There is no "American social credit check". Stop making stuff up. Deal with what you claiomed, which is that people who are not on the lists you listed were subject to random drug tests. Sorry, not true.
As for having private industry removing peoples rights instead of the government, you're right that it is slightly better.
If by "slightly" you mean "lots", ok. Tell me, why do you think your first amendment right to free speech applies to the cafeteria run by a company you don't work for in a building you have no right to be in? How are they "violating your rights" if they have you arrested for trying to rant about something in their offices? Hint: the 1st Amendment is pretty specific that Congress shall make no law, with no reference to companies or even the general public.
To me the idea that companies can routinely invade someones privacy with drug tests, refuse to hire based on an old arrest, or conviction, and such seems horrible.
Well, welcome to the world. Companies have a right to refuse to hire someone for many reasons, just that certain INVOLUNTARY categories are protected. You can't pick what race you are, but you sure can decide if you want to smoke pot. Or rob a bank. And a company can decide it doesn't want you as a known drug user or felon working for them, just as you can decide what company you hire to do your yard work or construction work.
Then the government passing laws saying such and such people can't own a firearm, or you're on a sex offender list due to something stupid that you did like peeing or sending a text to someone your age and such, not to mention taking away the right to vote to change things, also seem like horrible infringements on freedom.
Well, like I said, there's a difference between a company choosing who it will hire and a government doing what you list. I didn't argue with you about the government doing stuff, only that there is a BIG SIGNIFICANT difference between the government and a company.
Serious question here....just how much shit is packed between your ears?
Yeah, real serious.
I just mentioned Tamir Rice and John Crawford by name,... There's also Philandro Castile and Emantic Bradford
Four people do not create an automatic death sentence for anyone bearing an arm. Something else happened. The story is not as simple as you want to make it out to be. Maybe you're just parroting other people who want the story to be that simple. Either way, you're using hyperbole blown large to create FUD.
For example, the story behind the Bradford shooting is not as simple as you pretend it is. Bradford was holding a gun and approaching someone who was shot, after gunshots were heard. It is not beyond reason to view his actions as threatening. A gunshot victim is being approached by someone holding a gun after gunshots already happened.
No charges for any of the cops that murdered these people...
You should read your own citations a bit more carefully. The officer involved in the Castile shooting was charged with manslaughter and other offenses, but found not guilty after a trial. Part of the rest of that story is that Castile told the officer he had a gun and was reaching for something when he got shot. You know, when you tell a cop that you've got a gun, he tells you to not move, and you start reaching for something he can't see... well, that's a different story than you want us to believe.
I'm not going to waste more time on someone who asks "serious questions" like yours and lies about the stories he tells.
One big difference is in a communist state, the state employs you and blacklists, while in a capitalist state, private companies do it.
That seems like a very big, and very significant, difference, to me.
Also, I must be on one of your lists since I've never had a compulsory drug test. I fly on a regular basis, I've never had to report under sex offender laws and nobody has come looking for me, I've had no felony convictions, my last weapon background check took fifteen minutes and I passed, and such. I guess your idea about lists isn't very correct.
If bearing a firearm in an open carry state is an automatic death sentence
Since it isn't, the rest of your rant is moot. Maybe you're just confused between the word "bearing", which means "carrying", and the words "threatening someone with", which is illegal even in open carry locations. And threatening a cop with one can get you shot (not "will"), which most people seem to understand.
But the 2nd Amendment says they should be regulated,
Actually, the phrase is "shall not be infringed". That means unregulated. Regulations infringe on rights.
What you are incorrectly referring to is the clause that describes one reason why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's descriptive, not proscriptive, and it's just one reason.
But then, inalienable rights don't need even one reason to exist, they are assumed to exist on their own. If you don't agree with that, please provide the reason that you should be secure in your person, place, and property. If you have nothing to hide... see how that "inalienable" stuff works?
My my. Knickers in a knot much? Anything productive to say?
However, that's not what the people who make the laws think.
Oh. I see. The "people who make the laws" are the only ones who get to "think" and they are "think[ing]", and their opinion is all that matters. Got it. Who's the village idiot?
The fact is, if there are already laws in place, and someone has violated them, then you don't need NEW laws to be able to hold that person accountable for breaking the existing laws. It's pretty obvious. Maybe if you think about it yourself, instead of letting the parliament of England do all the thinking for you.
Read the comment I am responding to, darling.
I replied to a comment that talked about the article being self-contradictory, for the reason that I expanded upon. It has nothing to do with the EU. It has nothing to do with which government you let do your thinking for you.
