Care to post your name and address here? No? Then please stop being a hypocrite.
This is not a voter registration site which is mandated by law to be public information, and has been mandated by law to be public information, and has been public information for decades. Stop being an idiot.
Simply wrong. The responsibility goes to the Secretary of State.
The COUNTY election officials select the polling locations, run the elections, count the votes, and report them to the state. The Secretary of State does none of that. He has no control over adding up the numbers, and it is trivial for anyone who cares to verify they added up right.
The Secretary of State does SUPERVISE, but does not himself control, the voter registration process. He has laws that require voter registrations to be correct and accurate, and his office has the requirement to reject any that are not.
Similarly, the Secretary of State is responsible to make sure the counties haven't screwed up the election process and to correct it if they have.
You are not alleging that the counties have made any mistakes, therefore his role in that part of the process is moot. The "registration" issues have been dealt with elsewhere.
No, but the Secretary of State is responsible for making sure the entire process of voting does count all of the votes, records the votes securely, provides polling places accessible to everyone who wants to exercise their right to vote, etc.
The process of voting, selection of polling places, counting the results, all falls to the COUNTY election officials, not the state. They simply report the totals to the state, who uses a calculator to add them up. And the totals are reported to the press who also have calculators.
Kinda like a judge isn't responsible for deciding guilt or innocence (that would be the jury) but is responsible for running the process the jury works within,
Except that the judge is ultimately responsible for the decision on guilt or innocence and can overturn a stupid or wrong jury when necessary. The Secretary of State cannot tell County X that their vote totals are wrong and unilaterally appoint the winner.
This is simple and obvious ethics, which it seems Kemp lacks. Now that the race is so very close, Kemps decision to maintain control over the elections is clearly a horrendous conflict of interest.
You mean the Kemp who wants to keep such tight control over the election process that he has already resigned as Secretary of State of Georgia? That "Kemp"?
This information is public record. The political parties get it all the time. It's how they know who to send mailers to, and who to robocall. Claiming it has never been put together in one place like this is just bullshit.
If it was taken down, it was because of the know-nothings who whine about public information being made public. And if it suppresses anyone from voting because their public information might be made public, well, that's their choice.
Their sleep schedule is thrown off because some parent has decided that junior must go to bed at 7PM instead of going to be when they should go to bed. Gosh, it isn't a federal crime for a toddler to go to bed at 7PM tonight and 6PM tomorrow night when the CLOCK changes but the sunlight doesn't. And then shift his bedtime by five minutes a night, or every other night, until it's back on the same CLOCK time.
I only listen for 8 seconds. After that, it's a hangup.
You can call it whatever you want, but the answering machine keeps playing the entire message before it gets to the next one.
My point about political robocalls is that letting carriers block them risks censorship.
I'll say it again: the DNC is has nothing to do with carriers blocking anything. And it doesn't matter, because the carrier would be blocking them at the request of the customer. The CUSTOMER has the ultimate right to do that. It is not a First Amendment issue.
The DNC doesn't apply by law,
It SHOULD, and arguing that "letting carriers block them risks censorship" is a bullshit argument against changing the law.
Hard issue, political speech.
No, it is not. When I tell you "DO NOT CALL ME" it means "DO NOT CALL ME" no matter who you are. The law should back me up on that. The fact that politicians put an exemption for themselves into the law that allows me to tell other people not to call me is abuse on their part.
I really don't give a fuck if you want to mislabel it as "censorship" when I tell a politician not to call me. It isn't. He's got no right to harass me with his message. None. At. All.
For the record, on election day I got four political robocalls, three of which came from the same moron who I've told not to call me on a regular basis for the last two weeks. If you want to argue that it is his constitutional right to harass me that way, then I'll tell you to go fuck yourself.
What prison term is appropriate for the 8 seconds I was distracted?
I'm glad that robocalls only last 8 seconds where you live. Here in the US they can ramble on for a minute or more. That's a minute or more that you have to listen to so you can get to the next message, which might actually be real. Nope, the same robocall again.
