Does he? I know the president can issue a pardon this is the first I have heard that he can selectively commute a sentence in defiance of the judicial branch.
Isn't this comparable to complete veto vs line veto?
'You simply cannot package a.deb and just assume it'll Just Work on any dpkg based system. You're being extemely naive. I can't speak for RPM based systems since I haven't used them much, but I know from vast experience that one.deb does not fit all... not even close.'
I've installed many deb but haven't had a need to make any (the software selection for ubuntu is rather extensive). For RPM's you can configure scripts that can be used to dynamically change the behavior of the package to accomodate different systems (again, provided dependency versions aren't hardcoded). Short of actual binary compatibility being broken there shouldn't be a problem. I can't imagine deb lacks similar flexibility.
The only time there would be a real problem with a properly crafted package (and I'm sure most debs aren't properly crafted anymore than most rpms are) would be a very old version of the distribution. There really isn't an onus on someone distributing software for a free system to support anything but the latest stable version or if the latest stable version was released in the last year or so the version before it. This is especially true because updates between stable linux versions are transparent to users unless its a desktop install.
If you are running something older than that you had best be prepared to repackage for yourself.
'That means: if you want to release a binary version of your software, you have to compile and package it for each and every distribution you wish to support.'
Aye, that should bog a guy down for what... a couple hours? Actually you have to package it for each backend, that means you have to put out a tarball, a deb AND an RPM. That assumes you aren't hardcoding dependency versions but I think developers are bright enough to handle it.
Of course if you aren't trying to gauge people with commercial software then there is no issue at all. Just release a source tarball and let the distributions compile and package the software.
'Convergent evolution is very well established though. Consider dolphins and sharks - their common ancestors are further back than when pre-dolphins started living in the water, but both have developed similar hydrodynamic shapes and move through the water by wriggling their bodies.'
I will readily admit that I don't know the common ancestor between dolphins and sharks. I do know that there is a great deal of inactive DNA in a complex lifeform like a shark, dolphin, or octopus. We have already established (very recently I believe) that in some cases a large portion of the DNA mutated as carried non-functional DNA and only later does a mutation evolve a gene that causes it to become active.
Isn't it possible that a large portion of the genes that are responsible for eyes and wriggling existed in the common ancestor as junk DNA?
I know this is offtopic but I have to ask. I have installed the free version of Opera 9 to give it a try. My first and most pressing issue is that when I attempt to scroll down in a Slashdot discussion the scrolling is slow and jerky. The smooth scrolling option doesn't seem to help.
It is worth noting that I am using the new discussion system and that I am also encountering problems when I click the plus to expand comments. Sometimes the response is slow and sometimes non-existant. I am used to Firefox and the page scrolls smoothly and the comments open and close instantly when clicked.
I really want to give Opera a fair shot but this is a show stopper for me.
'Arguing that relatively advanced lifeforms should all be vaguely humanoid because we consider ourselves to be advanced and humanoid is essentially saying that environment has no influence on evolution.'
Fair enough, although the odds of us encountering an alien lifeform that is similar to ourselves are not as poor as the odds of any random lifeform being similar to us. They are far better and for fairly obvious reasons. All we have to do is look to ourselves. What are we paying particular attention to on mars? The quest for water, the possibility of life or previous life. When seeking out new planets what is of particular interest and makes them newsworthy? Well, being able to support life like our own of course.
Whether aliens came here searching for a planet or for life (or both) it is reasonable that they would be looking for something as close as possible to what they already know. The universe is a big place with a lot of rocks, while any odds are possible on a cosmic scale the odds are significantly better that any alien who is going to pick this particular rock to visit is doing so BECAUSE of the conditions found here.
You are listing commonalities found on earth. You aren't noting similarities that evolved independently, you are noting similarities between things that share a common ancestor and that ancestor likely passed that much genetic code to all of them. After all, there are billions of lifeforms that never developed any of those characteristics. Some of those lifeforms are very complex and sophisticated even though they are also very small (viruses are a good example).
'it would be kinda strange for an individual or crew capable of navigating a craft at least twenty four trillion miles to not know how to fly a spacecraft well enough to avoid crashing.'