So glad to have run across you here. Was a lark. Ta for now.
You apparently fail at reading comprehension so badly, that I can't even.
Yes, apparently you can't even be civil. But the reading comprehension fail? Hmmm. The summary talks about the "government" needing to make "new laws" so that big bad evil Facebook can be held accountable for the big bad evil things they are doing. New laws. Laws to make big bad evil Facebook in violation of laws. But... here's the important bit... the TITLE of the article is that big bad evil Facebook "intentionally and knowingingly violated" laws that already exist. Why do you need new laws to go after them? You don't.
There's the contradiction. Notice that it has nothing to do with EU or UK or US or any specific government. Simple English language. Comprehension. Which you can't.
So glad to have run across you here. Was a lark. Ta for now.
Who wants to put in hours of research flipping through physical books just to answer a simple question about the entomology of a common phrase?
A more serious question than "cast in stone" would be "what is the etymology of the use of the word 'entomology' to refer to 'etymology'?"
I feel sorry for whoever made this wonderful rant. Somehow I doubt the value of using "Google Books" to find references to language that almost certainly pre-dates the Gutenberg press. Or should we ignore languages that meant the same thing as the English phrase we're looking for, even if they appeared centuries prior to the English translation?
You find "contradiction" where there is none. It is obvious what is meant - Facebook both violated current laws
If FB has violated current law, then there doesn't need to be "new regulations" so they can hold FB et.al accountable. It's simple English. They just need to enforce the existing law to hold them accountable.
Maybe you need to read the summary? Oh, what am I thinking. This is/. Here's the relevant quote:
They concluded that the United Kingdom should adopt new regulations so lawmakers can hold Facebook and its tech peers in Silicon Valley accountable for digital misdeeds.
Besides, this is a uniquely UK shakedown, and the new laws will probably be passed in a place that is outside the EU.
The issue of the article being self-contradictory has nothing to with with EU vs. non-EU.
Incidentally, you did not feel the same way about the "FTC shakedown"
You apparently did not read even that summary, back then or now when you use it as a club, because it contains the following (which appears in a different form earlier in the summary as well):
The commissioners met in mid-December and were updated by staff members that they had at that point found considerable evidence of violations of the 2011 consent decree.
In the FTC matter, FB violated a consent decree, which is regulation/contract/legal action. In the UK matter, FB hasn't broken any laws, the parliament says they need NEW laws so FB can be punished for breaking the new laws.
No in all of my posts in this thread I've only been referring to actual people senders.
So for you, by definition, people cannot send spam?
Most of the spam I get (at work) are people asking me to be an "invited speaker" at their "conference" in some wacky place. They're sent by people. I assume the conference is real, although I've never checked. It's just that they're "spam conferences" like the "spam journals" (which I am also asked to send articles to) that have popped up in the free-for-all of "open publishing".
And the word here, today, is that I am rude for not replying to either one of these kinds of spam. Yeah. Sure. Sometimes I do -- pointing out that I travel first class on United and stay in at least 3 star hotels, with a $1000 per day honorarium, and when they forward my reservation info with a 50% down payment on the speaking fee I'll send them an abstract. Never got taken up on that. Go figure.
Both of those kinds of spam have very recognizable subject headers and I can tell what the message contains without reading them, too.
I don't use a fancy folder schema. Just "Inbox" and "Archived." In other words, "To do" and "Done."
Really? Earlier you said:
If you can't deal with it now, send a quick note saying you can't, and move on. Then archive the email.
So, you're saying that when you tell someone that you can't deal with their issue now you send a reply and then consider handling their issue "done".
The problem with archiving email that you haven't actually done anything (real) about is that it becomes READ and removed from your normal scan. That's what happens when I read an email that I need to do something about but cannot do it NOW and I leave it in the INBOX. Sheesh, I'm not going to back through my archived (or filed) email looking for read email that I've not dealt with when I don't do that for my INBOX email.
What works for me MUCH better is to keep anything I still need to do something about as UNREAD in my INBOX. My email client has a pseudo-folder called "unread". All the unread, unhandled email shows up there, even if it was from a month ago. (I currently have unread, undone things from last July. Very low priority until it becomes important, but I can't just wave it off as "done" and forget about it.)
But if calling everything you've answered but not actually acted on "Done" by archiving it works for you, more power to you. You probably spend a lot more time scanning your archived email looking for things you forgot to do than I do, but it's your time to spend. Or maybe you just rely on people to remind you on a regular basis about things you said you'd do later but haven't?
