I love videogames too. I bench 4000 and I run a marathon every weekend. Often I drive my killer trans-am to the bar and beat on anyone willing to fight. (I'd show you a picture of my trans-am but it's in the shop right now).
s/company/industry/. People who make their livelyhood harassing others do not get a free pass.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. And I don't think I'm really going to change your mind about myself or what I do for a living. But I gaurantee you my company and its employees do not harass people. If one of our agents is harassing someone we fire them.
A lot of times we help people to understand their obligations and get things under control. We also run a consumer credit counseling agency. We work w/debtors and their creditors to work out terms of payment and get them reduced rates, etc. So I'm just trying to say not all collection agencies are bad. It's the same w/everything else.
There are bad cops and good cops, bad restaurants and good restaurants. We are a very heavily regulated industry and yet their are those who still ignore the law. It is unfortunate that you came across people like that but it does not mean businesses like ours should not exist at all.
I'm going to have to do some reading on the whole deal w/the opiate thing.
This may be an exception but I'd like to see what sources and view points are available out there.
I inherintly have some questions as to the efficacy of 'moving' people from crack and crystal meth over to 'safe' drugs.
The private company thing is also still questionable to me. I am very leary of comparisons between Europe and America. (not just on this issue but a few others) I don't think that social action there translates directly to the same result here.
I also have serious reservations about other policies in those nations that I think go hand in hand w/their attitude in regards to drugs. Things like euthenasia. I think that euthanasia is part of a very slippery slope w/some very dark consequences.
I am open to other ideas and you have given me some viewpoints and information that are new to me. Your comparison to prozac is interesting though I must admit that I am uncomfortable somewhat w/American's readiness to medicate every little problem. I do believe there are other alternatives.
Some of these things boil down to some very fundamental core beliefs. My world view if you will. I do think that people are much more than their mere physical composition. I do not believe that our thoughts and feelings are nothing more than chemicals passing between neurons and such.
I did read you entire post above and it has given me much to consider and some ideas to look into. Thanks for taking the time.
It's too bad you couldn't tape some of those cals and track back to the agency calling you. I dream of a situation like that- it is money in the bank.
They are in violation of federal law in so many ways it is not even funny. You could have gotten a decent amount of money out of them. The profanity alone would have done it. Add to that they cannot call you any more once you tell them not to. Plus they can't call you more than once a day, etc.
People have replied to me w/these stories of how they've been harassed by these collection agencies and all I can think is "Why wont this happen to me?"
I think that the reason you see such a response from teh 3rd party collection agencies is because they are so regulated by the FDCPA.
Usually they are much smaller than the big company who says you owe the money and they cannot afford to get sued on a regular basis. I know that we can't.
A lot of times though- they do not 'buy' the debt. Usually there is a contract and as long as the collection agency brings in payments- the client keeps giving them some percentage of that money (there are lots of other ways it works out as well- but that is a pretty common method)
As quickly as numbers are recycled nowadays I can see how this could be a recurrent problem.
You should read up on the FDCPA. (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)
There are federal laws that regulate collections. Most states also have even stricter regulations in place for the people who live in that state.
The message did not identify the call as coming from a collection agency because it is illegal to do so. Someone may be in your home and if they hear the message "Hey we're a collection agency calling you" the federal govt. call that harassment. So it is usually the legally safe, "Pleas call 1-800-### in regards to an important business matter. This is not a sales call." or something like that.
By law a collection agency can't call a debtor if they ask not to be called (let alone someone who isn't even a debtor)
You could sue these people and they probably would settle because they would have no chance in court.
Like any business there are unscrupulous people out there. But the entire industry is not that way. At my company we go to extreme lengths to avoid situations like yours.
As long as there are 'scum' consumers not paying their bills there will be a need for 'scum' collection agencies to try and recoup those losses for their clients.
Sprint PCS has so many accounts (and so many that are not being paid) that they are totally jacked up on how to handle it all.
I get a file from them to run on my dialer every day of over 900,000 accounts that are bad. Usually 9 or 10 thousand of those accounts have no good phone number on them. (We wont call the cell phone)
If I ever decide I want to get a cell phone but I don't want to be held accountable for the bill - I will be going w/them.
Yeah- they are running too fast and you are getting kicked into the outbound queue.
On our dialer we can see real time how many callers are going into the queue and how many calls are abandoned while in queue. We try to keep that number as low as possible to keep our call penetration up.
In another post above regarding Telezapper there is a good link to a site where you can download the sit tone for a disconnected number. The guy who has the link put it on his answering machine and it looks like it was pretty effective in cutting down on telemarketing calls.
So simple- so obvious and I never thought of it before. I'm going to set up my answering machine that way tonight.
An auto-dialer or probably more accurately a predictive dialer does not just dial a sequence of possible phone numbers. (though you could do so with one)
They are actually really neat pieces of equipment with an unusually high geek factor if you ask me.
Anyways what they do is allow call centers to increase productivity enourmously. Say you've got 10 agents sitting in their little cubes and you want them to call 10,000 phone numbers. If they sat their punching buttons on phones all day you'd never get it done.
So you load those 10,000 numbers into a dialer. It can dial the numbers flawlessly and quickly. Then - to make it even quicker, you set parameters for the dialer to pass the call to an agent. Say- a human voice picking up (dialers can tell the difference between people and answering machines). Now my agents never even see the bad numbers, people not home etc.
