I'm trying to take the claim seriously -- and yes I know they'll make it.
In theory the DMA's current telemarketer "preference" scheme requires a little bit of proof, in terms of a mailed-in signature. Their online version costs $5 -- is that for authentication?
Anyway, I have trouble imaging the DMA's standing to bring the claim of impersontion. No one seriously thinks they represent consumers' interests, do they? At the very least you'd need some wronged consumers to complain. I think a court would chuckle and move on.
However, the sign-up scheme should provide some sort of safeguard, like a (automated?) call-back to the designated number, or instant caller-ID based verification, or a companion please-call-me list. I know it sounds silly, but caution and symmetry are wise.
Or... you can do the capitalist thing and refuse to buy DRM-protected cars. Nyah.
I honestly think this is something the market can decide. You can think of DRM as a way for the sellers to ensure you don't violate your promise not to misuse your purchase. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If music were more essential to life, or if I were persuaded music was completely controlled by a cartel I would feel differently. Here, however, and as a liberal, I'm content to let the market decide. The only major problem I've heard so far is the incursion into fair use, which is at a minimum a shame, and at worst a constitutional violation. That I'd like to hear more about.
It is a pain, but you can also get a new key to your car. All you need is that little number stamped in the side -- and hopefully they'll ask for your ID and proof it's your car, too.:)
That's all fine, but this isn't about the TCPA. There is no federal do-not-call list regulation, and the effect of DNC lists on political speech has not been tested.
There is a vast difference between the right to speak (which you have) and the right to be heard (which you do not have).
It's not so simple. At the logical extreme, this would mean the only free speech would be that never heard by people who didn;t want to hear it. Sounds nice, but then you've written the 1st A. out of the Constitution. What protection does speech people want to hear really need? The framers has more upsetting speech in mind, and it is the most hateful and disturbing kind that makes up the most significant cases -- KKK, burning flags, pornography, etc. (If you like all these, there are still some you might not.)
So the "no right to be heard" line can't be right. You do have a right to be heard free of gov't interference. A state-enforced DNC list is state interference. Or so I would reason it; I haven't thought about it and 1st A. law is not my strength by a long shot.
Now, when it come to calling people at home, I don't know how the balance will be struck. The most similar cases I can think of offhand is the recent Supreme Court 8-1 decision on door-to-door solicitations, which it held to be protected though annoying.
True, and there's the tension. Neither side gets everything they want.
Every 1st amendment case is a struggle between the side that wants the speech and the side that doesn't. Compromise is inevitable.
The total intrusion is (time to pick up phone) + (time to hang up). I *think* a court would say this was insufficient to justify barring or "chilling" the speech.
Here is a court that signed off on a blanket ban. Also, there is a Supreme Court case pending that may have implications for telemarketers. There is much up in the air, and I offer only an educated guess. (more to read)
My mom worked as a telemarketer for a while, doing surveys actually. She did it because she hated humanity.. oh wait, because she/we needed the income. I assure you she was unfailingly polite and did not have cloven feet.
That said, I really think we should be able to cook up better jobs for similarly qualified people, something with some skills taught and upward mobility. If these jobs exist, believe me they'll get taken quick. I regret hearing antiquated or destructive industries defended as "providing jobs" -- most recently by a Christmas tree grower. (Good reason to buy a Christmas tree: you want one. Bad reason: to create jobs.)
Jobs and productivity are good for the economy. But not just any jobs.
Ironically, it's the ACLU that would flip out if political calls were barred. (First Amendment, I mentioned this above) They are currently part of a group ranging from them to the NRA, contesting the campaign finance reform law's restrictions in political advertising.
I doubt that would pass constitutional scrutiny. It's not so much people signing up for the list as the state imposing penalties for politicians exercising a free speech right that we hold dear. "Commercial speech" is easier to regulate constitutionally. So (and I'm guessing) I think a court would say the intrusion is relatively mild and that less restrictive alternatives are available, such as anti-harassment law. For example, they get to call you once without penalty, something like that.
There is, however, much better self-regulation, because politicians really really don't want to tick people off, unless they're pretending to be the opponent (it's been done).
BTW, the political spam case against Senator Elizabeth Dole in NC was dismissed without prejudice for lack of evidence. Anyone have more details?
29-hour day? Must be very very close to its star. Ah, I see, 1/50 of Earth's orbit. Hmm, 3000 degree atmosphere.
Hold off on the colony ships.