What prison term is appropriate for the 8 seconds that you are distracted by a mugger?
Political robocalls are a First Amendment issue in America.
No, they aren't. The First Amendment does not require that I pay for and listen to your speech. The First Amendment does not allow you to harass me by calling multiple times per day. If "political robocalls" are a First Amendment issue, then ALL of them are.
Second, the DNC exemption for political calls has absolutely no basis in the First Amendment, because the DNC is an explicit opt-in instruction telling people not to call you. The First Amendment does not mean you have the right to FORCE me to accept your speech, especially when I pay for it with my time and money, after I've told you EXPLICITLY not to speak to me.
Consider the possibilities for carriers to be discriminatory in blocking political robocalls,
Yes. "Basic flat rate service" is local. "Extended calling area" gets me a few neighboring cities. Everything else is LD. Which, through an interesting bit of history I don't actually have, but still pay the FCC LD access fee.
Of course, the logical naming system for phone services falls apart when it comes to Caller ID. "Caller ID Name And Number" is the name of the service. Names are rarely included, and numbers are mostly fake.
Bounce the rest (with no rings) to voicemail immediately.
There's already a system problem that allows spam callers to drop directly to voicemail so you don't get the option of not answering. You just get the fun of having to play voicemail to see what's there.
I don't think I've ever had a robocall leave a message.
I have. Lots of them. It's wonderful to have to play through all the crap messages to get to the real ones, and hear the crap messages offer to put you on their do-not-call list if you "press one now". It's so much fun.
Someone else said a 'baby step' is eliminate the political etc. exemption from the DNC. YES! And prosecute for fake caller-id and fake call-back numbers. I'm getting two or three calls per day from one of our state's gubernatorial candidates. The caller ID is either completely fake, or points to a commercial robocaller company that promises to "remove your number from our list" when you call it and press 1 -- but never does. The candidate is using a fake callback number in their messages, so you can't call them directly. And their website email address is unresponded to.
Someone else commented that getting these political crap calls is the payback for not voting sooner. Nope. I voted two weeks ago and I'm still getting them. They don't care.
There are no screenings at all inside the EU today
Are you coming from/leaving to a Schengen country?
Irrelevant. The statement I replied to said there are NO screenings AT ALL inside the EU. Germany is inside the EU. There are screenings to get in. Therefore the statement I replied to is proven to be a lie.
Tag, you're it. Your the one arguing about whether you asked a question or made a statement. All of us who live on our own and not in our parent's basement know what a question mark is. Sorry it took public embarrassment for you to find out.
There are no screenings at all inside the EU today
Then who are those nice men in the military style uniforms I talk to when I enter and leave Germany, for example? More important, the question was how being sent to secondary screening today differs from doing it based on an AI flag? Both have overtones of guilty actions.
I don't see any point having it waste electricity when I don't use it 97% of the time.
You can spend a tiny amount for electricity keeping it on, or you can spend your time waiting for it to reauthorize and download the channel lineup every time you do want to use it. Freedom of choice.
Me, when I turn on the TV it's because I want to watch something NOW, not in ten minutes.
My TV has on-demand features like BBC iPlayer and ITV Player.
iPlayers are not cable TV On Demand. I can stream all kinds of things on my PC, too, but I cannot access Comcast's On Demand from anything but their STB.
Takes 10 minutes to start up
Why would you ever turn it off? I never see startup lag on mine because I don't. I also rarely use it -- mostly only when I know I have 3 things that are going to be recorded and don't want to use a SiliconDust tuner.
And for 20 EUR more, you get a fixed IP (that costs them nothing)
I did not know that regional registrars gave out IP blocks for free. Otherwise, yes, it does cost money to get a fixed IP. If your business has a fixed IP address then that address cannot be used dynamically for any other user. Your address also cannot be NATed into one of the many, free non-routable addresses.
As for other differences, the service guarantees are much higher for business class, and the bandwidths as well. This is true at least for Charter/Spectrum or whatever they call themselves these days.