The dialer knows that there will be calls like this so for the 10 people it is making 20 or 30 calls at a time. A dialer coordinator monitors the situation and can slow down or speed up the dialer accordingly.
Any telemarketing company w/any amount of technology is using a dialer. It is really useful in other businesses where you make lots of calls as well - say collections.
And they do lots more but that's the quick and dirty.
Let me start w/a disclaimer. I am not a telemarketer. I do run a predictive dialer but we are using it to call people who owe us money. If they pay their bills I do not bother them. If you don't do business w/my company, or keep your account current you will never hear from me.
The TeleZapper is a neat idea- I wish I would have thought of it. I would think it is helpful in limiting telemarketers but probably not a 100% solution. There are a couple reasons.
The first is that when the TeleZapper sends its little chunk of a SIT tone to the dialer it means that that dialer will mark your number as out of service. That dialer will most likely not call you again during that day. (This may not be true though depending on how the dialer is set up.) Whether or not you get updated in that company database depends on whether or not that company even has a database. And when do they update the dialer's results.
I do jobs for clients where there is never any storage of bad results from my dialer. We handle way too much volume to bother with it.
If they do keep a database to cull out bad results then this company may stop calling you altogether. But if you are on other lists w/other companies then they may keep calling. You should get the picture.
The second main reason it cannot stop all telemarketers is that it does not work on all dialers. (specifically a Mosaix dialer like the one that I run) The telezapper does not send out the whole SIT tone, just the first part. For some dialers this is enough. (Davox is one I've been told) But our dialer will just hang in there since the whole tone doesn't come across the line. (and remember it doesn't send the tone until you or your answering machine pick up the line.-- your phone still rings- you pick it up and hear the tone and if it is effective noone is there. It's just you going hello? hello?)
It's cheap and I've considered buying one. I think any reduction in telemarketing calls is pretty good. So I'm not trying to slam the product but the ads are somewhat optimistic in what the product can do (can't blame 'em there)
but you haven't really answered the points raised by the (admittedly hysterical) poster
I think I hit at least one of them (people are only harmed by drugs because current laws force them to buy improperly manufactured drugs) - I addressed others in replies to other posts.
There really isn't much value in trying to answer any of his questions directly as he is not anywhere close to engaging in dialogue. This is one of those topics where a lot of people are so marginalized in their thought process that they can't discuss it any more.
You're completely right- this is about opinions and ideas. Interestingly enough I'm not a real political person. I don't expend a lot of energy on the politics of drugs. I spend a lot of energy trying to help people who have decided that they want to try and get their lives together and really live rather than living to get high.
It is my personal opinion that my efforts have a much greater impact on the world in this way- as opposed to lobbying and petitioning, etc.
But what never ceases to amaze me is the lack of tolerance here for different ideas. I am the bigot for my opinion? It's just so ironic and these people do not even see it.
If you want to try and have pot legalised- it doesn't bother me. If it gets on a ballot I'll vote my conscience and see what happens. That's how it works here. (now I'm wandering - to pull it back around) There are good replies to his arguments- I've thrown a few out there in reply to his post and some of the others. And that's just what I can think of. I'm not real involved in this whole argument so I'm not as rehearsed in the points as is the case w/those who slammed me. I'm sure there are others who are smarter than me who could argue the other side much better. My ability to do so does not determine the validity of the position.
The problem with cigarettes has always been that the tobacco companies lied to consumers
This has been the most effective tool of use lately. But you watch- as time passes and people continue to knowingly smoke and die as a result of that- their will be those who will continue to sue and win settlements against tobacco companies. Their product directly causes death in the consumers. Their product places people into the health care system (and increase the load on that system) directly. There will always be those looking to recoup losses.
I am using conjecture as well and only time will tell. But I have a feeling that the legal morass of selling drugs would be daunting to any potential producer. At this point it is speculation and only great changes in current laws will move into the realm of something that can be proven.
I do a lot of GUI work as our primary concern is that training time. We have lots of low pay data entry people that come and go. (that's a whole other can of worms) Our clients also change regularly and each one brings its own system with it. Even if our people didn't leave we would still be constantly retraining for new clients. (This is to some extent unavoidable but we try to minimize the impact)
I have generic templates and then tweak them to work for each client.
I stil need to do a lot of checking on the back side as you describe- and some things I just cannot circumvent.
A well designed GUI can be quick and most importantly users can use on effectively with very little training.
So I just lean that way since it works so well for us so often. It is very easy to get into habits. It is good to hear other ways of doing something so that one does not get too entrenched in a single approach.
You need to be on the other end of these kinds of systems.
Learning curve- large. If you've got lots of turnover this can be a killer.
Data Entry Errors- large. The more freedom the user has- the more ways they will mess it up.
This woman (mentioned in another reply) is obviously an expert (and here we are assuming that she not only did it quickly but also correctly- you can't know that she didn't mess up address, phone, name, etc.) Many systems need to be built for non-experts. Or often it is way to critical that the user not even have the opportunity to get the input wrong.
Your point is good and proves that every situation needs its own optimum solution.
Once again- why are you people so intolerant? Why is someone who has a different opinion ignorant or stupid? I just don't get it.
Second, there's fetal alcohol syndrome as well as myriad other ways that people can mess up their children. You still don't have the right to decide what substances they can ingest or how they entertain themselves.