You kids these days labeling emails you read as "won't read" and knowing what the sender said before reading what they said. I swear.
It only takes a couple of emails with a subject that contains the word "pilules" to know what the entire email is about. Ditto "Look, I know it's a fair..." or "I can show you the video". "Can we meet this weekend" is a little harder, but when the sending domain is 12000 miles away I think it is safe to assume the answer is no and the question isn't honest to begin with.
People who think that it is rude not to read every email they get, or can't figure out that some can be ignored based on the subject. I swear.
Except no one thought of it for hundreds of years until this guy did.
Except that companies are paying this guy to do this for them. What do you think the companies did before he started offering this service? Yes, that's right, they did exactly the same thing (perhaps not with "a computer", but the same thing) all on their own. In hundreds if not thousands if not hundreds of thousands of places.
Can I get a patent on a business process that has been used all over the world by every company that ever sent a piece of mail?
Nonsense. Where I live, there is one and ONLY one option for ISP (where it is defined with usable speed/latency).
I can put limits on every "definition" of services such that there is only one providers that meets all my criteria. That doesn't create a monopoly, nor does it create a government-granted one.
For example, there is only one cell provider that meets all my criteria, but trying to claim that T-Mobile is a monopoly because of that is just ridiculous.
Cable companies use their cable right-of-way and infrastructure to pile Internet service on top in a way that works.
Of course. On their system that lost government-monopoly status decades ago. And services where they've never been given a monopoly by any government.
I essentially have one and only one choice, which makes it a monopoly.
I choose to drink only Stoly vodka; someone should do something about that government-granted monopoly they have on the vodka market.
Are they? I have at least two choices for land phone service- one from Verizon and one from Cox.
Are you referring to Cox the cable company selling you VoIP telephone service, and somehow confusing that with landline wired telephones? Or does Cox actually have a franchise for wired telephone service? If so, my bad. It only proves my point even better -- landline telcos don't have exclusive franshise protections, or maybe your municipality didn't grant an exclusive for wired phone in the first place.
If you are the only player in the market, by definition, you are a monopoly.
Read what I wrote. "Incumbent" does not mean "only player", it means "existing". It also does not mean "monopoly". Yes, of course if only one provider actually exists then there is a monopoly, but being a "government-granted" monopoly actually requires a government grant of a monopoly. ISPs have NEVER had such protections; cable television services did twenty years ago, but no longer.
When it came about because of government intervention in the first place... like it typically did with cable, does it matter?
Of course. What ended twenty years ago ended twenty years ago. Yes, that's a Captain Obvious statement, but so was your "if you're the only provider you are a monopoly" one. Federal law solved the monopoly issue with cable television as far as it being a government-granted one. Now it is economic, and simply crying that there aren't enough competitors is about all you can do. You can't force a company to come compete with the incumbents. If there was a profit to be had, someone would be competing. And Google pretty much admitted they couldn't hack a profit from a sitting duck situation when they pulled out of fiber.
And that advantage they now have (and no requirement they share their lines) means the monopoly will continue to exist, as it has for many years.
Except that the monopoly they had was for cable TV, not as an ISP. There are too many competitors to call any ISP a monopoly. Nobody ever told Comcast they had a monopoly as an ISP, and nobody ever told any other company they couldn't be one.
We went through this a year or so ago when the city in Colorado pronounced they had one one ISP in town and the city voted to create a municipal ISP. Except if you looked on the web you would find they had at least 8 residential and 8 commercial ISPs serving that area. Yes, some of them were the same company doing both, but some weren't.
Almost all ISP's operate in a monopoly granted or created by local or state governments.
Name ONE ISP that has been given a government monopoly.
In days gone by (like twenty five years ago) a CABLE COMPANY could get an exclusive franchise (government-granted monopoly) to operate CABLE TV in an area. The federal government outlawed exclusive franchises twenty five years ago. But even so, that grant was for Comcast the Cable TV company, not Comcast the ISP. (Hint: cable is just one way of delivering internet service. Nobody ever said "Comcast, you have a monopoly in this region in internet service.")
Telephone companies are still exclusive franchisees. They are a monopoly -- on wired telephone service. They don't have a monopoly on being an ISP. (Another hint: telephone wires are not the only way of providing internet service. Nobody ever told any telephone company that they have a monopoly in internet services.)
Wireless licenses were issued originally to TWO companies for every market, specifically to avoid the monopoly issue.
But ISPs -- never. There are simply too many of them to ever honestly say there is a monopoly.
Even if the market is supposedly free in that sector, no other company was given the incentives that X got on the onset...
