimted' or 'free' long distance, but see the following point) (Some types of phone providers offer effectively free/unlimited 'long distance' [mainly VoIP providers])
In the US, cell 'airtime' is paid for by the person who's name is on the cell phone account. It doesnt matter wether the call is outgoing or incoming. Most cell providers plan's include a base amount of airtime minutes which are 'included' at no charge, what amount that is depends on the plan. Sometimes airtime during 'off peak' hours is free, or more is included, than airtime during 'peak' hours. There are *some* cell providers that offer 'free incoming' airtime, with some or all plans (Nextel, Centennial)
Several mobile carriers offer 'free' incoming calls (eg no airtime charges).
If you and the person you want to call both have that feature, theoretically you could use this to call each other and neither of you have to use chargeable airtime. There are better ways of doing that, though.
It would be nice if they'd have made a nice link to Moniker's website, instead of making me google for it.
Oh, blatant plug - microwave.com could be yours, at the right time, for the right money.
Of course, you'll need the sysadmin to install that for you .... :P
The encryption companies are of course trying to make sales though.
The lesson is - if you dont trust your sysadmin, you have the wrong sysadmin.
Ah, no, I dont use Gnome. Windowmaker here. Thanks anyway.
Speaking of that, is there a way to disable this ^w function, and revert ^w to what it has always meant in unix (delete last word typed)? I have found myself often accidentally closing tabs when I meant to delete a word.
Dont have ballot boxes. Have the counting machine(s) on site at the polling place, and as voters complete their ballots (by hand or by ATM), they deposit them directly into the counting machine. (Which does NOT display a live count of votes, since that would conflict with the 'secret ballot' part of voting)
A machine that only fills in the same ovals that a voter could also choose to fill in by hand, where the voter can look at the filled-in ballot to verify it is correct, does not need to be auditable. The verification is done by the voter, before presenting the balot to be counted.
I see your misunderstanding - you refer to barcodes. There should be no barcodes. The only marks that would get made by any GUI/ATM device are the same exact filling-in of ovals that a voter could also opt to fill in by hand instead of using the machine. The machine would be prohibited from making any other marks.
Yes, I addressed this in a reply to another post, where someone suggested the names be printed by the same GUI machine so as to avoid wasting space - the names/options would definately need to be pre-printed on the ballots, and the machine would only fill in the ovals. In fact I would think that the exact same paper ballots would be used wether the voter chose to fill it in manually, or to use the ATM.
"Operating System" and "User Interface" should be entirely seperate concepts, parts of completely seperate software sets. a GUI should not be hardcoded as part of an OS.
If the GUI/ATM end of the machine was printing out the names for the selections, you are opening up for it to print them in a different order/places than the scanner was expecting them to be. Eg, if one voted for 'Joe Schmoe', and they wanted to change that vote to be for 'Sam Shit', it could print Joe Schmoes name where Sam's was supposed to be, and mark that oval. To the voter it would look like the machine correctly marked their vote, but the scanner would count it differently.
One, the pens for marking the ballots could be specifically provided at the polling place, with clear instructions that only those pens will cause the vote to be properly registered. They could even be special magnetic or flourescent ink designed specifically for the scanning devices. (The ATM/GUI machines would use the same type of ink, of course)
Two, scanning tech has evolved quite a bit from the old #2 pencil days. With large enough ovals, and properly sized marking pens, it wouldnt be that hard to avoid mis-scans - Think bingo markers, even little old ladies manage to mark ther bingo sheets properly. I'm not suggesting the ovals be quite *that* large, but they certainly dont need to be the historical tiny dots that the school standardized tests used.
But the reason everyone wants the ATM's is so that people who cant punch out a chard or cant figure out which oval lines up with which name have an easier time of it.
Thats exactly what I meant, an ATM/terminal whatever with the sole purpose of marking a paper ballot. And those voters who choose to do so, for whaever reason, could still choose to fill theirs out by hand. Either way once they have a paper ballot that they have verified has their correct selections, they then insert it into the counting machine, which *MUST* be auditable and transparent.
You get your paper trail, you get your 'easy to use for morons', and (hopefully) the accountability and transparency.
The human readable print *IS* what is counted. Im not suggesting two sets of marks, Im suggesting that the one set be such that they can be read by a human *AND* by a machine. (Much like the fill-in-the-oval forms)
Eg
President:
"Mr John Jackass" (Republocat) [oval]
"Mr Fred Sneegle" (Demonica) [oval]
"Mr Sam Nochance" (Ingependent)[oval]
and so forth