Wrong.
(This is what I mean. I'm not ignorant or stupid. I just don't agree with you- could we find a way to accept that?)
I think it should be illegal to knowingly consume alcohol while pregnant. Do you know what FAS does to children? Do you know what the costs to society are? Way too high in my opinion. I would rather not bear them and I think we should try to do something to stop these crimes of abusive mothers against their children.
We do have the right to dictate limits on what people ingest and how they entertain themselves. If Jeffrey Dahmer were alive you could give him a call and ask him about it.
I'm hitting different points in different replies. But this response was first and proves so clearly my frustration at times w/this community.
I don't agree with you. So that means (these are your words) I am stupid, don't have a clue, I'm narrow minded and a bigot (a word so over used now it really doesn't have much meaning any more)
You've never met me. You read a few lines of text I type up and now you can make judgements like that about me. I just don't understand it.
You claim to be for freedom yet you don't want anyone to have that freedom but the people who agree with you.
You call me narrow minded but you can't help but completely blow up when someone mentions a couple things that you don't like to hear.
The irony abounds.
On/. I often don't know if something I say will get modded up or down. But there are certain things that I know will always get modded down because they are against the 'party line'. Don't doubt that there is such a thing.
Read through this thread and see how many reacted to my post just like you. Exact same examples/arguments. They should be tagged w/some indicator that this is the bleating of sheep not the work of individual minds.
Are some of our laws flawed? Sure.
Is some of our government corrupt? Sure.
But I would propose that a democracy is the best form of government humans have come up with to date. These laws and actions are the product of that kind of government. Therefore I place some value in them. I'd rather think over the alternatives and consider all options.
Legalizing all drugs for all people is not a viable solution. It is that simple.
Your argument (this is the one I'll reply to here- others I've done in replies to other posts) that people are harmed by drugs because they are getting inferior drugs is just not true.
I don't care how well you manufacture some chemicals- they are harmful to the human body. And I don't just mean harmful in a small way. They will rather rapidly kill a person that uses them habitually.
This is a physical fact that you cannot screme obscenitys at and hope it goes away.
I am not a stupid, unthinking, narrow minded bigot without a clue. I am a force for positive change in my community. Are you? Really- you should think it over.
But if you see this then I think that you might also agree that there are varying degrees of harm inherint in certain activities.
At the same time some things are necessary and one must weigh the gain against the potential loss.
I don't think the cost/damage caused by tobacco and alcohol are taken seriously enough. I am astounded every time a see an adult w/a presumably functioning mind smoking. I guess they think chemo is going to be a good time.
I don't ride a motorcycle because my father nearly died on his. He's had health problems and had numerous surgeries over the last 20 years that relate directly to that accident. The other driver was completely at fault but that doesn't restore his ability to walk properly.
Would I ban bikes? I don't know.
I'm not saying the whole thing is not complicated. Trying to weigh society's cost vs. personal freedom. But too many here don't think about it that way. It is all 'personal freedom at any cost!'-- 'You can't tell me what to do!'.
The problem is noone lives and acts in a vacuum. Other's choices affect me directly so I do have some say.
And if anyone thinks this through they will have to agree that there is tension between the two and that some give and take must take place.
A good example is murder. Some people feel like they should be able to kill others if they feel like it. Most people feel that this freedom for an individual carries too high a cost over onto others. So we take that freedom away. Now that the gates are open- the only question remaining is where do we draw the line?
My contention is that too many here falsely think that making all illegal drugs legal will make everything better.
I've had a ton of responses to my post and I'm going to reply to various items, at different places.
I have thought about it. How come my not agreeing w/you means I haven't thought about it? That I'm stupid or gullible or in some other way deficient? This intolerance for other opinions is not as strong anywhere as it is in the "free speech- free ideas" community.
It is interesting how so many of the responses are almost identical. That's when you know you are not necessarily dealing w/something that's been thought out by the individual but rather the rhetoric of some position or party. But that's just a side thing.
Your post is one of the more rational- (by rational I don't mean you agree w/me more but that it's just not a knee jerk reaction- you use facts, a little less insulting/emotional rhetoric). My question to you first is--
How would legalizing some drugs help? You say that some drugs are harmful to the user and will wreck their brain/kill them. (Maybe you think that's o.k. Then we are at a bit of an impasse as we've reached what is a pretty fundamental difference of opinion.) But if some drugs are still illegal you still have the war on drugs.
A common theme to all the replys is- Drugs wont be expensive when they are manufactured by large companies and their wont be dangerous meth labs in your community any more.
This must be considered a pretty strong argument because just about everyone here used it. This surprises me because the problems with this idea are so obvious. (Not to mention how completely contradictory this is to so many other championed 'ideas' around here)
What large company is going to manufacture and retail a product that has already been proven to be lethal to the consumer? Phillip-Morris? Maybe- they've got lots of action fighting class action suits. It would be economic suicide.
This is a pipe dream (sorry - not trying to be funny) that this kind of thing would take place. Lets say that the big companies only produce the harmless narcotics. (I'm going to look more into this I don't buy it completely- the physical damage may be minimal but there are other kinds of harm that it causes) There will still be a heavy cost to society as a whole. You wont save money you'll just shift the allocation to different places.
There are many employers who will not want their employees working while impaired. If for no other reason- liability. There will be the cost of trying to make sure that doesn't happen. Then there will be the time lost in productivity- the sick time, etc.