Being an incumbent in ANY market is an advantage. But "incumbent" is not "monopoly".
.. so nobody else can afford to enter the market.
It's an economic monopoly if anything (and in most places it isn't even that), not a government-granted one.
There are plenty of places in the western world which don't use dedicated school busses for the school run, and they seem to work just fine....
Yes, I know they do. There are places where it is difficult if not impossible to provide a dedicated service. And they face the issues that I mentioned that make using dedicated buses a better solution in general. So what? That doesn't change what I said.
Or were you unaware of that?
Please say something that is a response to what I wrote.
Keep in mind that I was replying to an AC who was suggesting no time zones.
No, actually, he wasn't. He said "no need for time zones". More than one.
And if the concept that all of these students should start at different times because of the Sunrise and sunset,
He didn't say that, either. All of them won't start at different times. They'll start at times that better match the natural day. There will be a lot of schools that have the same (plus or minus an insignificant amount) natural day.
that is telling you that the country has too much east/west to be a single time zone.
That is your opinion. The issue being solved based on "one time zone" (not "no time zones") is limited to school students. Businesses are free to all start at the same time and close at the same time, because the adults who work there are better able to manage their own sleep times and work schedules. An office can manage to function with people on flex-time (in most cases), but a school that depends on having all the students there at the same time cannot.
which means you only need to plug 1 line in (but often will have more). So the person dialling out from that company can easily ID as the company's main number without spoofing.
As soon as you "plug" a second line into a PBX you have a reason and a need to "spoof". Having a PBX makes it more important to be able to spoof, not less.
There is no legitimate case for caller ID spoofing that cannot be solved though another method.
During the dead of winter, Alaska doesn't even have a sunrise for several months.
Last time I looked at a map, Alaska wasn't in India, and thus starting the school day based on solar time in India won't change anything in Alaska.
Time needs to work by the same rules for at least all people on earth.
I have no idea what you think this means. "At least all people in Earth" is a pretty meaningless statement. Who else would be involved? And your statement is not a fact in evidence, since we've been doing it with "different rules" (if you mean time zones and DST kinds of"rules") for generations.
Time should be made monotonic and we can worry about relativistic issues in the far future.
Oooh, big words that have nothing to do with anything at all. Other than the once a year "fall back" for DST time is already monotonic, and basing activities on solar time is hardly a "relativistic issue."
But the concept of no time zones, everything based on local sunset sunrise times is waaaaaay too much granularity, merely substituting a workable system with thousands of different times.
I think the point of the article is that India doesn't have a workable system, given the problems seen by students and sleep issues. They have one timezone, not "no time zones", and a proposed solution FOR STUDENTS is to start school based on the sun schedule, not an arbitrary fixed time.
It's not creating thousands of time zones. It's using one time zone and just starting one particular function based on natural time. It has nothing to do with when businesses are open. Nobody on the west side of Injah cares when schools on the east side start, and vice versa. It is a quite logical and reasonable solution to a perceived problem.
Much better cost savings can be had by having kids travel on normal commercial buses.
School buses are optimized for carrying school-ages kids. You can get a lot more students on a school bus than on a "normal commercial bus". Also, school buses can travel specialized routes based on where the students are and ignore all the commercial destinations. And they can travel at the right times so students don't have to be at the bus a half an hour or more early so they can catch the "commercial bus". And finally, since school tends to start about the same time as "rush hour", the commercial buses won't be packed when students and regular riders most need them, leaving students stranded at a bus stop when they can't get on the bus. Which is another plus to school buses -- they can properly capacity-plan so that students won't be left when a bus is full. They plan the routes so that doesn't happen.
In just a few words, "cost savings" is not always the most important criterion. After all, you save a LOT of money if you don't provide buses of any kind, and just let kids walk to school and back.
At 7:20 this morning I was awakened by a stupid call with the Microsoft services scam .... Following that i received four more calls trying to send me Medicaid braces before noon.
And you think a law banning all sales calls would stop that? You think it was a sales call, and that it was made from someone in the US subject to US law?
Wow. No wonder you get so many scam callers. You must be the most naive person on the planet. You're a prime target.
Slashdot Mirror
So you passed the American social credit check.
There is no "American social credit check". Stop making stuff up. Deal with what you claiomed, which is that people who are not on the lists you listed were subject to random drug tests. Sorry, not true.
As for having private industry removing peoples rights instead of the government, you're right that it is slightly better.