I don't see how that is unusual at all. They navigated the craft at least twenty four trillion miles THROUGH SPACE before crashing it in a unique and completely alien atmosphere with flight conditions they have never encountered before and that their craft obviously weren't designed to handle.
'I interpret code (noun) as a synonym for source code and code (adj) to mean to write source code.'
Yes, and running modified code (obviously) is running the binary that is produced by compiling said modified code. The point is that you don't need to be a programmer to run modifications to the software a vendor ships for your device.
'Novell can continue to distribute GPLv3 programs and stay in the deal with Microsoft'
If Microsoft owns patents on the software then Novell doesn't have the legal right to grant the permissions the GPL requires. In that case they lose their right to distribute under the GPL. If they distribute anyway they are guilty of copyright infringment regardless of what Microsoft does or does not do.
'Under this definition, a standard x86 Dell sold for "Small Business", "Medium & Large Business", or "Government, Education and Healthcare" can be locked down.'
If the owner requests it. The idea is to allow the guy who recieves the software to be able to modify it and use the modification. There is no violation of the spirit of the GPL if your boss buys a signed system to prevent YOU from running modified software on it.
But this isn't needed for networked multiplayer games at all. The key can be verified by the server when the client connects. There is no reason to give control of your individual device over to a third party when everyone has to connect to a device that is under the control of that third party.
'recognizing that Tivoisation isn't a restriction on fundamental freedom, and in fact in many cases is beneficial to the user'
Tivoisation is never beneficial to the user. It is sometimes beneficial to the OWNER. In a business they are typically different people. The exception is to allow businesses to intentionally order the equipment that way for security purposes, not to allow vendors to prevent businesses from modifying the GPL'd code and running it on their hardware.
'In general, it's often good for networked devices (other than general-purpose computers) to only run signed code, because it makes it significantly easier to guarantee network stability.'
It is never good when someone else holds the keys to YOUR hardware. There is nothing wrong with a user controlable ability to restrict hardware to only run software signed with a key belonging to the user. As for network stability, it is my network, if I feel the vendor software is more stable than I can run that to guarantee network stability. At no point is it in my interest to block me from intentionally loading whatever software I want on my own device.
'So why have the tedious and boring first part at all? If the real fun begins after experience and gold are irrelevant, then I can't see what purpose either experience or gold really serve except to make the game less fun and less interesting.'
Partly it is historical. These games all owe their lineage to Dungeons and Dragons and D&D has leveling and money. What people seem to forget is that these games aren't D&D. In D&D the idea was to make the game as realistic as possible within the confines of a fantasy world. The fun was in being able to BELIEVE in the setting, the be afraid when your character was in danger, and to make you act as your character would act. Leveling was a way to quanitify the knoweldge and experience your character gained as he progressed in the world. Gold served the same purpose, it provided both a reward to motivate and a challenge to add realism.
WOW and other MMORPG's are NOT D&D. Nobody believes in the world (or wants to), nobody is really roleplaying here. The exciting part is not the realism but the interaction with others.
Why do the gamemakers continue using these concepts despite the fact that they don't make sense for these games? It is a proven formula and that sort of simple challenge and reward system is addictive. At every point you find you have already put so much effort into it and the next objective is just a little bit farther...
'I felt the effects of your buying it; you devalued what I worked hard for.'
That is the point, we are talking about a game. Not a hobby, not a job, a game. By definition it is supposed to be all play and no work. If you 'worked hard' at something in a game then that something needs to be fixed.
Of course buying something is hardly devaluing it. Buying is a recognition of value. The work you put into x achieve is valued at whatever I just paid someone who did the same work. I worked hard for the money I used to buy it, that money is precious to me and I certainly don't see how your accomplishment was devalued.
Last but not least the value for the accomplishment itself is reduced when you consider that everyone in the game achieves those accomplishments. With my proposed fix to the game you wouldn't have had to struggle to get that nonsense either, you would be able skip right to the fun part.
Stop, take a deep breath and let the work mentality that has been driven into you slip away. You are ENTITLED to enjoy a game on an equal basis with everyone else WITHOUT having to work for it.