However good the odds are that there are Earth-like planets in the galaxy, what are the odds that any are within reach of any human exploration that will ever take place? It's a big place, and barring "warp drive" the prospects of anything more than observation seem dim.
Amazing what astronomers can do with impossibly minute signals over unimaginably great distances, esp. the inferences of size and density. I wonder what alien astonomers looking at our solar system are thinking? (Something like: "No chance intelligent life could exist there.")
Yep, that's part of the problem with genetic patents, which strike me as very strange. I think patents are a mistake, but want to encourage genetic research by all means, private and public.
Did the Canandian researchers benefit from Myriad's research? If they did, they should compensate them. I hope the sides will settle this in some way, and if Myriad's work was beneficial that they are compensated for it, including a reasonable profit.
What I don't believe is "because genetic patents are wrong, Myriad's work is a freebie."
It's the Canadian gov't footing the bill here, isn't it? Canadian funding for health care is far more generous than in the U.S.
You are hopelessly shortsighted and must live at home.
If you had a million to invest, would you choose a genetic research project where you would lose it all? Hmm. Wonder if that research will ever get private funding?
You have no compassion for the sick if you would bankrupt research into cures.
I sympathize with the questions raised about genetic patents, and worry more generally much more about the threat of profiteering by companies that develop life-or-death health technologies, and the plight of people who can't afford essential care.
But here, the poster is complimenting getting a free ride on the work of others. This is not "liberated" thinking, it is merely a bid to save money. It does not take a lot of imagination to project that too many free rides will lead to few if any rides.
Surely there is a middle ground, compensating the developers as one would for a new drug, while avoiding the trickier implications of patents on genes. When it comes to money, this action is no different than immediately making a generic version of a newly developed drug.
Sure, crime pays, that's one of the primary reasons people do it. The drug laws are also the main reasons the U.S. leads the world in imprisonment rates. I won't conclude that either is good, or effective... only that, yes, U.S. law has extraterritorial effect.
Actually, if the drugs were legal, profits would still be pretty damn good. Look at cigarettes.
Since when do doctors go to the bedside any more?;-) (I used to work at a hospital, as an MRI tech; MD's vary in bedside skills... a bit.:)
Now, in your tech fantasy, shouldn't the portable whip up its own nanobots and inject them via hypospray? Actually, if you make this fancy enough, you could cut out the middleman (doctor) and put the whole thing on a robot like the Roomba....
Yes, I do agree with anything that will improve care and somehow keep costs down. Or is that too much to hope for?
Yes, a pulmonologist I saw had a palm or equiv. with lists of all the drugs, dosages, adn which would flag interactions on the spot. He said he'd like to use a Mac but "there's no software for it." Sigh.
Imagine a wireless connection on that handheld for checking medical records and entering orders. No more of the *&^@$*! physician handwriting. I'm sure you've heard of the people who died over handwriting (although arguably some were pharmacist error -- and they've had computers looking over their shoulders for a while).
With hardware like iPod (practically a computer in its own right) and writing recognition software like Inkwell out I would be very surprised not to see an Apple handheld in the near future. The way Newton was handled was bizarre, but then it's not easy being a trailblazer, and those were the "dark days" for Apple. It is rumored that Jobs' ego is simply antagonistic to anything he didn't invent. an interesting article They should leave the low end of the market to Palm etc., I doubt there's much money to be made there; same strategy as the iPos v. al those other MP3 players.
Hey, I wish they'd stayed in the web browser game, too.:)
Law books, those rows of reporters the TV lawyers always have in the background, are still a favorite for many, especially the older lawyers. But the convenience and power of electronic versions -- corrections and hyperlinks and potability and so on -- are winning out, even those the reading experience is inferior. It's pretty hard to juggle 20 of those big books.
The discomfort of the reading is getting better fast. Look at the difference in laptops in the last few years. Now there is finally talk of tablet computers that I hope will be more booklike, particularly if you can touch the screen to move things around. These will get sharper and faster and cheaper and battery life will disappear as an issue and so on.
Give it maybe 15 years to get really big, with incremental increases in the interim. Better screens, the biggest factor, are in the works. These active matrix screens haev only been affordable for a few years, and now they're standard. How about a screen with double or triple the resolution? Sure. Also, imagine having any book from any library available in seconds. Personally I'm getting tired of putting in for holds on new books at the local library, then waiting a month or, worse, spending $25 for it.
