Yes, that was the point of the original assertion, that apparently people are (and continue to be) too stupid to avoid buying things advertised via spam. If they werent, spam wouldn't be as profitable as it was.
But I have no opposition to businesses selling quack cures and whatnot - as long as they do not *STEAL* from others to advertise their 'products'.
The proper objection to spam completely disregards that most items advertised using it are illegal, fraudulant, or otherwise 'disreputable'. It doesnt matter if its for penis cream, diet pills, bad credit card deals, ice cream cones, steaks, electronic equipment, religion, eyeglasses, etc, etc, etc ad infinitum. It doesnt matter if its an outright scam, a 'quasi' quack product, or something completely and totally legitimate. The objection is that they are sending email to people who did not ask for it and do not want it, primarily for the senders benefit. I would have no less objection to my local favorite restaurant advertising 50% off specials than I do to the products most currently advertised, unless I had specifically given my email address to them, and specifically requested/authorized them to email me that type of information). In fact if my favorite restaurant did somehow obtain my email address except from me, and send me spam, they would almost immediately cease to be my favorite restaurant - I might visit one last time, to make sure they understood that I was not coming back, and why.
Someone buying discount coupons for a restaurant from a spam are *no less* fools than someone buying hair loss cures or diet pills.
I would say 'If people didnt pay money to astrologers, they'd slowly cease to exist'
and
'If beleive didnt buy quack cures, companies trying to sell them would go out of business'
And yes, 'If no one (and I mean no one, not 'very few' people) responded to spam, spam would become exist. Spammers exist for one reason, and one reason only, to make money. If *every* spam run they ever sent, resulted in absolutely zero response rate, it would make them *no* money, and it would quickly become unprofitable (of course, thats disregarding the 'spam for hire', where the spammer gets paid by the unwitting business wether or not there is any response)..
Yes, and up until very recently, they werent *able* to, becuase the ILECs (SBC, Verizon, etc) werent allowing them access to the E911 trunks. (Recent rulings by FCC and/or Congress have changed that)
They are working on it. See other posts for more info.
Thank you for providing a first-person account of what most of us already knew, despite the rantings of the few clueless folk.
For those clueless folk (as well as *anyone* considering VoiP service, regardless of what you think your clue level is [or what it actually is[), I provide:
(also see http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/001716.html )
But note that unlike a standard POTS provider (who knows your location becuase he has monopoly ownership over the wires used to deliver the analog signal to your physical location), a VoIP provider has *NO WAY* of knowing your location unless you tell them (since you can plug in the device anywhere in the world that high speed Internet is available, and there is no way to determine any location which would be useful enough in an emergency from IP address [if you are lucky you can determine the country, but forget anything further, such as an address]).
Why should someone who wants a VoIP line as a way to make inexpensive (or even free) phone calls (and has taken the initiative to ensure that they have some other way of summoning emergency help that they find sufficiently reliable) be required to pay for 911 service on that line that they dont need?
I can see that customers should definately be informed. But given that Vonage tells customers about the activation requirement when they call to sign up, displays in big red letters in their web-control-panel if they havent, and sends emails reminding people if they havent, I think they are doing a pretty good job of it. Why should Vonage be liable if some customers choose to ignore the information given to them and jeopardize their own safety?
Actually various centers for 'Women in Transition' (wifes that have left abusive husbands, etc) do in fact take donation of used cell phones, and make them available. I beleive in most cases they actually put real service on the phone though.
In any case, while these old used cellphones do connect to the (mostly) correct PSAP, they dont provide any location info, so unless the caller can speak and explain their emergency and give their location, not much can be done. Surely they are better than nothing, but they arent perfect either.
One of the big markets for VoIP services if for people who have relatives in a foreign country, to get a VoIP service, and then ship them the device.
They do this to be able to save tons of money on long distance, since their foreign relatives are able to call the US on the 'unlimited' plan, and they are able to call the US number of the VoIP line from the US. I would suspect that in most cases the relatives maintain their normal phone line in their own country to use for their local calls there, which would presumable continue to support whatever emergency number is applicable in that country.
So I would suggest one modification to your suggestion:
The phone service should not work, until *either* you set up 911 service (and give it your location), *OR* you affirmatively decline 911 service, and acknowledge that you will be completely unable to use 911 at all via the VoIP service.