I've yet to meet anyone who goes around calling others idiots who isn't an idiot.
'6 years != adult. You haven't really thought out what you are saying.'
Or maybe I've thought it out a bit further than you? You seem awefully cocky for someone who failed to say five words without some sort false logic or arrogant assumption.
6 years is not an adult but human children respond in essentially the same way as human adults (albeit at different dosages but that is a matter of body weight). At six years of age you can conclusively diagnose autism and the subjects can explain what is happening to them in a reasonable fashion. Fortunately it is also before the potential hormonal problems in the teen years that could conflict with your results.
Of course you would need to wait until they are 12 years old if you need your subjects to reproduce for any reason.
'That was an example, and one benefit of the law. IMHO the callee, the person being bothered, have a right to know who is calling, just like you have a right to know who someone that is knocking on your door is before you let them in. Why should you be required to open the door to see who it is?'
It is perfectly legal for me to refuse to give you identification at your door. It is even legal for me to cover your peep hole, wear a mask, or turn around so you can't see my face. In other words, I am able to do anything in my power to obscure my identity, you have no right no right to know who is at your door. The only right you have is to decide whether or not you want to open it based upon the information I present, even if that is no information at all.
I see no reason for the phone to be any different. I have no obligation to provide you with information, or even valid information, you have no obligation to pick up your phone based upon the information I provide you. Same thing.
'Tough.'
Sorry buddy, I fail to recognize your authority to put your foot down here. I say tough to your personal concerns.
'Set the callerID to an automated answering service that says so, or even just a number that just isn't answered, but it should be a number that identifies who you are.'
You can't, this law prevents CallerID spoofing, just because you own the number you are pointing at doesn't mean you aren't spoofing. Spoofing includes legitimate spoofing.
'Again, I don't believe any company of any type has a right to call me at home and be anonymous. Period. You go into business, you obey the laws. Why SHOULD they have the right to be anonymous?'
They have a right to be anonymous for the same reason you have a right to be anonymous. Your argument is basically the same old 'you have no need for privacy if you have nothing to hide'. It's rubbish in every other instance and its rubbish in this one. Businesses are NOT public services or subject to public scrutiny. They are private entities and have the same entitlement to discretion and privacy that any private individual has.
'Why SHOULD they have the right to be anonymous?'
Why SHOULDN"T they have the right to be anonymous and any other right that doesn't infringe upon the rights of others? Laws are dangerous things and almost always a bad idea, the fewer things that are outlawed the better.
'Despite more than 50 complaints to the FTC, I have not had ANY relief and have jack shit to show for my efforts.... Make it criminal as WELL as civil, and allow direct citizen action in all cases. Then we will see compliance.'
I think you should be looking for a change of jurisdiction, not punishment. It is a simple question of manpower. Federal enforcement has very very few resources relative to the number of people they must police. The result is that federal authorities only bother with a few poster cases. You see people convicted of federal offenses when the state law enforcement arrests them for something and turns them over to the federal enforcement and in poster cases.
Consider how many people cheat on their taxes compared to how many actually get caught. Now consider that the IRS has more resources than any other branch of government to enforce their codes.
'Also fairly dense for picking a lame game (not chess) where people could simply buy results.'
They can buy results up to a point. There is a point in the game where everyone is 'maxed out' on all their character stats. The game continues at that point, it requires massive group efforts and is about nothing but skill. All the crap before that is just practice that teaches you the rules and strategies. Rules are fine but don't take several hundred hours to learn and the strategies all change for the end game anyway.
'Maybe if WoW were a game based on skill, rather than on the amount of time devoted to playing, this problem wouldn't exist.'
But it is, at a point. That part where you are leveling up and paying for mounts and so forth isn't the game, that is just setting up the board. The game starts after that. When you are at the maximum level with an epic mount, your skills are maxed, your character is respec'd to perfection, that is when the game begins and it is about skill. Why? Because everyone else at the point is already max'd on everything as well and because the game hardly ends at that point. There are no puzzles or mysteries involved in the things that come before that, only a time sink and grinding. At that point you can continue on to raids and what PvP wow has and the game starts being about skill and having fun and stops being about how much time you have put in.