Someone may be able to function while actively using some drugs but there is no way they can keep that up for an extended period of time. I would also have questions in regard to the quality of what they produce. The only high/inebreated person who thinks that they are 'good to go' is that person. Sober people around them can see that they are not functioning in a normal manner.
Just one quick last note- I've got some other replys to make and I can't do this all day. You state, "Do drugs destroy lives. Certainly. However, this is mostly a result of legal and economic consequences fo the drug war."
I just don't buy it. I meet people all the time in work I do at a homeless shelter who have had their lives ruined and it all revolves around drug use. Many of them have never been arrested or had trouble with the law. Many don't like what drugs do to them. But they are hooked and they can't quit. They cannot maintain healthy interpersonal relationships w/family and loved ones, they cannot hold onto jobs or housing.
They hit rock bottom. Live at the shelter for a while. Clean up. Get a job- get a place- get some friends- get high- end up back at the shelter. I see some of these same guys over and over.
I'm not defending the drug war as THE solution. But I'm not just tossing it out the window because it seems unwinnable. I don't know that there is any kind of society/govt. imposed kind of solution that exists. But I do believe that humans have a moral obligation to try and stop evil and promote good. Just sitting there and watching is not acceptable to me.
This is a popular theory in the thread- DEA wanting to use this for more money but I fail to see the connection.
I think that view is much too cynical and simplistic.
But I don't hold the 'drug war' in such disdain as many here. I deal w/people whos lives have been devastated by drugs on a regular basis. I do not see that legalization would be a panacea of good for all involved.
And once again- you cannot just 'legalize' drugs and make problems go away. It's just not that simple.
Would everyone here like to legalize meth labs too? How about legalizing one in the house next door or the apartment below yours?
What's an explosion or two in your neighborhood?
Oh- maybe we shouldn't legalize everything.
Not too mention the utter silliness of the idea that legalizing drugs would drop prices and eliminate drug related crime. It just wouldn't happen. People will charge what the market will bear and addicts will bear anything to get a fix. Don't think so. In N.Y. City cigarettes now cost 7.50 a pack and people still buy them.
And since addicts can't hold jobs and drugs will never be free- they will always be stealing, mugging, etc. to feed their habit. Not to mention my cost for health care for the drug babies. And that wont stop after they are out of Pediatric ICU. They are damaged. They will grow up and become a burden on society- because their parents made poor life choices. The whole thing is sickening.
Well I'm getting all riled up and I know where this discussion is headed. Flame away-- it's just my opinion and I'm just stubborn enough to share it once in a while.
It's funny you mention that because I think the whole Watergate thing was a set up and that they weren't caught by anything remotely like 'luck'.
I was specifically thinking about Kennedy and the moon landing etc.
The government can hide things- and they really need to quite a bit more often than many will admit around here.
What grates at times is that so many here really cannot see both sides of the coin. They view these issues with a reflex rather than their minds. There are already tons of posts describing the article as propaganda to take away privacy and generate funds for the evil drug war.
No thought is given that informed, reasonable citizens may not agree. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant- has bought into the lies- or has their own agenda.
I wish some would think that there is the same chance of someone being intelligent, informed, reasonable and holding a different opinion as the chance of life elsewhere in the universe. I'm dead serious.
Anyways that whole last part is not a reply to the watergate thing just a little rant I launched on after I was done replying- your response has a reasonable tone.
The so-called Santacruz computer was never returned to Colombian authorities, and the DEA's report about it is highly classified. But Business 2.0 has ferreted out many of its details.
It must not have been too highly classified. It it was and some internet magazine can figure it out then you have to wonder if this data mining system was overkill. They say it was used to find moles and then the undercover agents would be assasinated. Personally I wouldn't want to be an agent for some agency that can't keep this kind of stuff under wraps.
There are times when keeping things secret is a good thing. Our government seems incapable of doing so most of the time. (on a side note this is why I don't buy into most conspiracy theories-- the govt. is way too inefficient at keeping things quiet)
And by this I mean- see if you can do your learning at work. I don't know what you do so I'm not sure how practical this is for you. But I can totally relate to your situation.
I've got 2 toddlers, I don't spend enough time w/them and my wife as it is and I don't have spare cash or time for school.
So what I do when I want to put some decent time in learning something I try to find a way to make it a function of my job.
I'm a programmer- when I want to learn something new I start working on a way to make it fit into the company's needs. Now that is kind of an easy thing to do sometimes I'll admit. Sometimes I have to be creative.
If you work for a company w/better employee policies than mine they may pay for you take classes on the clock. That, I would think, would be ideal.
But say these ideas are just way out there- you're a night security guy. Well if you are allowed to read while you are gaurding whatever- the book ideas come in handy.
I've found that when there is little leeway in my personal life I just need to look hard at ways to create that leeway on the job. (I justify my time on slashdot when I find out about current computing issues that affect the company- happens more often than you would think- and my boss is cool w/it)
Slashdot Mirror
You are so right!
I love videogames too. I bench 4000 and I run a marathon every weekend. Often I drive my killer trans-am to the bar and beat on anyone willing to fight. (I'd show you a picture of my trans-am but it's in the shop right now).
.
between a midshipmen and an airmen?
The airmen has been promoted twice.
It is hard to find a group of people as stupid and at the same time as arrogant as midshipmen and ensigns.