If by "slightly" you mean "lots", ok. Tell me, why do you think your first amendment right to free speech applies to the cafeteria run by a company you don't work for in a building you have no right to be in? How are they "violating your rights" if they have you arrested for trying to rant about something in their offices? Hint: the 1st Amendment is pretty specific that Congress shall make no law, with no reference to companies or even the general public.
To me the idea that companies can routinely invade someones privacy with drug tests, refuse to hire based on an old arrest, or conviction, and such seems horrible.
Well, welcome to the world. Companies have a right to refuse to hire someone for many reasons, just that certain INVOLUNTARY categories are protected. You can't pick what race you are, but you sure can decide if you want to smoke pot. Or rob a bank. And a company can decide it doesn't want you as a known drug user or felon working for them, just as you can decide what company you hire to do your yard work or construction work.
Then the government passing laws saying such and such people can't own a firearm, or you're on a sex offender list due to something stupid that you did like peeing or sending a text to someone your age and such, not to mention taking away the right to vote to change things, also seem like horrible infringements on freedom.
Well, like I said, there's a difference between a company choosing who it will hire and a government doing what you list. I didn't argue with you about the government doing stuff, only that there is a BIG SIGNIFICANT difference between the government and a company.
Serious question here....just how much shit is packed between your ears?
Yeah, real serious.
I just mentioned Tamir Rice and John Crawford by name, ... There's also Philandro Castile and Emantic Bradford
Four people do not create an automatic death sentence for anyone bearing an arm. Something else happened. The story is not as simple as you want to make it out to be. Maybe you're just parroting other people who want the story to be that simple. Either way, you're using hyperbole blown large to create FUD.
For example, the story behind the Bradford shooting is not as simple as you pretend it is. Bradford was holding a gun and approaching someone who was shot, after gunshots were heard. It is not beyond reason to view his actions as threatening. A gunshot victim is being approached by someone holding a gun after gunshots already happened.
No charges for any of the cops that murdered these people ...
You should read your own citations a bit more carefully. The officer involved in the Castile shooting was charged with manslaughter and other offenses, but found not guilty after a trial. Part of the rest of that story is that Castile told the officer he had a gun and was reaching for something when he got shot. You know, when you tell a cop that you've got a gun, he tells you to not move, and you start reaching for something he can't see ... well, that's a different story than you want us to believe.
I'm not going to waste more time on someone who asks "serious questions" like yours and lies about the stories he tells.
One big difference is in a communist state, the state employs you and blacklists, while in a capitalist state, private companies do it.
That seems like a very big, and very significant, difference, to me.
Also, I must be on one of your lists since I've never had a compulsory drug test. I fly on a regular basis, I've never had to report under sex offender laws and nobody has come looking for me, I've had no felony convictions, my last weapon background check took fifteen minutes and I passed, and such. I guess your idea about lists isn't very correct.
If bearing a firearm in an open carry state is an automatic death sentence
Since it isn't, the rest of your rant is moot. Maybe you're just confused between the word "bearing", which means "carrying", and the words "threatening someone with", which is illegal even in open carry locations. And threatening a cop with one can get you shot (not "will"), which most people seem to understand.
But the 2nd Amendment says they should be regulated,
Actually, the phrase is "shall not be infringed". That means unregulated. Regulations infringe on rights.
What you are incorrectly referring to is the clause that describes one reason why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's descriptive, not proscriptive, and it's just one reason.
But then, inalienable rights don't need even one reason to exist, they are assumed to exist on their own. If you don't agree with that, please provide the reason that you should be secure in your person, place, and property. If you have nothing to hide ... see how that "inalienable" stuff works?
Says the slashdot village idiot.
My my. Knickers in a knot much? Anything productive to say?
However, that's not what the people who make the laws think.
Oh. I see. The "people who make the laws" are the only ones who get to "think" and they are "think[ing]", and their opinion is all that matters. Got it. Who's the village idiot?
The fact is, if there are already laws in place, and someone has violated them, then you don't need NEW laws to be able to hold that person accountable for breaking the existing laws. It's pretty obvious. Maybe if you think about it yourself, instead of letting the parliament of England do all the thinking for you.
Read the comment I am responding to, darling.
I replied to a comment that talked about the article being self-contradictory, for the reason that I expanded upon. It has nothing to do with the EU. It has nothing to do with which government you let do your thinking for you.
So glad to have run across you here. Was a lark. Ta for now.
You apparently fail at reading comprehension so badly, that I can't even.