'if you meet someone in real life that you met over the internet and it turns out that they're not a natural blond like they claimed, they committed fraud'
No they committed deception. Lying is not fraud. Fraud requires using deciet to gain something. What did the blond gain? Nothing. Now, if on the other hand the so called blonde got you to pay for her plane ticket and lodgings AND you did so based upon her false claim that she was a natural blonde then the law would have been broken. Now all the sudden her false claim that she is a natural blonde becomes a fraudulent claim. She didn't merely lie to you, she lied to you in order to illicit an unlawful gain.
In this case the gain is financial but it doesn't neccesarily need to be in order for fraud to have occurred.
You can spoof callerid to gain access to voicemail from a certain cell phone company too. That is neither here nor there, CallerID is known to be insecure. The solution is for citibank and cell phone providers (and anyone else who uses it) to stop using CallerID for verification.
The real reason this is being pushed through? Anonymity is usually in the interest of the individual but typical runs contrary to business interest. Businesses want to be able to identify and track everyone who uses a phone. If you try to keep your life private by blocking CallerID then many phone systems filter you out so CallerID spoofing was the best method left.
If this trend continues you will have to supervise anyone using your phone and possibly need to keep your phone under lock and key. After all, it can be used to access your voice mail, creditors, and once anonymity and spoofing are SUPPOSEDLY eliminated who knows what else? The easiest way to spoof callerid is to take a regular corded phone and plug it into the little grey box outside the victims home.;)
'Asterisk does a great job of keeping unwanted calls off my home line, but to work best it needs valid callerID info.'
I'm sorry but there is no justification for creating a new law and a new class of crime so that your Asterisk system will work.
That said, I think there might be merit in requiring telemarketers, pollsters, and collection agencies to use valid callerid information. I don't support it for other commercial agencies though, some may not take incoming calls at all.
That actually touches on me personally. I own a small computer service business. Much to my customers glee I do not give out my cell phone number to customers (they would rather have you paying attention to them and their problem when you are there than be able to reach you directly). If there is an emergency then they can pass a message from the office. My cell phone does not have the option of spoofing the callerid to match the office number it only gives me the option of setting callid to private. My cell is paid for by the company and used for business so it would fall under your commercial entity bill, this would effectively bar me from calling customers at all.
'There is no VALID reason for companies to be "anonymous".'
Aside from the specific example I mentioned above, this is a broad statement and you should rethink it. I could as easily say that there is no VALID reason for YOU to be "anonymous". Companies are entitled to the same privacy you are and may have many reasons for wanting to be anonymous.
I say we leave the line where it was BEFORE this bill. Spoofing caller ID or using any other means of deception to illicit unlawful gains is illegal (that would include businesses using caller id in a way that is not valid). Using caller id spoofing for any other action that is not criminal is still not criminal.
'I received about 50 calls for "Patricia" in the past year. despite constantly telling these annoying people that there has never been a "Patricia" at this number in at least 15 years since I've had it, and to remove the number from their records, and asking to have the info relayed to the creditor, the calls still keep coming.'
It's all about the magic words. There are different ways you have to say it depending on who is calling but here is a universal statement that will work for ANYONE you don't want to call again:
"This is my phone. I have no existing business relationship that entitles you to call it. Do not call again."
or if it is just telemarketers or people calling for surveys you can shorten it to "Do not call again."
If you say anything else it doesn't carry the weight of law, if you say it the way I just said it carries a $50,000 fine per incident should the same company call you again. The law doesn't require them to 'notify creditors' or 'take you off their list' but it does require them to honor your specific request that they not call again UNLESS you have an existing business relationship.
Speaking of things that should be regulated, collection agencies should be limited to one collection attempt every 3 months. I had a roommate once who got over his head and could no longer both pay rent/food AND pay is credit card bill. After it was turned into collections the creditors for ONE card literally called on a daily basis and sometimes multiple times per day.
Slashdot Mirror
'No, the power to pardon is absolute according to the Constitution.'
Yes but where is he given the power to commute?
'It's true the President has that kind of power'
Does he? I know the president can issue a pardon this is the first I have heard that he can selectively commute a sentence in defiance of the judicial branch.