.
booth-babes has been sitting all bored after E3
Yeah- hot women have absolutely nothing to do unless there's some kind of geek convention going on.
s/company/industry/. People who make their livelyhood harassing others do not get a free pass.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. And I don't think I'm really going to change your mind about myself or what I do for a living. But I gaurantee you my company and its employees do not harass people. If one of our agents is harassing someone we fire them.
A lot of times we help people to understand their obligations and get things under control. We also run a consumer credit counseling agency. We work w/debtors and their creditors to work out terms of payment and get them reduced rates, etc. So I'm just trying to say not all collection agencies are bad. It's the same w/everything else.
There are bad cops and good cops, bad restaurants and good restaurants. We are a very heavily regulated industry and yet their are those who still ignore the law. It is unfortunate that you came across people like that but it does not mean businesses like ours should not exist at all.
I'm going to have to do some reading on the whole deal w/the opiate thing.
This may be an exception but I'd like to see what sources and view points are available out there.
I inherintly have some questions as to the efficacy of 'moving' people from crack and crystal meth over to 'safe' drugs.
The private company thing is also still questionable to me. I am very leary of comparisons between Europe and America. (not just on this issue but a few others) I don't think that social action there translates directly to the same result here.
I also have serious reservations about other policies in those nations that I think go hand in hand w/their attitude in regards to drugs. Things like euthenasia. I think that euthanasia is part of a very slippery slope w/some very dark consequences.
I am open to other ideas and you have given me some viewpoints and information that are new to me. Your comparison to prozac is interesting though I must admit that I am uncomfortable somewhat w/American's readiness to medicate every little problem. I do believe there are other alternatives.
Some of these things boil down to some very fundamental core beliefs. My world view if you will. I do think that people are much more than their mere physical composition. I do not believe that our thoughts and feelings are nothing more than chemicals passing between neurons and such.
I did read you entire post above and it has given me much to consider and some ideas to look into. Thanks for taking the time.
.
It's too bad you couldn't tape some of those cals and track back to the agency calling you. I dream of a situation like that- it is money in the bank.
They are in violation of federal law in so many ways it is not even funny. You could have gotten a decent amount of money out of them. The profanity alone would have done it. Add to that they cannot call you any more once you tell them not to. Plus they can't call you more than once a day, etc.
People have replied to me w/these stories of how they've been harassed by these collection agencies and all I can think is "Why wont this happen to me?"
I could use some extra money right now.
.
I think that the reason you see such a response from teh 3rd party collection agencies is because they are so regulated by the FDCPA.
Usually they are much smaller than the big company who says you owe the money and they cannot afford to get sued on a regular basis. I know that we can't.
A lot of times though- they do not 'buy' the debt. Usually there is a contract and as long as the collection agency brings in payments- the client keeps giving them some percentage of that money (there are lots of other ways it works out as well- but that is a pretty common method)
As quickly as numbers are recycled nowadays I can see how this could be a recurrent problem.
.
You should read up on the FDCPA. (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)
There are federal laws that regulate collections. Most states also have even stricter regulations in place for the people who live in that state.
The message did not identify the call as coming from a collection agency because it is illegal to do so. Someone may be in your home and if they hear the message "Hey we're a collection agency calling you" the federal govt. call that harassment. So it is usually the legally safe, "Pleas call 1-800-### in regards to an important business matter. This is not a sales call." or something like that.
By law a collection agency can't call a debtor if they ask not to be called (let alone someone who isn't even a debtor)
You could sue these people and they probably would settle because they would have no chance in court.
Like any business there are unscrupulous people out there. But the entire industry is not that way. At my company we go to extreme lengths to avoid situations like yours.
As long as there are 'scum' consumers not paying their bills there will be a need for 'scum' collection agencies to try and recoup those losses for their clients.
Sorry you had a bad experience w/a bad company.
.
This is kind of funny.
Sprint PCS has so many accounts (and so many that are not being paid) that they are totally jacked up on how to handle it all.
I get a file from them to run on my dialer every day of over 900,000 accounts that are bad. Usually 9 or 10 thousand of those accounts have no good phone number on them. (We wont call the cell phone)
If I ever decide I want to get a cell phone but I don't want to be held accountable for the bill - I will be going w/them.
.
Yeah- they are running too fast and you are getting kicked into the outbound queue.
On our dialer we can see real time how many callers are going into the queue and how many calls are abandoned while in queue. We try to keep that number as low as possible to keep our call penetration up.
In another post above regarding Telezapper there is a good link to a site where you can download the sit tone for a disconnected number. The guy who has the link put it on his answering machine and it looks like it was pretty effective in cutting down on telemarketing calls.
So simple- so obvious and I never thought of it before. I'm going to set up my answering machine that way tonight.
.
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of dialers do not currently sort numbers beyond the area code.
Not that it couldn't be changed and maybe some do look at the exchange- but I doubt it.
.
An auto-dialer or probably more accurately a predictive dialer does not just dial a sequence of possible phone numbers. (though you could do so with one)
They are actually really neat pieces of equipment with an unusually high geek factor if you ask me.
Anyways what they do is allow call centers to increase productivity enourmously. Say you've got 10 agents sitting in their little cubes and you want them to call 10,000 phone numbers. If they sat their punching buttons on phones all day you'd never get it done.