And it is entirely legal to drive a car without insurance. I beleive most states have an option for you to post a bond in leiu of insurance (at least as far as liability is concerned, as far as I know no state requires you to have collision/etc [although if you are financing it, the finance company might as a condition of the loan]. If you want to risk that *your* car will be damaged thats your business.)
And of course, technology never changes. There was never a time when children were taught than in an emergency, they should hitch up the horse and buggy, and drive to the town ten miles away and go and 'fetch the doctor'.
The 911 system has only existed since around the mid 1970's. VoIP service is very new. There are inherent technological limitations on its ability to know the location of a caller, due to one of the features that make it so useful. There are inherent political and economic limitations on its abilities to even be able to route calls to the right place, due to the fact that it is attempting to compete with one of the largest most overbearing monopolies in existence, which hates anything that might stand any chance of successful competing with it.
People didnt used to be aware of 911. They werent aware of it until it became common. As VoIP becomes common, people will become aware of the proper way to report emergencies, and it will have features added to enable police/fire/etc to be contacted conveniently and quickly, and for them to be able to have all the information they need to do their job.
Yes, I agree that VoIP providers should take every step to ensure that their customers are aware of the issues involved with emergency calls. But people who *choose* to use a VoIP service surely cannot be completely irresponsible - at some point there has to be some cognizance for ones own domain.
Lets not kill the baby in its cradle just becuase it isnt able to walk upright and feed itself yet.
Availability of VoIP service isnt tied to your location - you can get VoIP service anywhere you can get high speed Internet (cable/DSL/etc).
What you 'couldnt get' (and apparently didnt) is a local number in your city.
You could take your Vonage box to a relative's in a foreign country that had high speed Internet, plug it in, and make calls exactly as you would from where you are now. In fact many families that have relatives abroad are doing exactly that - getting VoIP service, and sending the device to their relatives - since most of them offer 'unlimited' calling to anywhere within the US, and since the device gets a US number in an areacode that you can choose, this saves them from having to pay international long distance to phone those relatives.
None of that has anything to do with the '911' dialing that Vonage offers. As long as you have contacted Vonage and enable it for your service, and you have provided them with the correct address where you use the service, then they should be able to route the call to the correct local PSAP/dispatch center for your location. If you *HAVENT* done that, you should do so - so that in the event your cell is dead, or you need to use your VoIP line to summon help for some other reason, you at least have a chance. For more info see: http://vonage.com/features.php?feature=911
The only issue is that it will most likely go to the *non* emergency number, which may or may not be answered, or may be answered with a lower priority. The reason for this is that, up until now (at least in the US) the PSAP's are connected via the old traditional telco's, and the old traditional telco's, hating competition as they typically do, have prevented the VoIP competitors from being able to route calls via the 911 system.
I was just told by the CSR for my VoIP company that apparently some laws were just passed *requiring* the telco's to provide the ability for the VoIP's to route calls to the 911 system. How long it will take to setup and implement who knows.
Note that your cellphone can also not provide your location to a 911 center (although it should at least go to the correct local answer point without requiring you to do anything special). Even if you have a GPS-enable phone, GPS will *not* work if you are inside a building. Depending on your cell carrier, there may or may not be a facility for passing some location information based on which tower(s) your cell phone is accessing their network through.
I suppose you think that making laws about guns will reduce the availability of guns to criminals?
Guess what - it wont. Criminals (aka idiots with very bad intentions) will always be abe to get guns. What laws go on the books will only affect the availability of guns to law abiding citizens.. You could even say 'by definition'...
The story is about the fact (or chance) that the girl was not (or may not have been) able to summon assistance (eg an ambulance) fast enough so they could come in time to (possibly, I dont know if they died or not) save them.
And no its not entirely the phone companies fault. But it is definitely an issue. In order to be able to quickly report an emergency and summon assistance on a VoIP line, you *HAVE* to think about it ahead of time, enable it, and register what address you want to be given to the dispatcher (since there is no way for a VoIP network to know where you are, which is a fundamental part of the concept of VoIP) - or if your VoIP service doesnt support 911, make sure you and anyone else in your family/home know what number to call in an emergency.