Jurisdiciton: anything abroad that affects Americans is within U.S. jurisdiction. The primary problem is enforcement, but many gov'ts do want to help, hoping for friendship or aid. Even the Chinese are reportedly beginning to cooperate against couterfeiters -- I'd rather have the U.S. after me than those thugs.
An American pulling the strings of an offshore operation would be fully liable. So would any American assets, fund transfers, or any other domestic presence.
Re Nigerian, multiple routes are being pursued by entities from the Dept. of State to the Secret Service. It's not so much the emails and the millions lost and 17+ people killed in Nigeria over this. The Nigerian authorities are cooperating, to the degree that helps... (news)
I agree with this approach and am surprised more people don't promote it. The anti-fax law appears reasonable, constitutional, and strangest of all effective.
The "junk fax" law in enforceable privately in state court, but also by the FCC.
Interestingly, here is a recent Missouri decision declaring the statute a violation of freedom of speech. I haven't looked closely at this aberrant ruling, not because junk faxes aren't speech (they are), but it appears wrong because of the way it analyzes Congressional intent.
Re junk faxes, junkfax.org has some interesting information that would relate to a junk email law.
But the funny thing about national laws is that they don't apply outside the nation...
Not true. Do you think the drug laws have no effect against third-world shippers of illegal drugs? Our laws apply to foreign actions with domestic effects, the classic example being someone who fires a gun across the border.
The laws will apply; the problem lies in enforcement. Americans and American assets are easy to reach. Foreign ISP's that aid spammers can also be tracked; many foreign gov'ts want to help us for friendship or aid. Also, haven't you noticed how the worst spammers are always American? Perhaps they'll flee and renounce their citizenship, but that would be a plus anyway.:)
I note that "Brilliant but Canceled" was cancelled. (kidding)
The difference here may be the internet. The fan campaign would not be 1% as coordinated, or powerful in recruitment, without I can't even believe I find myself considering writinga letter or giving money to this cause. (See savefarscape.com.)
It's a long shot, but such are often the best shots. And the past may not be prologue.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm trying to take the claim seriously -- and yes I know they'll make it.
In theory the DMA's current telemarketer "preference" scheme requires a little bit of proof, in terms of a mailed-in signature. Their online version costs $5 -- is that for authentication?
Anyway, I have trouble imaging the DMA's standing to bring the claim of impersontion. No one seriously thinks they represent consumers' interests, do they? At the very least you'd need some wronged consumers to complain. I think a court would chuckle and move on.
However, the sign-up scheme should provide some sort of safeguard, like a (automated?) call-back to the designated number, or instant caller-ID based verification, or a companion please-call-me list. I know it sounds silly, but caution and symmetry are wise.
Or ... you can do the capitalist thing and refuse to buy DRM-protected cars. Nyah.
:)
I honestly think this is something the market can decide. You can think of DRM as a way for the sellers to ensure you don't violate your promise not to misuse your purchase. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If music were more essential to life, or if I were persuaded music was completely controlled by a cartel I would feel differently. Here, however, and as a liberal, I'm content to let the market decide. The only major problem I've heard so far is the incursion into fair use, which is at a minimum a shame, and at worst a constitutional violation. That I'd like to hear more about.
It is a pain, but you can also get a new key to your car. All you need is that little number stamped in the side -- and hopefully they'll ask for your ID and proof it's your car, too.
That's all fine, but this isn't about the TCPA. There is no federal do-not-call list regulation, and the effect of DNC lists on political speech has not been tested.
There is a vast difference between the right to speak (which you have) and the right to be heard (which you do not have).
It's not so simple. At the logical extreme, this would mean the only free speech would be that never heard by people who didn;t want to hear it. Sounds nice, but then you've written the 1st A. out of the Constitution. What protection does speech people want to hear really need? The framers has more upsetting speech in mind, and it is the most hateful and disturbing kind that makes up the most significant cases -- KKK, burning flags, pornography, etc. (If you like all these, there are still some you might not.)
So the "no right to be heard" line can't be right. You do have a right to be heard free of gov't interference. A state-enforced DNC list is state interference. Or so I would reason it; I haven't thought about it and 1st A. law is not my strength by a long shot.
Now, when it come to calling people at home, I don't know how the balance will be struck. The most similar cases I can think of offhand is the recent Supreme Court 8-1 decision on door-to-door solicitations, which it held to be protected though annoying.
True, and there's the tension. Neither side gets everything they want.
Every 1st amendment case is a struggle between the side that wants the speech and the side that doesn't. Compromise is inevitable.
The total intrusion is (time to pick up phone) + (time to hang up). I *think* a court would say this was insufficient to justify barring or "chilling" the speech.