So you load those 10,000 numbers into a dialer. It can dial the numbers flawlessly and quickly. Then - to make it even quicker, you set parameters for the dialer to pass the call to an agent. Say- a human voice picking up (dialers can tell the difference between people and answering machines). Now my agents never even see the bad numbers, people not home etc.
The dialer knows that there will be calls like this so for the 10 people it is making 20 or 30 calls at a time. A dialer coordinator monitors the situation and can slow down or speed up the dialer accordingly.
Any telemarketing company w/any amount of technology is using a dialer. It is really useful in other businesses where you make lots of calls as well - say collections.
And they do lots more but that's the quick and dirty.
.
Let me start w/a disclaimer. I am not a telemarketer. I do run a predictive dialer but we are using it to call people who owe us money. If they pay their bills I do not bother them. If you don't do business w/my company, or keep your account current you will never hear from me.
The TeleZapper is a neat idea- I wish I would have thought of it. I would think it is helpful in limiting telemarketers but probably not a 100% solution. There are a couple reasons.
The first is that when the TeleZapper sends its little chunk of a SIT tone to the dialer it means that that dialer will mark your number as out of service. That dialer will most likely not call you again during that day. (This may not be true though depending on how the dialer is set up.) Whether or not you get updated in that company database depends on whether or not that company even has a database. And when do they update the dialer's results.
I do jobs for clients where there is never any storage of bad results from my dialer. We handle way too much volume to bother with it.
If they do keep a database to cull out bad results then this company may stop calling you altogether. But if you are on other lists w/other companies then they may keep calling. You should get the picture.
The second main reason it cannot stop all telemarketers is that it does not work on all dialers. (specifically a Mosaix dialer like the one that I run) The telezapper does not send out the whole SIT tone, just the first part. For some dialers this is enough. (Davox is one I've been told) But our dialer will just hang in there since the whole tone doesn't come across the line. (and remember it doesn't send the tone until you or your answering machine pick up the line.-- your phone still rings- you pick it up and hear the tone and if it is effective noone is there. It's just you going hello? hello?)
It's cheap and I've considered buying one. I think any reduction in telemarketing calls is pretty good. So I'm not trying to slam the product but the ads are somewhat optimistic in what the product can do (can't blame 'em there)
.
but you haven't really answered the points raised by the (admittedly hysterical) poster
I think I hit at least one of them (people are only harmed by drugs because current laws force them to buy improperly manufactured drugs) - I addressed others in replies to other posts.
There really isn't much value in trying to answer any of his questions directly as he is not anywhere close to engaging in dialogue. This is one of those topics where a lot of people are so marginalized in their thought process that they can't discuss it any more.
You're completely right- this is about opinions and ideas. Interestingly enough I'm not a real political person. I don't expend a lot of energy on the politics of drugs. I spend a lot of energy trying to help people who have decided that they want to try and get their lives together and really live rather than living to get high.
It is my personal opinion that my efforts have a much greater impact on the world in this way- as opposed to lobbying and petitioning, etc.
But what never ceases to amaze me is the lack of tolerance here for different ideas. I am the bigot for my opinion? It's just so ironic and these people do not even see it.
If you want to try and have pot legalised- it doesn't bother me. If it gets on a ballot I'll vote my conscience and see what happens. That's how it works here. (now I'm wandering - to pull it back around) There are good replies to his arguments- I've thrown a few out there in reply to his post and some of the others. And that's just what I can think of. I'm not real involved in this whole argument so I'm not as rehearsed in the points as is the case w/those who slammed me. I'm sure there are others who are smarter than me who could argue the other side much better. My ability to do so does not determine the validity of the position.
Thanks for your comments.
The problem with cigarettes has always been that the tobacco companies lied to consumers
This has been the most effective tool of use lately. But you watch- as time passes and people continue to knowingly smoke and die as a result of that- their will be those who will continue to sue and win settlements against tobacco companies. Their product directly causes death in the consumers. Their product places people into the health care system (and increase the load on that system) directly. There will always be those looking to recoup losses.
I am using conjecture as well and only time will tell. But I have a feeling that the legal morass of selling drugs would be daunting to any potential producer. At this point it is speculation and only great changes in current laws will move into the realm of something that can be proven.
Good thoughts.
I do a lot of GUI work as our primary concern is that training time. We have lots of low pay data entry people that come and go. (that's a whole other can of worms) Our clients also change regularly and each one brings its own system with it. Even if our people didn't leave we would still be constantly retraining for new clients. (This is to some extent unavoidable but we try to minimize the impact)
I have generic templates and then tweak them to work for each client.
I stil need to do a lot of checking on the back side as you describe- and some things I just cannot circumvent.
A well designed GUI can be quick and most importantly users can use on effectively with very little training.
So I just lean that way since it works so well for us so often. It is very easy to get into habits. It is good to hear other ways of doing something so that one does not get too entrenched in a single approach.
thanks.
.
You need to be on the other end of these kinds of systems.
Learning curve- large. If you've got lots of turnover this can be a killer.
Data Entry Errors- large. The more freedom the user has- the more ways they will mess it up.
This woman (mentioned in another reply) is obviously an expert (and here we are assuming that she not only did it quickly but also correctly- you can't know that she didn't mess up address, phone, name, etc.) Many systems need to be built for non-experts. Or often it is way to critical that the user not even have the opportunity to get the input wrong.
Your point is good and proves that every situation needs its own optimum solution.
.