Eg, you have to think about it ahead of time. Far too many people are unable or unwilling to do this. They want until there is an emergency until they care.
If this article does anything at all, it should prompt anyone with a clue that reads it, that uses (or is thinking of using) VoIP service, to 1. check to see if that service offers VoIP, and if it does, find out how to enable it and make sure it has the correct address), or 2. If it doesnt, take the time to at least find out the standard (non-911) numbers for police/fire/ambulance for their location(s), perhaps make stickers/labels for their phones, and make sure anyone living or likely to be visiting (babysitter, relatives, etc) are aware that 911 isnt available, as well as know what numbers that *should* use for an emergency.
I have a VoIP phone service (which doesnt yet support 911 calling), and this article prompted *me* to go make stickers for my phones, and to make a note to call attention to the matter to the appropriate other persons (than myself) who might need to use my phone to report an emergency. One of the phones even had a standard 'in case of emergency dial 911' sticker still on it, from when it was in use on a standard line (I placed my sticker over it)
But you have to enable it, and tell them your location.
Lets face it, there is *NO* way that 'your VoIP phone service will work anywhere you plug it into a broadband Internet connection (including locations other than your home)' and/or 'you are not restricted to the local monopoly-phone carrier for your phone service, or even required to use their existing wiring plant' can ever be compatible with 'the phone service provider always automatically knows your location'. Anyone desiring services with the former featurs, *should* have the sense (or if they don't, it should be in big bold letters when they sign up) to realize that.
How is Google able to access the paid portions of AFP's site without paying?
Simple answer - they cant, and arent. Google only has access to the information that AFP is providing to the public *FOR FREE*. If AFP does not want to provide that information free, they can arrange that by making the proper adjustments to their site.
Heck, if they even want to be snippy, and not provide it *just* to Google, it would take 10 minutes with a robots.txt, or a user-agent check, to block Google from accessing their site. It sounds to me they are more interested in suing than in preventing Google from using them. Or perhaps they dont want to block Google from accessing them, but they want to force Google to pay for doing so.
But by permitting access to the site, they *ARE* provifing it for free. Unless you have to pay and/or log in to view the stories, they *ARE) free - if they arent free, then they should be behind a user/password prompt, at which point Google would no longer be able to access them or even be aware of them.
You analogy is invalid. Google isnt depriving the French news site of its stories.
A better analogy would be that you are an auto rental firm, and Google is telling people that ask that you have the cars they are interested in, and to contact you to rent cars from you. How could this possible be undesirable to you?
In essence they are getting free advertising from Google. Google should apoligize for not charging them, send them a bill, and stop returning hits/links to their news site until the bill is paid.
Steal? What steal? They are helping to direct visitors to the french news site. Presumably, the site wants visitors (if it doesnt, why does it exist?)
People scheme and scheme of ways to get their site into results returned by Google. It boggles the imagination why anyone would sue for getting for free what so many are willing to go to great lengths to get.
It is a victory, even if it is just one tiny battle of many - if IE loses its monopoly grip on the web browser, then that is one little piece of the net that MS no longer controls.
This may not be the victoriorious end(?) of the war, but it is still good news, and it still contributes to that war. The war will not be won all at once, or on any particlar day, but little by little, over a long period of time.
How is this news? Anyone that reads this site that doesnt already know that IE is a seething shitpile of crap, within which a new hole is discovered almost daily, or that knows that and still chooses to use it out of masochism, ignorance, or an inflated sense of immortality, is unreachable, and you could post "IE now confirmed to actively destroy data on your PC, send your financial information to spammers, and forward your list of porn URL's to your SO and your church", and they'd still continue use it.
Slashdot Mirror
The link given is to a login page, not to an article. It would be really nice if the editors caught these and filtered them out before posting.
You must have either missed bootcamp, or failed it and this wasnt properly recorded.
Report to your CO immediately for a refresher course.
Its called 'crond'.. Or for non-repeats 'atd'
/usr/local/bin/wake-me/up
Write a '/usr/local/bin/wake-me-up' script with all the desired calls to music playing apps.
then
at 7:30
Thats becuase the postscript output from acrobat is illegal, and ghostscript (used to convert PS for the printer, most likely to PCL) chokes on it.