Here is a court that signed off on a blanket ban. Also, there is a Supreme Court case pending that may have implications for telemarketers. There is much up in the air, and I offer only an educated guess. (more to read)
Before you go down all alone...
.. oh wait, because she/we needed the income. I assure you she was unfailingly polite and did not have cloven feet.
My mom worked as a telemarketer for a while, doing surveys actually. She did it because she hated humanity
That said, I really think we should be able to cook up better jobs for similarly qualified people, something with some skills taught and upward mobility. If these jobs exist, believe me they'll get taken quick. I regret hearing antiquated or destructive industries defended as "providing jobs" -- most recently by a Christmas tree grower. (Good reason to buy a Christmas tree: you want one. Bad reason: to create jobs.)
Jobs and productivity are good for the economy. But not just any jobs.
Ironically, it's the ACLU that would flip out if political calls were barred. (First Amendment, I mentioned this above) They are currently part of a group ranging from them to the NRA, contesting the campaign finance reform law's restrictions in political advertising.
:)
I'm not saying who's right. Er, left.
I doubt that would pass constitutional scrutiny. It's not so much people signing up for the list as the state imposing penalties for politicians exercising a free speech right that we hold dear. "Commercial speech" is easier to regulate constitutionally. So (and I'm guessing) I think a court would say the intrusion is relatively mild and that less restrictive alternatives are available, such as anti-harassment law. For example, they get to call you once without penalty, something like that.
There is, however, much better self-regulation, because politicians really really don't want to tick people off, unless they're pretending to be the opponent (it's been done).
BTW, the political spam case against Senator Elizabeth Dole in NC was dismissed without prejudice for lack of evidence. Anyone have more details?
29-hour day? Must be very very close to its star. Ah, I see, 1/50 of Earth's orbit. Hmm, 3000 degree atmosphere.
Hold off on the colony ships.
However good the odds are that there are Earth-like planets in the galaxy, what are the odds that any are within reach of any human exploration that will ever take place? It's a big place, and barring "warp drive" the prospects of anything more than observation seem dim.
Amazing what astronomers can do with impossibly minute signals over unimaginably great distances, esp. the inferences of size and density. I wonder what alien astonomers looking at our solar system are thinking? (Something like: "No chance intelligent life could exist there.")
FWIW, from omission from the company's FAQ, it appears only Windows versions are affected?
:)
Nice to be trailing behind on some "features"...
Yep, that's part of the problem with genetic patents, which strike me as very strange. I think patents are a mistake, but want to encourage genetic research by all means, private and public.
Did the Canandian researchers benefit from Myriad's research? If they did, they should compensate them. I hope the sides will settle this in some way, and if Myriad's work was beneficial that they are compensated for it, including a reasonable profit.
What I don't believe is "because genetic patents are wrong, Myriad's work is a freebie."
It's the Canadian gov't footing the bill here, isn't it? Canadian funding for health care is far more generous than in the U.S.
You are hopelessly shortsighted and must live at home.
If you had a million to invest, would you choose a genetic research project where you would lose it all? Hmm. Wonder if that research will ever get private funding?
You have no compassion for the sick if you would bankrupt research into cures.
I sympathize with the questions raised about genetic patents, and worry more generally much more about the threat of profiteering by companies that develop life-or-death health technologies, and the plight of people who can't afford essential care.
But here, the poster is complimenting getting a free ride on the work of others. This is not "liberated" thinking, it is merely a bid to save money. It does not take a lot of imagination to project that too many free rides will lead to few if any rides.
Surely there is a middle ground, compensating the developers as one would for a new drug, while avoiding the trickier implications of patents on genes. When it comes to money, this action is no different than immediately making a generic version of a newly developed drug.
Sure, crime pays, that's one of the primary reasons people do it. The drug laws are also the main reasons the U.S. leads the world in imprisonment rates. I won't conclude that either is good, or effective ... only that, yes, U.S. law has extraterritorial effect.
Actually, if the drugs were legal, profits would still be pretty damn good. Look at cigarettes.
even at the patients bedside
;-) (I used to work at a hospital, as an MRI tech; MD's vary in bedside skills ... a bit. :)
Since when do doctors go to the bedside any more?
Now, in your tech fantasy, shouldn't the portable whip up its own nanobots and inject them via hypospray? Actually, if you make this fancy enough, you could cut out the middleman (doctor) and put the whole thing on a robot like the Roomba....