Oh- lot's of people pointed out my 'ignorance'.
Once again- why are you people so intolerant? Why is someone who has a different opinion ignorant or stupid? I just don't get it.
Second, there's fetal alcohol syndrome as well as myriad other ways that people can mess up their children. You still don't have the right to decide what substances they can ingest or how they entertain themselves.
Wrong.
(This is what I mean. I'm not ignorant or stupid. I just don't agree with you- could we find a way to accept that?)
I think it should be illegal to knowingly consume alcohol while pregnant. Do you know what FAS does to children? Do you know what the costs to society are? Way too high in my opinion. I would rather not bear them and I think we should try to do something to stop these crimes of abusive mothers against their children.
We do have the right to dictate limits on what people ingest and how they entertain themselves. If Jeffrey Dahmer were alive you could give him a call and ask him about it.
I'm hitting different points in different replies. But this response was first and proves so clearly my frustration at times w/this community.
/. I often don't know if something I say will get modded up or down. But there are certain things that I know will always get modded down because they are against the 'party line'. Don't doubt that there is such a thing.
I don't agree with you. So that means (these are your words) I am stupid, don't have a clue, I'm narrow minded and a bigot (a word so over used now it really doesn't have much meaning any more)
You've never met me. You read a few lines of text I type up and now you can make judgements like that about me. I just don't understand it.
You claim to be for freedom yet you don't want anyone to have that freedom but the people who agree with you.
You call me narrow minded but you can't help but completely blow up when someone mentions a couple things that you don't like to hear.
The irony abounds.
On
Read through this thread and see how many reacted to my post just like you. Exact same examples/arguments. They should be tagged w/some indicator that this is the bleating of sheep not the work of individual minds.
Are some of our laws flawed? Sure.
Is some of our government corrupt? Sure.
But I would propose that a democracy is the best form of government humans have come up with to date. These laws and actions are the product of that kind of government. Therefore I place some value in them. I'd rather think over the alternatives and consider all options.
Legalizing all drugs for all people is not a viable solution. It is that simple.
Your argument (this is the one I'll reply to here- others I've done in replies to other posts) that people are harmed by drugs because they are getting inferior drugs is just not true.
I don't care how well you manufacture some chemicals- they are harmful to the human body. And I don't just mean harmful in a small way. They will rather rapidly kill a person that uses them habitually.
This is a physical fact that you cannot screme obscenitys at and hope it goes away.
I am not a stupid, unthinking, narrow minded bigot without a clue. I am a force for positive change in my community. Are you? Really- you should think it over.
.
I agree w/you.
But if you see this then I think that you might also agree that there are varying degrees of harm inherint in certain activities.
At the same time some things are necessary and one must weigh the gain against the potential loss.
I don't think the cost/damage caused by tobacco and alcohol are taken seriously enough. I am astounded every time a see an adult w/a presumably functioning mind smoking. I guess they think chemo is going to be a good time.
I don't ride a motorcycle because my father nearly died on his. He's had health problems and had numerous surgeries over the last 20 years that relate directly to that accident. The other driver was completely at fault but that doesn't restore his ability to walk properly.
Would I ban bikes? I don't know.
I'm not saying the whole thing is not complicated. Trying to weigh society's cost vs. personal freedom. But too many here don't think about it that way. It is all 'personal freedom at any cost!'-- 'You can't tell me what to do!'.
The problem is noone lives and acts in a vacuum. Other's choices affect me directly so I do have some say.
And if anyone thinks this through they will have to agree that there is tension between the two and that some give and take must take place.
A good example is murder. Some people feel like they should be able to kill others if they feel like it. Most people feel that this freedom for an individual carries too high a cost over onto others. So we take that freedom away. Now that the gates are open- the only question remaining is where do we draw the line?
My contention is that too many here falsely think that making all illegal drugs legal will make everything better.
I do not believe that they are correct.
.
I've had a ton of responses to my post and I'm going to reply to various items, at different places.
I have thought about it. How come my not agreeing w/you means I haven't thought about it? That I'm stupid or gullible or in some other way deficient? This intolerance for other opinions is not as strong anywhere as it is in the "free speech- free ideas" community.
It is interesting how so many of the responses are almost identical. That's when you know you are not necessarily dealing w/something that's been thought out by the individual but rather the rhetoric of some position or party. But that's just a side thing.
Your post is one of the more rational- (by rational I don't mean you agree w/me more but that it's just not a knee jerk reaction- you use facts, a little less insulting/emotional rhetoric). My question to you first is--
How would legalizing some drugs help? You say that some drugs are harmful to the user and will wreck their brain/kill them. (Maybe you think that's o.k. Then we are at a bit of an impasse as we've reached what is a pretty fundamental difference of opinion.) But if some drugs are still illegal you still have the war on drugs.
A common theme to all the replys is- Drugs wont be expensive when they are manufactured by large companies and their wont be dangerous meth labs in your community any more.
This must be considered a pretty strong argument because just about everyone here used it. This surprises me because the problems with this idea are so obvious. (Not to mention how completely contradictory this is to so many other championed 'ideas' around here)
What large company is going to manufacture and retail a product that has already been proven to be lethal to the consumer? Phillip-Morris? Maybe- they've got lots of action fighting class action suits. It would be economic suicide.