Yes, apparently you can't even be civil. But the reading comprehension fail? Hmmm. The summary talks about the "government" needing to make "new laws" so that big bad evil Facebook can be held accountable for the big bad evil things they are doing. New laws. Laws to make big bad evil Facebook in violation of laws. But ... here's the important bit ... the TITLE of the article is that big bad evil Facebook "intentionally and knowingingly violated" laws that already exist. Why do you need new laws to go after them? You don't.
There's the contradiction. Notice that it has nothing to do with EU or UK or US or any specific government. Simple English language. Comprehension. Which you can't.
So glad to have run across you here. Was a lark. Ta for now.
More or less. I prefer to say spammers are not behaving as people
Let's see: they're trying to use cheap methods of obtaining money from other people. That's not "behaving as people"?
Lucky you! On the being invited by a personalized email from a person anyway.
Yeah. Lucky me, to get spam that so easily passes through the filters.
The German equivalent ... published in 1840:
The Hebrew equivalent, written several millenia BCE, Exodus 34.
Decent companies do pro bono work all the time (I am working on such a project for my employer right now)
Your employer considers posting to /. discussions to be pro-bono work? How enlightened! Mine thinks it's time wasting.
Who wants to put in hours of research flipping through physical books just to answer a simple question about the entomology of a common phrase?
A more serious question than "cast in stone" would be "what is the etymology of the use of the word 'entomology' to refer to 'etymology'?"
I feel sorry for whoever made this wonderful rant. Somehow I doubt the value of using "Google Books" to find references to language that almost certainly pre-dates the Gutenberg press. Or should we ignore languages that meant the same thing as the English phrase we're looking for, even if they appeared centuries prior to the English translation?
You find "contradiction" where there is none. It is obvious what is meant - Facebook both violated current laws
If FB has violated current law, then there doesn't need to be "new regulations" so they can hold FB et.al accountable. It's simple English. They just need to enforce the existing law to hold them accountable.
Maybe you need to read the summary? Oh, what am I thinking. This is /. Here's the relevant quote:
Besides, this is a uniquely UK shakedown, and the new laws will probably be passed in a place that is outside the EU.
The issue of the article being self-contradictory has nothing to with with EU vs. non-EU.
Incidentally, you did not feel the same way about the "FTC shakedown"
You apparently did not read even that summary, back then or now when you use it as a club, because it contains the following (which appears in a different form earlier in the summary as well):
In the FTC matter, FB violated a consent decree, which is regulation/contract/legal action. In the UK matter, FB hasn't broken any laws, the parliament says they need NEW laws so FB can be punished for breaking the new laws.
Nice try.
No in all of my posts in this thread I've only been referring to actual people senders.
So for you, by definition, people cannot send spam?
Most of the spam I get (at work) are people asking me to be an "invited speaker" at their "conference" in some wacky place. They're sent by people. I assume the conference is real, although I've never checked. It's just that they're "spam conferences" like the "spam journals" (which I am also asked to send articles to) that have popped up in the free-for-all of "open publishing".
And the word here, today, is that I am rude for not replying to either one of these kinds of spam. Yeah. Sure. Sometimes I do -- pointing out that I travel first class on United and stay in at least 3 star hotels, with a $1000 per day honorarium, and when they forward my reservation info with a 50% down payment on the speaking fee I'll send them an abstract. Never got taken up on that. Go figure.
Both of those kinds of spam have very recognizable subject headers and I can tell what the message contains without reading them, too.
I don't use a fancy folder schema. Just "Inbox" and "Archived." In other words, "To do" and "Done."
Really? Earlier you said:
If you can't deal with it now, send a quick note saying you can't, and move on. Then archive the email.
So, you're saying that when you tell someone that you can't deal with their issue now you send a reply and then consider handling their issue "done".
The problem with archiving email that you haven't actually done anything (real) about is that it becomes READ and removed from your normal scan. That's what happens when I read an email that I need to do something about but cannot do it NOW and I leave it in the INBOX. Sheesh, I'm not going to back through my archived (or filed) email looking for read email that I've not dealt with when I don't do that for my INBOX email.
What works for me MUCH better is to keep anything I still need to do something about as UNREAD in my INBOX. My email client has a pseudo-folder called "unread". All the unread, unhandled email shows up there, even if it was from a month ago. (I currently have unread, undone things from last July. Very low priority until it becomes important, but I can't just wave it off as "done" and forget about it.)
But if calling everything you've answered but not actually acted on "Done" by archiving it works for you, more power to you. You probably spend a lot more time scanning your archived email looking for things you forgot to do than I do, but it's your time to spend. Or maybe you just rely on people to remind you on a regular basis about things you said you'd do later but haven't?