Although if we ever found out that one group attempted to receive distributions for 100 of our clients, while contacting us with the email address 'youreasucker@cantbelievethisworks.com', and we were willing to give them our clients money, we would and should be shut down.
Fraud requires some potential benefit to the perpetrator or damage to the victim. YOU giving someone other people's money meets both standards. FB approving an ad has neither.
YOU also have a bit more capability to determine identity than Facebook has. YOU have access to SSN, for example, gathered when people opened the accounts. FB does not, or at least, should not.
I would way rather spend more one time on my own box, as I do with cable modems - at least then I haves some control over quality and will not be paying a huge amount over the lifetime of use.
On the other hand, if you have your own STB it will likely not have the STB functions like On Demand or whatever your cable company calls it, and if it breaks you cannot just walk into a local office and get a new one free. You probably also don't have a lot of control over the UI.
I have my own -- SiliconDust Home Run Pro I think it is. An 'm' style cableCard to get three channels at once. But if it breaks I will have to buy another one. And the SD UI really sucks.
I have to think that a lot of people do not like TV services gated through a crappy cable company box and that is doing a lot to increase the number of people unsubscribing from cable TV content.
The box is probably pretty low on the list of problems, other than you are stuck watching one thing at a time.
Nobody is commenting on the "broadcast TV fee" part of the increases. It's not the cable company's fault for that one -- the broadcasters in your area have learned they can get money out of the cable company for allowing them to be carried and they keep asking for more every time the contract comes up for renewal. We lost a distant CBS station in a major market because of that.
Seriously, the 1st would make it harder to censor since town or city owned community broadband would be subject the 1st; unlike privately owned broadband.
Hmmm. Is there an existing parallel? Why yes, there is. PEG channels (public, education, government) are carried on the local cable TV but run by the government. And yet, those channels have standards for what can appear there. I would like to see someone try to get a half hour program that contains nothing but people saying the word "fuck" onto the government-run public access channel. I'm pretty sure that if a high school student tried the same thing on one of the education channels they'd find themselves in trouble, too.
There are de-facto monopolies in some places for broadband internet services. Less than 10 years ago, but they still exist.
You should read all the words. I said there were defacto monopolies but not government granted ones. I'm even saying that there are ones that exist today, not just ten years ago. And I'll even do one better than you -- I'll admit that they exist in a lot of places.
It's just that they aren't government granted monopolies. Government granted monopolies were written away with the stroke of a pen more than 20 years ago. Maybe you are confused by the different between defacto (in fact) and dejure (in law)?
So you think. But the bill text defines "broadband internet access service" as:
(b) "Broadband Internet access service" means a mass-market retail service by wire or radio provided to customers in California that provides the capability to transmit data to, and receive data from, all or substantially all Internet endpoints, including, but not limited to, any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service. "Broadband Internet access service" also encompasses any service provided to customers in California that provides a functional equivalent of that service or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this title.
Dialup is excluded, and there is no mention of speed at all. In their zeal to look like network heros they failed at a basic definition. That T1 line you have been renting from the telco to get your internet over? Broadband! (For those who don't know, T1 is 1.44 "megs".) 1Meg/150k DSL? Broadband!
but typically when the government hands you a government granted monopoly,
Which ISP is a "government granted monopoly"? Hint: federal law has made exclusive franchises (which is how government granted monopolies used to be granted) against the law. Forbidden by federal law. And that law was passed more than 20 years ago.
They may be defacto monopolies due to economic factors that limit competition, but government-granted no longer.
some already have a captive audience through exclusivity contracts with various municipalities.
If you can find one, please report it ASAP to the FCC and the FTC and the federal DOJ. That municipality is breaking federal law. And anyone who wants to compete has it spelled out in black and white in that law exactly how to break this exclusivity should it actually exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Care to post your name and address here? No? Then please stop being a hypocrite.
This is not a voter registration site which is mandated by law to be public information, and has been mandated by law to be public information, and has been public information for decades. Stop being an idiot.
Simply wrong. The responsibility goes to the Secretary of State.