Yes, I do agree with anything that will improve care and somehow keep costs down. Or is that too much to hope for?
Criminals make their own problems, whether in industry or "free lance."
Yes, a pulmonologist I saw had a palm or equiv. with lists of all the drugs, dosages, adn which would flag interactions on the spot. He said he'd like to use a Mac but "there's no software for it." Sigh.
:)
Imagine a wireless connection on that handheld for checking medical records and entering orders. No more of the *&^@$*! physician handwriting. I'm sure you've heard of the people who died over handwriting (although arguably some were pharmacist error -- and they've had computers looking over their shoulders for a while).
With hardware like iPod (practically a computer in its own right) and writing recognition software like Inkwell out I would be very surprised not to see an Apple handheld in the near future. The way Newton was handled was bizarre, but then it's not easy being a trailblazer, and those were the "dark days" for Apple. It is rumored that Jobs' ego is simply antagonistic to anything he didn't invent. an interesting article They should leave the low end of the market to Palm etc., I doubt there's much money to be made there; same strategy as the iPos v. al those other MP3 players.
Hey, I wish they'd stayed in the web browser game, too.
Law books, those rows of reporters the TV lawyers always have in the background, are still a favorite for many, especially the older lawyers. But the convenience and power of electronic versions -- corrections and hyperlinks and potability and so on -- are winning out, even those the reading experience is inferior. It's pretty hard to juggle 20 of those big books.
The discomfort of the reading is getting better fast. Look at the difference in laptops in the last few years. Now there is finally talk of tablet computers that I hope will be more booklike, particularly if you can touch the screen to move things around. These will get sharper and faster and cheaper and battery life will disappear as an issue and so on.
Give it maybe 15 years to get really big, with incremental increases in the interim. Better screens, the biggest factor, are in the works. These active matrix screens haev only been affordable for a few years, and now they're standard. How about a screen with double or triple the resolution? Sure. Also, imagine having any book from any library available in seconds. Personally I'm getting tired of putting in for holds on new books at the local library, then waiting a month or, worse, spending $25 for it.
Yep, we've had this for at least a year.
Jurisdiciton: anything abroad that affects Americans is within U.S. jurisdiction. The primary problem is enforcement, but many gov'ts do want to help, hoping for friendship or aid. Even the Chinese are reportedly beginning to cooperate against couterfeiters -- I'd rather have the U.S. after me than those thugs.
An American pulling the strings of an offshore operation would be fully liable. So would any American assets, fund transfers, or any other domestic presence.
Re Nigerian, multiple routes are being pursued by entities from the Dept. of State to the Secret Service. It's not so much the emails and the millions lost and 17+ people killed in Nigeria over this. The Nigerian authorities are cooperating, to the degree that helps... (news)
I agree with this approach and am surprised more people don't promote it. The anti-fax law appears reasonable, constitutional, and strangest of all effective.
The "junk fax" law in enforceable privately in state court, but also by the FCC.
Interestingly, here is a recent Missouri decision declaring the statute a violation of freedom of speech. I haven't looked closely at this aberrant ruling, not because junk faxes aren't speech (they are), but it appears wrong because of the way it analyzes Congressional intent.
Re junk faxes, junkfax.org has some interesting information that would relate to a junk email law.
But the funny thing about national laws is that they don't apply outside the nation...
:)
Not true. Do you think the drug laws have no effect against third-world shippers of illegal drugs? Our laws apply to foreign actions with domestic effects, the classic example being someone who fires a gun across the border.
The laws will apply; the problem lies in enforcement. Americans and American assets are easy to reach. Foreign ISP's that aid spammers can also be tracked; many foreign gov'ts want to help us for friendship or aid. Also, haven't you noticed how the worst spammers are always American? Perhaps they'll flee and renounce their citizenship, but that would be a plus anyway.
I note that "Brilliant but Canceled" was cancelled. (kidding)
:)
The difference here may be the internet. The fan campaign would not be 1% as coordinated, or powerful in recruitment, without I can't even believe I find myself considering writinga letter or giving money to this cause. (See savefarscape.com.)
It's a long shot, but such are often the best shots. And the past may not be prologue.
My cats produce better material than these Nielsen households enjoy.
I keep hoping they are not representative of TV viewers as a whole, but statistically I suspect they are.
Where the biggest errors may come in is where advertisers draw lessons from the ratings.
Catch your Nielsens here. Do you agree with the rankings?
Yeah, like the United States Supremes before Diana Ross murdered them. :P