Isn't this comparable to complete veto vs line veto?
'You simply cannot package a .deb and just assume it'll Just Work on any dpkg based system. You're being extemely naive. I can't speak for RPM based systems since I haven't used them much, but I know from vast experience that one .deb does not fit all... not even close.'
I've installed many deb but haven't had a need to make any (the software selection for ubuntu is rather extensive). For RPM's you can configure scripts that can be used to dynamically change the behavior of the package to accomodate different systems (again, provided dependency versions aren't hardcoded). Short of actual binary compatibility being broken there shouldn't be a problem. I can't imagine deb lacks similar flexibility.
The only time there would be a real problem with a properly crafted package (and I'm sure most debs aren't properly crafted anymore than most rpms are) would be a very old version of the distribution. There really isn't an onus on someone distributing software for a free system to support anything but the latest stable version or if the latest stable version was released in the last year or so the version before it. This is especially true because updates between stable linux versions are transparent to users unless its a desktop install.
If you are running something older than that you had best be prepared to repackage for yourself.
'That means: if you want to release a binary version of your software, you have to compile and package it for each and every distribution you wish to support.'
Aye, that should bog a guy down for what... a couple hours? Actually you have to package it for each backend, that means you have to put out a tarball, a deb AND an RPM. That assumes you aren't hardcoding dependency versions but I think developers are bright enough to handle it.
Of course if you aren't trying to gauge people with commercial software then there is no issue at all. Just release a source tarball and let the distributions compile and package the software.
'Convergent evolution is very well established though. Consider dolphins and sharks - their common ancestors are further back than when pre-dolphins started living in the water, but both have developed similar hydrodynamic shapes and move through the water by wriggling their bodies.'
I will readily admit that I don't know the common ancestor between dolphins and sharks. I do know that there is a great deal of inactive DNA in a complex lifeform like a shark, dolphin, or octopus. We have already established (very recently I believe) that in some cases a large portion of the DNA mutated as carried non-functional DNA and only later does a mutation evolve a gene that causes it to become active.
Isn't it possible that a large portion of the genes that are responsible for eyes and wriggling existed in the common ancestor as junk DNA?
I know this is offtopic but I have to ask. I have installed the free version of Opera 9 to give it a try. My first and most pressing issue is that when I attempt to scroll down in a Slashdot discussion the scrolling is slow and jerky. The smooth scrolling option doesn't seem to help.
It is worth noting that I am using the new discussion system and that I am also encountering problems when I click the plus to expand comments. Sometimes the response is slow and sometimes non-existant. I am used to Firefox and the page scrolls smoothly and the comments open and close instantly when clicked.
I really want to give Opera a fair shot but this is a show stopper for me.
'Arguing that relatively advanced lifeforms should all be vaguely humanoid because we consider ourselves to be advanced and humanoid is essentially saying that environment has no influence on evolution.'
Fair enough, although the odds of us encountering an alien lifeform that is similar to ourselves are not as poor as the odds of any random lifeform being similar to us. They are far better and for fairly obvious reasons. All we have to do is look to ourselves. What are we paying particular attention to on mars? The quest for water, the possibility of life or previous life. When seeking out new planets what is of particular interest and makes them newsworthy? Well, being able to support life like our own of course.
Whether aliens came here searching for a planet or for life (or both) it is reasonable that they would be looking for something as close as possible to what they already know. The universe is a big place with a lot of rocks, while any odds are possible on a cosmic scale the odds are significantly better that any alien who is going to pick this particular rock to visit is doing so BECAUSE of the conditions found here.
You are listing commonalities found on earth. You aren't noting similarities that evolved independently, you are noting similarities between things that share a common ancestor and that ancestor likely passed that much genetic code to all of them. After all, there are billions of lifeforms that never developed any of those characteristics. Some of those lifeforms are very complex and sophisticated even though they are also very small (viruses are a good example).
'it would be kinda strange for an individual or crew capable of navigating a craft at least twenty four trillion miles to not know how to fly a spacecraft well enough to avoid crashing.'