The COUNTY election officials select the polling locations, run the elections, count the votes, and report them to the state. The Secretary of State does none of that. He has no control over adding up the numbers, and it is trivial for anyone who cares to verify they added up right.
The Secretary of State does SUPERVISE, but does not himself control, the voter registration process. He has laws that require voter registrations to be correct and accurate, and his office has the requirement to reject any that are not.
Similarly, the Secretary of State is responsible to make sure the counties haven't screwed up the election process and to correct it if they have.
You are not alleging that the counties have made any mistakes, therefore his role in that part of the process is moot. The "registration" issues have been dealt with elsewhere.
No, but the Secretary of State is responsible for making sure the entire process of voting does count all of the votes, records the votes securely, provides polling places accessible to everyone who wants to exercise their right to vote, etc.
The process of voting, selection of polling places, counting the results, all falls to the COUNTY election officials, not the state. They simply report the totals to the state, who uses a calculator to add them up. And the totals are reported to the press who also have calculators.
Kinda like a judge isn't responsible for deciding guilt or innocence (that would be the jury) but is responsible for running the process the jury works within,
Except that the judge is ultimately responsible for the decision on guilt or innocence and can overturn a stupid or wrong jury when necessary. The Secretary of State cannot tell County X that their vote totals are wrong and unilaterally appoint the winner.
This is simple and obvious ethics, which it seems Kemp lacks. Now that the race is so very close, Kemps decision to maintain control over the elections is clearly a horrendous conflict of interest.
You mean the Kemp who wants to keep such tight control over the election process that he has already resigned as Secretary of State of Georgia? That "Kemp"?
This information is public record. The political parties get it all the time. It's how they know who to send mailers to, and who to robocall. Claiming it has never been put together in one place like this is just bullshit.
If it was taken down, it was because of the know-nothings who whine about public information being made public. And if it suppresses anyone from voting because their public information might be made public, well, that's their choice.
Their sleep schedule is thrown off because some parent has decided that junior must go to bed at 7PM instead of going to be when they should go to bed. Gosh, it isn't a federal crime for a toddler to go to bed at 7PM tonight and 6PM tomorrow night when the CLOCK changes but the sunlight doesn't. And then shift his bedtime by five minutes a night, or every other night, until it's back on the same CLOCK time.
I only listen for 8 seconds. After that, it's a hangup.
You can call it whatever you want, but the answering machine keeps playing the entire message before it gets to the next one.
My point about political robocalls is that letting carriers block them risks censorship.
I'll say it again: the DNC is has nothing to do with carriers blocking anything. And it doesn't matter, because the carrier would be blocking them at the request of the customer. The CUSTOMER has the ultimate right to do that. It is not a First Amendment issue.
The DNC doesn't apply by law,
It SHOULD, and arguing that "letting carriers block them risks censorship" is a bullshit argument against changing the law.
Hard issue, political speech.
No, it is not. When I tell you "DO NOT CALL ME" it means "DO NOT CALL ME" no matter who you are. The law should back me up on that. The fact that politicians put an exemption for themselves into the law that allows me to tell other people not to call me is abuse on their part.
I really don't give a fuck if you want to mislabel it as "censorship" when I tell a politician not to call me. It isn't. He's got no right to harass me with his message. None. At. All.
For the record, on election day I got four political robocalls, three of which came from the same moron who I've told not to call me on a regular basis for the last two weeks. If you want to argue that it is his constitutional right to harass me that way, then I'll tell you to go fuck yourself.
What prison term is appropriate for the 8 seconds I was distracted?
I'm glad that robocalls only last 8 seconds where you live. Here in the US they can ramble on for a minute or more. That's a minute or more that you have to listen to so you can get to the next message, which might actually be real. Nope, the same robocall again.
What prison term is appropriate for the 8 seconds that you are distracted by a mugger?
Political robocalls are a First Amendment issue in America.
No, they aren't. The First Amendment does not require that I pay for and listen to your speech. The First Amendment does not allow you to harass me by calling multiple times per day. If "political robocalls" are a First Amendment issue, then ALL of them are.