Yes, that was the point of the original assertion, that apparently people are (and continue to be) too stupid to avoid buying things advertised via spam. If they werent, spam wouldn't be as profitable as it was.
But I have no opposition to businesses selling quack cures and whatnot - as long as they do not *STEAL* from others to advertise their 'products'.
The proper objection to spam completely disregards that most items advertised using it are illegal, fraudulant, or otherwise 'disreputable'. It doesnt matter if its for penis cream, diet pills, bad credit card deals, ice cream cones, steaks, electronic equipment, religion, eyeglasses, etc, etc, etc ad infinitum. It doesnt matter if its an outright scam, a 'quasi' quack product, or something completely and totally legitimate. The objection is that they are sending email to people who did not ask for it and do not want it, primarily for the senders benefit. I would have no less objection to my local favorite restaurant advertising 50% off specials than I do to the products most currently advertised, unless I had specifically given my email address to them, and specifically requested/authorized them to email me that type of information). In fact if my favorite restaurant did somehow obtain my email address except from me, and send me spam, they would almost immediately cease to be my favorite restaurant - I might visit one last time, to make sure they understood that I was not coming back, and why.
Someone buying discount coupons for a restaurant from a spam are *no less* fools than someone buying hair loss cures or diet pills.
Actually your analogies are flawed.
I would say 'If people didnt pay money to astrologers, they'd slowly cease to exist'
and
'If beleive didnt buy quack cures, companies trying to sell them would go out of business'
And yes, 'If no one (and I mean no one, not 'very few' people) responded to spam, spam would become exist. Spammers exist for one reason, and one reason only, to make money. If *every* spam run they ever sent, resulted in absolutely zero response rate, it would make them *no* money, and it would quickly become unprofitable (of course, thats disregarding the 'spam for hire', where the spammer gets paid by the unwitting business wether or not there is any response)..
Yes, and up until very recently, they werent *able* to, becuase the ILECs (SBC, Verizon, etc) werent allowing them access to the E911 trunks. (Recent rulings by FCC and/or Congress have changed that)
They are working on it. See other posts for more info.
Thank you for providing a first-person account of what most of us already knew, despite the rantings of the few clueless folk.
For those clueless folk (as well as *anyone* considering VoiP service, regardless of what you think your clue level is [or what it actually is[), I provide:
http://www.911voip.org/
Vonage *is* working on proving normal E911.
(also see http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/001716.html )
But note that unlike a standard POTS provider (who knows your location becuase he has monopoly ownership over the wires used to deliver the analog signal to your physical location), a VoIP provider has *NO WAY* of knowing your location unless you tell them (since you can plug in the device anywhere in the world that high speed Internet is available, and there is no way to determine any location which would be useful enough in an emergency from IP address [if you are lucky you can determine the country, but forget anything further, such as an address]).
Why should someone who wants a VoIP line as a way to make inexpensive (or even free) phone calls (and has taken the initiative to ensure that they have some other way of summoning emergency help that they find sufficiently reliable) be required to pay for 911 service on that line that they dont need?
I can see that customers should definately be informed. But given that Vonage tells customers about the activation requirement when they call to sign up, displays in big red letters in their web-control-panel if they havent, and sends emails reminding people if they havent, I think they are doing a pretty good job of it. Why should Vonage be liable if some customers choose to ignore the information given to them and jeopardize their own safety?
Actually various centers for 'Women in Transition' (wifes that have left abusive husbands, etc) do in fact take donation of used cell phones, and make them available. I beleive in most cases they actually put real service on the phone though.
In any case, while these old used cellphones do connect to the (mostly) correct PSAP, they dont provide any location info, so unless the caller can speak and explain their emergency and give their location, not much can be done. Surely they are better than nothing, but they arent perfect either.
One of the big markets for VoIP services if for people who have relatives in a foreign country, to get a VoIP service, and then ship them the device.
They do this to be able to save tons of money on long distance, since their foreign relatives are able to call the US on the 'unlimited' plan, and they are able to call the US number of the VoIP line from the US. I would suspect that in most cases the relatives maintain their normal phone line in their own country to use for their local calls there, which would presumable continue to support whatever emergency number is applicable in that country.