I don't see how that is unusual at all. They navigated the craft at least twenty four trillion miles THROUGH SPACE before crashing it in a unique and completely alien atmosphere with flight conditions they have never encountered before and that their craft obviously weren't designed to handle.
That doesn't seem all that strange to me.
Splitting hairs aren't we? ;)
'I interpret code (noun) as a synonym for source code and code (adj) to mean to write source code.'
Yes, and running modified code (obviously) is running the binary that is produced by compiling said modified code. The point is that you don't need to be a programmer to run modifications to the software a vendor ships for your device.
'Novell can continue to distribute GPLv3 programs and stay in the deal with Microsoft'
If Microsoft owns patents on the software then Novell doesn't have the legal right to grant the permissions the GPL requires. In that case they lose their right to distribute under the GPL. If they distribute anyway they are guilty of copyright infringment regardless of what Microsoft does or does not do.
Thousands of DD-WRT users who couldn't code to save their souls and all intentionally run modified code on their routers beg to differ.
'Under this definition, a standard x86 Dell sold for "Small Business", "Medium & Large Business", or "Government, Education and Healthcare" can be locked down.'
If the owner requests it. The idea is to allow the guy who recieves the software to be able to modify it and use the modification. There is no violation of the spirit of the GPL if your boss buys a signed system to prevent YOU from running modified software on it.
But this isn't needed for networked multiplayer games at all. The key can be verified by the server when the client connects. There is no reason to give control of your individual device over to a third party when everyone has to connect to a device that is under the control of that third party.
'recognizing that Tivoisation isn't a restriction on fundamental freedom, and in fact in many cases is beneficial to the user'
Tivoisation is never beneficial to the user. It is sometimes beneficial to the OWNER. In a business they are typically different people. The exception is to allow businesses to intentionally order the equipment that way for security purposes, not to allow vendors to prevent businesses from modifying the GPL'd code and running it on their hardware.
'In general, it's often good for networked devices (other than general-purpose computers) to only run signed code, because it makes it significantly easier to guarantee network stability.'
It is never good when someone else holds the keys to YOUR hardware. There is nothing wrong with a user controlable ability to restrict hardware to only run software signed with a key belonging to the user. As for network stability, it is my network, if I feel the vendor software is more stable than I can run that to guarantee network stability. At no point is it in my interest to block me from intentionally loading whatever software I want on my own device.
'So why have the tedious and boring first part at all? If the real fun begins after experience and gold are irrelevant, then I can't see what purpose either experience or gold really serve except to make the game less fun and less interesting.'
Partly it is historical. These games all owe their lineage to Dungeons and Dragons and D&D has leveling and money. What people seem to forget is that these games aren't D&D. In D&D the idea was to make the game as realistic as possible within the confines of a fantasy world. The fun was in being able to BELIEVE in the setting, the be afraid when your character was in danger, and to make you act as your character would act. Leveling was a way to quanitify the knoweldge and experience your character gained as he progressed in the world. Gold served the same purpose, it provided both a reward to motivate and a challenge to add realism.
WOW and other MMORPG's are NOT D&D. Nobody believes in the world (or wants to), nobody is really roleplaying here. The exciting part is not the realism but the interaction with others.
Why do the gamemakers continue using these concepts despite the fact that they don't make sense for these games? It is a proven formula and that sort of simple challenge and reward system is addictive. At every point you find you have already put so much effort into it and the next objective is just a little bit farther...
I will summarize your post to this statement.
'I felt the effects of your buying it; you devalued what I worked hard for.'
That is the point, we are talking about a game. Not a hobby, not a job, a game. By definition it is supposed to be all play and no work. If you 'worked hard' at something in a game then that something needs to be fixed.
Of course buying something is hardly devaluing it. Buying is a recognition of value. The work you put into x achieve is valued at whatever I just paid someone who did the same work. I worked hard for the money I used to buy it, that money is precious to me and I certainly don't see how your accomplishment was devalued.
Last but not least the value for the accomplishment itself is reduced when you consider that everyone in the game achieves those accomplishments. With my proposed fix to the game you wouldn't have had to struggle to get that nonsense either, you would be able skip right to the fun part.