You kids these days labeling emails you read as "won't read" and knowing what the sender said before reading what they said. I swear.
It only takes a couple of emails with a subject that contains the word "pilules" to know what the entire email is about. Ditto "Look, I know it's a fair ..." or "I can show you the video". "Can we meet this weekend" is a little harder, but when the sending domain is 12000 miles away I think it is safe to assume the answer is no and the question isn't honest to begin with.
People who think that it is rude not to read every email they get, or can't figure out that some can be ignored based on the subject. I swear.
Except no one thought of it for hundreds of years until this guy did.
Except that companies are paying this guy to do this for them. What do you think the companies did before he started offering this service? Yes, that's right, they did exactly the same thing (perhaps not with "a computer", but the same thing) all on their own. In hundreds if not thousands if not hundreds of thousands of places.
Can I get a patent on a business process that has been used all over the world by every company that ever sent a piece of mail?
Who is going to print on a random printer.
I have people print to the printer I run for my lab, from other places in the building, occasionally.
And when people learned about the bugs in the HP JetDirect that let people lock them up, assholes went out of their way to do that.
A functional website should never return a 404.
Uhhh, that's how it tells you you've requested an invalid page. The site is functional. It should tell you when you made a mistake.
Nonsense. Where I live, there is one and ONLY one option for ISP (where it is defined with usable speed/latency).
I can put limits on every "definition" of services such that there is only one providers that meets all my criteria. That doesn't create a monopoly, nor does it create a government-granted one.
For example, there is only one cell provider that meets all my criteria, but trying to claim that T-Mobile is a monopoly because of that is just ridiculous.
Cable companies use their cable right-of-way and infrastructure to pile Internet service on top in a way that works.
Of course. On their system that lost government-monopoly status decades ago. And services where they've never been given a monopoly by any government.
I essentially have one and only one choice, which makes it a monopoly.
I choose to drink only Stoly vodka; someone should do something about that government-granted monopoly they have on the vodka market.
Are they? I have at least two choices for land phone service- one from Verizon and one from Cox.
Are you referring to Cox the cable company selling you VoIP telephone service, and somehow confusing that with landline wired telephones? Or does Cox actually have a franchise for wired telephone service? If so, my bad. It only proves my point even better -- landline telcos don't have exclusive franshise protections, or maybe your municipality didn't grant an exclusive for wired phone in the first place.
If you are the only player in the market, by definition, you are a monopoly.
Read what I wrote. "Incumbent" does not mean "only player", it means "existing". It also does not mean "monopoly". Yes, of course if only one provider actually exists then there is a monopoly, but being a "government-granted" monopoly actually requires a government grant of a monopoly. ISPs have NEVER had such protections; cable television services did twenty years ago, but no longer.
When it came about because of government intervention in the first place... like it typically did with cable, does it matter?
Of course. What ended twenty years ago ended twenty years ago. Yes, that's a Captain Obvious statement, but so was your "if you're the only provider you are a monopoly" one. Federal law solved the monopoly issue with cable television as far as it being a government-granted one. Now it is economic, and simply crying that there aren't enough competitors is about all you can do. You can't force a company to come compete with the incumbents. If there was a profit to be had, someone would be competing. And Google pretty much admitted they couldn't hack a profit from a sitting duck situation when they pulled out of fiber.
And that advantage they now have (and no requirement they share their lines) means the monopoly will continue to exist, as it has for many years.
Except that the monopoly they had was for cable TV, not as an ISP. There are too many competitors to call any ISP a monopoly. Nobody ever told Comcast they had a monopoly as an ISP, and nobody ever told any other company they couldn't be one.
We went through this a year or so ago when the city in Colorado pronounced they had one one ISP in town and the city voted to create a municipal ISP. Except if you looked on the web you would find they had at least 8 residential and 8 commercial ISPs serving that area. Yes, some of them were the same company doing both, but some weren't.
Almost all ISP's operate in a monopoly granted or created by local or state governments.
Name ONE ISP that has been given a government monopoly.
In days gone by (like twenty five years ago) a CABLE COMPANY could get an exclusive franchise (government-granted monopoly) to operate CABLE TV in an area. The federal government outlawed exclusive franchises twenty five years ago. But even so, that grant was for Comcast the Cable TV company, not Comcast the ISP. (Hint: cable is just one way of delivering internet service. Nobody ever said "Comcast, you have a monopoly in this region in internet service.")
Telephone companies are still exclusive franchisees. They are a monopoly -- on wired telephone service. They don't have a monopoly on being an ISP. (Another hint: telephone wires are not the only way of providing internet service. Nobody ever told any telephone company that they have a monopoly in internet services.)