So I would suggest one modification to your suggestion:
The phone service should not work, until *either* you set up 911 service (and give it your location), *OR* you affirmatively decline 911 service, and acknowledge that you will be completely unable to use 911 at all via the VoIP service.
And it is entirely legal to drive a car without insurance. I beleive most states have an option for you to post a bond in leiu of insurance (at least as far as liability is concerned, as far as I know no state requires you to have collision/etc [although if you are financing it, the finance company might as a condition of the loan]. If you want to risk that *your* car will be damaged thats your business.)
And of course, technology never changes. There was never a time when children were taught than in an emergency, they should hitch up the horse and buggy, and drive to the town ten miles away and go and 'fetch the doctor'.
The 911 system has only existed since around the mid 1970's. VoIP service is very new. There are inherent technological limitations on its ability to know the location of a caller, due to one of the features that make it so useful. There are inherent political and economic limitations on its abilities to even be able to route calls to the right place, due to the fact that it is attempting to compete with one of the largest most overbearing monopolies in existence, which hates anything that might stand any chance of successful competing with it.
People didnt used to be aware of 911. They werent aware of it until it became common. As VoIP becomes common, people will become aware of the proper way to report emergencies, and it will have features added to enable police/fire/etc to be contacted conveniently and quickly, and for them to be able to have all the information they need to do their job.
Yes, I agree that VoIP providers should take every step to ensure that their customers are aware of the issues involved with emergency calls. But people who *choose* to use a VoIP service surely cannot be completely irresponsible - at some point there has to be some cognizance for ones own domain.
Lets not kill the baby in its cradle just becuase it isnt able to walk upright and feed itself yet.
Availability of VoIP service isnt tied to your location - you can get VoIP service anywhere you can get high speed Internet (cable/DSL/etc).
What you 'couldnt get' (and apparently didnt) is a local number in your city.
You could take your Vonage box to a relative's in a foreign country that had high speed Internet, plug it in, and make calls exactly as you would from where you are now. In fact many families that have relatives abroad are doing exactly that - getting VoIP service, and sending the device to their relatives - since most of them offer 'unlimited' calling to anywhere within the US, and since the device gets a US number in an areacode that you can choose, this saves them from having to pay international long distance to phone those relatives.
None of that has anything to do with the '911' dialing that Vonage offers. As long as you have contacted Vonage and enable it for your service, and you have provided them with the correct address where you use the service, then they should be able to route the call to the correct local PSAP/dispatch center for your location. If you *HAVENT* done that, you should do so - so that in the event your cell is dead, or you need to use your VoIP line to summon help for some other reason, you at least have a chance. For more info see: http://vonage.com/features.php?feature=911
The only issue is that it will most likely go to the *non* emergency number, which may or may not be answered, or may be answered with a lower priority. The reason for this is that, up until now (at least in the US) the PSAP's are connected via the old traditional telco's, and the old traditional telco's, hating competition as they typically do, have prevented the VoIP competitors from being able to route calls via the 911 system.
I was just told by the CSR for my VoIP company that apparently some laws were just passed *requiring* the telco's to provide the ability for the VoIP's to route calls to the 911 system. How long it will take to setup and implement who knows.
Note that your cellphone can also not provide your location to a 911 center (although it should at least go to the correct local answer point without requiring you to do anything special). Even if you have a GPS-enable phone, GPS will *not* work if you are inside a building. Depending on your cell carrier, there may or may not be a facility for passing some location information based on which tower(s) your cell phone is accessing their network through.
I suppose you think that making laws about guns will reduce the availability of guns to criminals?
Guess what - it wont. Criminals (aka idiots with very bad intentions) will always be abe to get guns. What laws go on the books will only affect the availability of guns to law abiding citizens.. You could even say 'by definition'...
The story is about the fact (or chance) that the girl was not (or may not have been) able to summon assistance (eg an ambulance) fast enough so they could come in time to (possibly, I dont know if they died or not) save them.
And no its not entirely the phone companies fault. But it is definitely an issue. In order to be able to quickly report an emergency and summon assistance on a VoIP line, you *HAVE* to think about it ahead of time, enable it, and register what address you want to be given to the dispatcher (since there is no way for a VoIP network to know where you are, which is a fundamental part of the concept of VoIP) - or if your VoIP service doesnt support 911, make sure you and anyone else in your family/home know what number to call in an emergency.