Second, the DNC exemption for political calls has absolutely no basis in the First Amendment, because the DNC is an explicit opt-in instruction telling people not to call you. The First Amendment does not mean you have the right to FORCE me to accept your speech, especially when I pay for it with my time and money, after I've told you EXPLICITLY not to speak to me.
Consider the possibilities for carriers to be discriminatory in blocking political robocalls,
The DNC list is not carriers blocking anything.
Is "long distance" still a thing?
Yes. "Basic flat rate service" is local. "Extended calling area" gets me a few neighboring cities. Everything else is LD. Which, through an interesting bit of history I don't actually have, but still pay the FCC LD access fee.
Of course, the logical naming system for phone services falls apart when it comes to Caller ID. "Caller ID Name And Number" is the name of the service. Names are rarely included, and numbers are mostly fake.
Bounce the rest (with no rings) to voicemail immediately.
There's already a system problem that allows spam callers to drop directly to voicemail so you don't get the option of not answering. You just get the fun of having to play voicemail to see what's there.
I don't think I've ever had a robocall leave a message.
I have. Lots of them. It's wonderful to have to play through all the crap messages to get to the real ones, and hear the crap messages offer to put you on their do-not-call list if you "press one now". It's so much fun.
Someone else said a 'baby step' is eliminate the political etc. exemption from the DNC. YES! And prosecute for fake caller-id and fake call-back numbers. I'm getting two or three calls per day from one of our state's gubernatorial candidates. The caller ID is either completely fake, or points to a commercial robocaller company that promises to "remove your number from our list" when you call it and press 1 -- but never does. The candidate is using a fake callback number in their messages, so you can't call them directly. And their website email address is unresponded to.
Someone else commented that getting these political crap calls is the payback for not voting sooner. Nope. I voted two weeks ago and I'm still getting them. They don't care.
There are no screenings at all inside the EU today
Are you coming from/leaving to a Schengen country?
Irrelevant. The statement I replied to said there are NO screenings AT ALL inside the EU. Germany is inside the EU. There are screenings to get in. Therefore the statement I replied to is proven to be a lie.
Tag, you're it. Your the one arguing about whether you asked a question or made a statement. All of us who live on our own and not in our parent's basement know what a question mark is. Sorry it took public embarrassment for you to find out.
There are no screenings at all inside the EU today
Then who are those nice men in the military style uniforms I talk to when I enter and leave Germany, for example? More important, the question was how being sent to secondary screening today differs from doing it based on an AI flag? Both have overtones of guilty actions.
Nothing like being sent to secondary screening with the presumption you have done something bad.
How does that differ from today?
It could certainly cause harm to accept false adds:
What harm was caused by Facebook approving the 100 ads?
Most adds falsely placed for political shit-stirring would probably be less extreme, but you see my point.
No, I don't. Where was the harm? What is your point?
I don't see any point having it waste electricity when I don't use it 97% of the time.
You can spend a tiny amount for electricity keeping it on, or you can spend your time waiting for it to reauthorize and download the channel lineup every time you do want to use it. Freedom of choice.
Me, when I turn on the TV it's because I want to watch something NOW, not in ten minutes.
My TV has on-demand features like BBC iPlayer and ITV Player.
iPlayers are not cable TV On Demand. I can stream all kinds of things on my PC, too, but I cannot access Comcast's On Demand from anything but their STB.
Takes 10 minutes to start up
Why would you ever turn it off? I never see startup lag on mine because I don't. I also rarely use it -- mostly only when I know I have 3 things that are going to be recorded and don't want to use a SiliconDust tuner.
And for 20 EUR more, you get a fixed IP (that costs them nothing)
I did not know that regional registrars gave out IP blocks for free. Otherwise, yes, it does cost money to get a fixed IP. If your business has a fixed IP address then that address cannot be used dynamically for any other user. Your address also cannot be NATed into one of the many, free non-routable addresses.
As for other differences, the service guarantees are much higher for business class, and the bandwidths as well. This is true at least for Charter/Spectrum or whatever they call themselves these days.