Wireless licenses were issued originally to TWO companies for every market, specifically to avoid the monopoly issue.
But ISPs -- never. There are simply too many of them to ever honestly say there is a monopoly.
Even if the market is supposedly free in that sector, no other company was given the incentives that X got on the onset...
Being an incumbent in ANY market is an advantage. But "incumbent" is not "monopoly".
.. so nobody else can afford to enter the market.
It's an economic monopoly if anything (and in most places it isn't even that), not a government-granted one.
There are plenty of places in the western world which don't use dedicated school busses for the school run, and they seem to work just fine....
Yes, I know they do. There are places where it is difficult if not impossible to provide a dedicated service. And they face the issues that I mentioned that make using dedicated buses a better solution in general. So what? That doesn't change what I said.
Or were you unaware of that?
Please say something that is a response to what I wrote.
Keep in mind that I was replying to an AC who was suggesting no time zones.
No, actually, he wasn't. He said "no need for time zones". More than one.
And if the concept that all of these students should start at different times because of the Sunrise and sunset,
He didn't say that, either. All of them won't start at different times. They'll start at times that better match the natural day. There will be a lot of schools that have the same (plus or minus an insignificant amount) natural day.
that is telling you that the country has too much east /west to be a single time zone.
That is your opinion. The issue being solved based on "one time zone" (not "no time zones") is limited to school students. Businesses are free to all start at the same time and close at the same time, because the adults who work there are better able to manage their own sleep times and work schedules. An office can manage to function with people on flex-time (in most cases), but a school that depends on having all the students there at the same time cannot.
which means you only need to plug 1 line in (but often will have more). So the person dialling out from that company can easily ID as the company's main number without spoofing.
As soon as you "plug" a second line into a PBX you have a reason and a need to "spoof". Having a PBX makes it more important to be able to spoof, not less.
There is no legitimate case for caller ID spoofing that cannot be solved though another method.
Most blanket absolute statements are false.
During the dead of winter, Alaska doesn't even have a sunrise for several months.
Last time I looked at a map, Alaska wasn't in India, and thus starting the school day based on solar time in India won't change anything in Alaska.
Time needs to work by the same rules for at least all people on earth.
I have no idea what you think this means. "At least all people in Earth" is a pretty meaningless statement. Who else would be involved? And your statement is not a fact in evidence, since we've been doing it with "different rules" (if you mean time zones and DST kinds of"rules") for generations.
Time should be made monotonic and we can worry about relativistic issues in the far future.
Oooh, big words that have nothing to do with anything at all. Other than the once a year "fall back" for DST time is already monotonic, and basing activities on solar time is hardly a "relativistic issue."
But the concept of no time zones, everything based on local sunset sunrise times is waaaaaay too much granularity, merely substituting a workable system with thousands of different times.
I think the point of the article is that India doesn't have a workable system, given the problems seen by students and sleep issues. They have one timezone, not "no time zones", and a proposed solution FOR STUDENTS is to start school based on the sun schedule, not an arbitrary fixed time.
It's not creating thousands of time zones. It's using one time zone and just starting one particular function based on natural time. It has nothing to do with when businesses are open. Nobody on the west side of Injah cares when schools on the east side start, and vice versa. It is a quite logical and reasonable solution to a perceived problem.
Much better cost savings can be had by having kids travel on normal commercial buses.
School buses are optimized for carrying school-ages kids. You can get a lot more students on a school bus than on a "normal commercial bus". Also, school buses can travel specialized routes based on where the students are and ignore all the commercial destinations. And they can travel at the right times so students don't have to be at the bus a half an hour or more early so they can catch the "commercial bus". And finally, since school tends to start about the same time as "rush hour", the commercial buses won't be packed when students and regular riders most need them, leaving students stranded at a bus stop when they can't get on the bus. Which is another plus to school buses -- they can properly capacity-plan so that students won't be left when a bus is full. They plan the routes so that doesn't happen.
In just a few words, "cost savings" is not always the most important criterion. After all, you save a LOT of money if you don't provide buses of any kind, and just let kids walk to school and back.
At 7:20 this morning I was awakened by a stupid call with the Microsoft services scam . ... Following that i received four more calls trying to send me Medicaid braces before noon.
And you think a law banning all sales calls would stop that? You think it was a sales call, and that it was made from someone in the US subject to US law?
Wow. No wonder you get so many scam callers. You must be the most naive person on the planet. You're a prime target.