Eg, you have to think about it ahead of time. Far too many people are unable or unwilling to do this. They want until there is an emergency until they care.
If this article does anything at all, it should prompt anyone with a clue that reads it, that uses (or is thinking of using) VoIP service, to 1. check to see if that service offers VoIP, and if it does, find out how to enable it and make sure it has the correct address), or 2. If it doesnt, take the time to at least find out the standard (non-911) numbers for police/fire/ambulance for their location(s), perhaps make stickers/labels for their phones, and make sure anyone living or likely to be visiting (babysitter, relatives, etc) are aware that 911 isnt available, as well as know what numbers that *should* use for an emergency.
I have a VoIP phone service (which doesnt yet support 911 calling), and this article prompted *me* to go make stickers for my phones, and to make a note to call attention to the matter to the appropriate other persons (than myself) who might need to use my phone to report an emergency. One of the phones even had a standard 'in case of emergency dial 911' sticker still on it, from when it was in use on a standard line (I placed my sticker over it)
But you have to enable it, and tell them your location.
Lets face it, there is *NO* way that 'your VoIP phone service will work anywhere you plug it into a broadband Internet connection (including locations other than your home)' and/or 'you are not restricted to the local monopoly-phone carrier for your phone service, or even required to use their existing wiring plant' can ever be compatible with 'the phone service provider always automatically knows your location'. Anyone desiring services with the former featurs, *should* have the sense (or if they don't, it should be in big bold letters when they sign up) to realize that.
For more info (from Vonage):
http://vonage.com/features.php?feature=911
"(I) laugh at the so-called expertise of Best Buy's GeekSquad"
I wouldnt consider anyone still using Windows to be "Advanced".
How is Google able to access the paid portions of AFP's site without paying?
Simple answer - they cant, and arent. Google only has access to the information that AFP is providing to the public *FOR FREE*. If AFP does not want to provide that information free, they can arrange that by making the proper adjustments to their site.
Heck, if they even want to be snippy, and not provide it *just* to Google, it would take 10 minutes with a robots.txt, or a user-agent check, to block Google from accessing their site. It sounds to me they are more interested in suing than in preventing Google from using them. Or perhaps they dont want to block Google from accessing them, but they want to force Google to pay for doing so.
But by permitting access to the site, they *ARE* provifing it for free. Unless you have to pay and/or log in to view the stories, they *ARE) free - if they arent free, then they should be behind a user/password prompt, at which point Google would no longer be able to access them or even be aware of them.
You analogy is invalid. Google isnt depriving the French news site of its stories.
A better analogy would be that you are an auto rental firm, and Google is telling people that ask that you have the cars they are interested in, and to contact you to rent cars from you. How could this possible be undesirable to you?
In essence they are getting free advertising from Google. Google should apoligize for not charging them, send them a bill, and stop returning hits/links to their news site until the bill is paid.
Steal? What steal? They are helping to direct visitors to the french news site. Presumably, the site wants visitors (if it doesnt, why does it exist?)
People scheme and scheme of ways to get their site into results returned by Google. It boggles the imagination why anyone would sue for getting for free what so many are willing to go to great lengths to get.
It is a victory, even if it is just one tiny battle of many - if IE loses its monopoly grip on the web browser, then that is one little piece of the net that MS no longer controls.
This may not be the victoriorious end(?) of the war, but it is still good news, and it still contributes to that war. The war will not be won all at once, or on any particlar day, but little by little, over a long period of time.
a detailed explanation of why you should vow to never buy anything that implements this. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
How is this news? Anyone that reads this site that doesnt already know that IE is a seething shitpile of crap, within which a new hole is discovered almost daily, or that knows that and still chooses to use it out of masochism, ignorance, or an inflated sense of immortality, is unreachable, and you could post "IE now confirmed to actively destroy data on your PC, send your financial information to spammers, and forward your list of porn URL's to your SO and your church", and they'd still continue use it.
Do you happen to have a link/reference for information on how to use some of the features you refer to?
Yahoo is a lost cause.