Although if we ever found out that one group attempted to receive distributions for 100 of our clients, while contacting us with the email address 'youreasucker@cantbelievethisworks.com', and we were willing to give them our clients money, we would and should be shut down.
Fraud requires some potential benefit to the perpetrator or damage to the victim. YOU giving someone other people's money meets both standards. FB approving an ad has neither.
YOU also have a bit more capability to determine identity than Facebook has. YOU have access to SSN, for example, gathered when people opened the accounts. FB does not, or at least, should not.
Apparently not since I asked "Is It" and did not make a statement saying "It Is".
Questions end in question marks, not periods.
I would way rather spend more one time on my own box, as I do with cable modems - at least then I haves some control over quality and will not be paying a huge amount over the lifetime of use.
On the other hand, if you have your own STB it will likely not have the STB functions like On Demand or whatever your cable company calls it, and if it breaks you cannot just walk into a local office and get a new one free. You probably also don't have a lot of control over the UI.
I have my own -- SiliconDust Home Run Pro I think it is. An 'm' style cableCard to get three channels at once. But if it breaks I will have to buy another one. And the SD UI really sucks.
I have to think that a lot of people do not like TV services gated through a crappy cable company box and that is doing a lot to increase the number of people unsubscribing from cable TV content.
The box is probably pretty low on the list of problems, other than you are stuck watching one thing at a time.
Nobody is commenting on the "broadcast TV fee" part of the increases. It's not the cable company's fault for that one -- the broadcasters in your area have learned they can get money out of the cable company for allowing them to be carried and they keep asking for more every time the contract comes up for renewal. We lost a distant CBS station in a major market because of that.
Seriously, the 1st would make it harder to censor since town or city owned community broadband would be subject the 1st; unlike privately owned broadband.
Hmmm. Is there an existing parallel? Why yes, there is. PEG channels (public, education, government) are carried on the local cable TV but run by the government. And yet, those channels have standards for what can appear there. I would like to see someone try to get a half hour program that contains nothing but people saying the word "fuck" onto the government-run public access channel. I'm pretty sure that if a high school student tried the same thing on one of the education channels they'd find themselves in trouble, too.
There are de-facto monopolies in some places for broadband internet services. Less than 10 years ago, but they still exist.
You should read all the words. I said there were defacto monopolies but not government granted ones. I'm even saying that there are ones that exist today, not just ten years ago. And I'll even do one better than you -- I'll admit that they exist in a lot of places.
It's just that they aren't government granted monopolies. Government granted monopolies were written away with the stroke of a pen more than 20 years ago. Maybe you are confused by the different between defacto (in fact) and dejure (in law)?
its still broadband as long as you get 25Mbps
So you think. But the bill text defines "broadband internet access service" as:
(b) "Broadband Internet access service" means a mass-market retail service by wire or radio provided to customers in California that provides the capability to transmit data to, and receive data from, all or substantially all Internet endpoints, including, but not limited to, any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service. "Broadband Internet access service" also encompasses any service provided to customers in California that provides a functional equivalent of that service or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this title.
Dialup is excluded, and there is no mention of speed at all. In their zeal to look like network heros they failed at a basic definition. That T1 line you have been renting from the telco to get your internet over? Broadband! (For those who don't know, T1 is 1.44 "megs".) 1Meg/150k DSL? Broadband!
but typically when the government hands you a government granted monopoly,
Which ISP is a "government granted monopoly"? Hint: federal law has made exclusive franchises (which is how government granted monopolies used to be granted) against the law. Forbidden by federal law. And that law was passed more than 20 years ago.
They may be defacto monopolies due to economic factors that limit competition, but government-granted no longer.
some already have a captive audience through exclusivity contracts with various municipalities.
If you can find one, please report it ASAP to the FCC and the FTC and the federal DOJ. That municipality is breaking federal law. And anyone who wants to compete has it spelled out in black and white in that law exactly how to break this exclusivity should it actually exist.
Is it really broadband if the only sites that load at advertised speeds are those of the ISPs' partners?
Under California law currently being dealt with in court, it is broadband.