Stop, take a deep breath and let the work mentality that has been driven into you slip away. You are ENTITLED to enjoy a game on an equal basis with everyone else WITHOUT having to work for it.
'It's because you're an idiot.'
I've yet to meet anyone who goes around calling others idiots who isn't an idiot.
'6 years != adult. You haven't really thought out what you are saying.'
Or maybe I've thought it out a bit further than you? You seem awefully cocky for someone who failed to say five words without some sort false logic or arrogant assumption.
6 years is not an adult but human children respond in essentially the same way as human adults (albeit at different dosages but that is a matter of body weight). At six years of age you can conclusively diagnose autism and the subjects can explain what is happening to them in a reasonable fashion. Fortunately it is also before the potential hormonal problems in the teen years that could conflict with your results.
Of course you would need to wait until they are 12 years old if you need your subjects to reproduce for any reason.
'That was an example, and one benefit of the law. IMHO the callee, the person being bothered, have a right to know who is calling, just like you have a right to know who someone that is knocking on your door is before you let them in. Why should you be required to open the door to see who it is?'
... Make it criminal as WELL as civil, and allow direct citizen action in all cases. Then we will see compliance.'
It is perfectly legal for me to refuse to give you identification at your door. It is even legal for me to cover your peep hole, wear a mask, or turn around so you can't see my face. In other words, I am able to do anything in my power to obscure my identity, you have no right no right to know who is at your door. The only right you have is to decide whether or not you want to open it based upon the information I present, even if that is no information at all.
I see no reason for the phone to be any different. I have no obligation to provide you with information, or even valid information, you have no obligation to pick up your phone based upon the information I provide you. Same thing.
'Tough.'
Sorry buddy, I fail to recognize your authority to put your foot down here. I say tough to your personal concerns.
'Set the callerID to an automated answering service that says so, or even just a number that just isn't answered, but it should be a number that identifies who you are.'
You can't, this law prevents CallerID spoofing, just because you own the number you are pointing at doesn't mean you aren't spoofing. Spoofing includes legitimate spoofing.
'Again, I don't believe any company of any type has a right to call me at home and be anonymous. Period. You go into business, you obey the laws. Why SHOULD they have the right to be anonymous?'
They have a right to be anonymous for the same reason you have a right to be anonymous. Your argument is basically the same old 'you have no need for privacy if you have nothing to hide'. It's rubbish in every other instance and its rubbish in this one. Businesses are NOT public services or subject to public scrutiny. They are private entities and have the same entitlement to discretion and privacy that any private individual has.
'Why SHOULD they have the right to be anonymous?'
Why SHOULDN"T they have the right to be anonymous and any other right that doesn't infringe upon the rights of others? Laws are dangerous things and almost always a bad idea, the fewer things that are outlawed the better.
'Despite more than 50 complaints to the FTC, I have not had ANY relief and have jack shit to show for my efforts.
I think you should be looking for a change of jurisdiction, not punishment. It is a simple question of manpower. Federal enforcement has very very few resources relative to the number of people they must police. The result is that federal authorities only bother with a few poster cases. You see people convicted of federal offenses when the state law enforcement arrests them for something and turns them over to the federal enforcement and in poster cases.
Consider how many people cheat on their taxes compared to how many actually get caught. Now consider that the IRS has more resources than any other branch of government to enforce their codes.
'Also fairly dense for picking a lame game (not chess) where people could simply buy results.'
They can buy results up to a point. There is a point in the game where everyone is 'maxed out' on all their character stats. The game continues at that point, it requires massive group efforts and is about nothing but skill. All the crap before that is just practice that teaches you the rules and strategies. Rules are fine but don't take several hundred hours to learn and the strategies all change for the end game anyway.
'Maybe if WoW were a game based on skill, rather than on the amount of time devoted to playing, this problem wouldn't exist.'
But it is, at a point. That part where you are leveling up and paying for mounts and so forth isn't the game, that is just setting up the board. The game starts after that. When you are at the maximum level with an epic mount, your skills are maxed, your character is respec'd to perfection, that is when the game begins and it is about skill. Why? Because everyone else at the point is already max'd on everything as well and because the game hardly ends at that point. There are no puzzles or mysteries involved in the things that come before that, only a time sink and grinding. At that point you can continue on to raids and what PvP wow has and the game starts being about skill and having fun and stops being about how much time you have put in.