This is a pipe dream (sorry - not trying to be funny) that this kind of thing would take place. Lets say that the big companies only produce the harmless narcotics. (I'm going to look more into this I don't buy it completely- the physical damage may be minimal but there are other kinds of harm that it causes) There will still be a heavy cost to society as a whole. You wont save money you'll just shift the allocation to different places.
There are many employers who will not want their employees working while impaired. If for no other reason- liability. There will be the cost of trying to make sure that doesn't happen. Then there will be the time lost in productivity- the sick time, etc.
Someone may be able to function while actively using some drugs but there is no way they can keep that up for an extended period of time. I would also have questions in regard to the quality of what they produce. The only high/inebreated person who thinks that they are 'good to go' is that person. Sober people around them can see that they are not functioning in a normal manner.
Just one quick last note- I've got some other replys to make and I can't do this all day. You state, "Do drugs destroy lives. Certainly. However, this is mostly a result of legal and economic consequences fo the drug war."
I just don't buy it. I meet people all the time in work I do at a homeless shelter who have had their lives ruined and it all revolves around drug use. Many of them have never been arrested or had trouble with the law. Many don't like what drugs do to them. But they are hooked and they can't quit. They cannot maintain healthy interpersonal relationships w/family and loved ones, they cannot hold onto jobs or housing.
They hit rock bottom. Live at the shelter for a while. Clean up. Get a job- get a place- get some friends- get high- end up back at the shelter. I see some of these same guys over and over.
I'm not defending the drug war as THE solution. But I'm not just tossing it out the window because it seems unwinnable. I don't know that there is any kind of society/govt. imposed kind of solution that exists. But I do believe that humans have a moral obligation to try and stop evil and promote good. Just sitting there and watching is not acceptable to me.
.
This is a popular theory in the thread- DEA wanting to use this for more money but I fail to see the connection.
I think that view is much too cynical and simplistic.
But I don't hold the 'drug war' in such disdain as many here. I deal w/people whos lives have been devastated by drugs on a regular basis. I do not see that legalization would be a panacea of good for all involved.
And once again- you cannot just 'legalize' drugs and make problems go away. It's just not that simple.
Would everyone here like to legalize meth labs too? How about legalizing one in the house next door or the apartment below yours?
What's an explosion or two in your neighborhood?
Oh- maybe we shouldn't legalize everything.
Not too mention the utter silliness of the idea that legalizing drugs would drop prices and eliminate drug related crime. It just wouldn't happen. People will charge what the market will bear and addicts will bear anything to get a fix. Don't think so. In N.Y. City cigarettes now cost 7.50 a pack and people still buy them.
And since addicts can't hold jobs and drugs will never be free- they will always be stealing, mugging, etc. to feed their habit. Not to mention my cost for health care for the drug babies. And that wont stop after they are out of Pediatric ICU. They are damaged. They will grow up and become a burden on society- because their parents made poor life choices. The whole thing is sickening.
Well I'm getting all riled up and I know where this discussion is headed. Flame away-- it's just my opinion and I'm just stubborn enough to share it once in a while.
.
It's funny you mention that because I think the whole Watergate thing was a set up and that they weren't caught by anything remotely like 'luck'.
I was specifically thinking about Kennedy and the moon landing etc.
The government can hide things- and they really need to quite a bit more often than many will admit around here.
What grates at times is that so many here really cannot see both sides of the coin. They view these issues with a reflex rather than their minds. There are already tons of posts describing the article as propaganda to take away privacy and generate funds for the evil drug war.
No thought is given that informed, reasonable citizens may not agree. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant- has bought into the lies- or has their own agenda.
I wish some would think that there is the same chance of someone being intelligent, informed, reasonable and holding a different opinion as the chance of life elsewhere in the universe. I'm dead serious.
Anyways that whole last part is not a reply to the watergate thing just a little rant I launched on after I was done replying- your response has a reasonable tone.
.
The so-called Santacruz computer was never returned to Colombian authorities, and the DEA's report about it is highly classified. But Business 2.0 has ferreted out many of its details.
It must not have been too highly classified. It it was and some internet magazine can figure it out then you have to wonder if this data mining system was overkill. They say it was used to find moles and then the undercover agents would be assasinated. Personally I wouldn't want to be an agent for some agency that can't keep this kind of stuff under wraps.
There are times when keeping things secret is a good thing. Our government seems incapable of doing so most of the time. (on a side note this is why I don't buy into most conspiracy theories-- the govt. is way too inefficient at keeping things quiet)
And by this I mean- see if you can do your learning at work. I don't know what you do so I'm not sure how practical this is for you. But I can totally relate to your situation.
I've got 2 toddlers, I don't spend enough time w/them and my wife as it is and I don't have spare cash or time for school.
So what I do when I want to put some decent time in learning something I try to find a way to make it a function of my job.
I'm a programmer- when I want to learn something new I start working on a way to make it fit into the company's needs. Now that is kind of an easy thing to do sometimes I'll admit. Sometimes I have to be creative.
If you work for a company w/better employee policies than mine they may pay for you take classes on the clock. That, I would think, would be ideal.
But say these ideas are just way out there- you're a night security guy. Well if you are allowed to read while you are gaurding whatever- the book ideas come in handy.
I've found that when there is little leeway in my personal life I just need to look hard at ways to create that leeway on the job. (I justify my time on slashdot when I find out about current computing issues that affect the company- happens more often than you would think- and my boss is cool w/it)
.