'if you meet someone in real life that you met over the internet and it turns out that they're not a natural blond like they claimed, they committed fraud'
No they committed deception. Lying is not fraud. Fraud requires using deciet to gain something. What did the blond gain? Nothing. Now, if on the other hand the so called blonde got you to pay for her plane ticket and lodgings AND you did so based upon her false claim that she was a natural blonde then the law would have been broken. Now all the sudden her false claim that she is a natural blonde becomes a fraudulent claim. She didn't merely lie to you, she lied to you in order to illicit an unlawful gain.
In this case the gain is financial but it doesn't neccesarily need to be in order for fraud to have occurred.
You can spoof callerid to gain access to voicemail from a certain cell phone company too. That is neither here nor there, CallerID is known to be insecure. The solution is for citibank and cell phone providers (and anyone else who uses it) to stop using CallerID for verification.
;)
The real reason this is being pushed through? Anonymity is usually in the interest of the individual but typical runs contrary to business interest. Businesses want to be able to identify and track everyone who uses a phone. If you try to keep your life private by blocking CallerID then many phone systems filter you out so CallerID spoofing was the best method left.
If this trend continues you will have to supervise anyone using your phone and possibly need to keep your phone under lock and key. After all, it can be used to access your voice mail, creditors, and once anonymity and spoofing are SUPPOSEDLY eliminated who knows what else? The easiest way to spoof callerid is to take a regular corded phone and plug it into the little grey box outside the victims home.
'Asterisk does a great job of keeping unwanted calls off my home line, but to work best it needs valid callerID info.'
I'm sorry but there is no justification for creating a new law and a new class of crime so that your Asterisk system will work.
That said, I think there might be merit in requiring telemarketers, pollsters, and collection agencies to use valid callerid information. I don't support it for other commercial agencies though, some may not take incoming calls at all.
That actually touches on me personally. I own a small computer service business. Much to my customers glee I do not give out my cell phone number to customers (they would rather have you paying attention to them and their problem when you are there than be able to reach you directly). If there is an emergency then they can pass a message from the office. My cell phone does not have the option of spoofing the callerid to match the office number it only gives me the option of setting callid to private. My cell is paid for by the company and used for business so it would fall under your commercial entity bill, this would effectively bar me from calling customers at all.
'There is no VALID reason for companies to be "anonymous".'
Aside from the specific example I mentioned above, this is a broad statement and you should rethink it. I could as easily say that there is no VALID reason for YOU to be "anonymous". Companies are entitled to the same privacy you are and may have many reasons for wanting to be anonymous.
I say we leave the line where it was BEFORE this bill. Spoofing caller ID or using any other means of deception to illicit unlawful gains is illegal (that would include businesses using caller id in a way that is not valid). Using caller id spoofing for any other action that is not criminal is still not criminal.
'I received about 50 calls for "Patricia" in the past year. despite constantly telling these annoying people that there has never been a "Patricia" at this number in at least 15 years since I've had it, and to remove the number from their records, and asking to have the info relayed to the creditor, the calls still keep coming.'
It's all about the magic words. There are different ways you have to say it depending on who is calling but here is a universal statement that will work for ANYONE you don't want to call again:
"This is my phone. I have no existing business relationship that entitles you to call it. Do not call again."
or if it is just telemarketers or people calling for surveys you can shorten it to "Do not call again."
If you say anything else it doesn't carry the weight of law, if you say it the way I just said it carries a $50,000 fine per incident should the same company call you again. The law doesn't require them to 'notify creditors' or 'take you off their list' but it does require them to honor your specific request that they not call again UNLESS you have an existing business relationship.
Speaking of things that should be regulated, collection agencies should be limited to one collection attempt every 3 months. I had a roommate once who got over his head and could no longer both pay rent/food AND pay is credit card bill. After it was turned into collections the creditors for ONE card literally called on a daily basis and sometimes multiple times per day.