>"It's adorable that you think a complaint to Trump's FCC is going to have any effect."
And it is equally adorable if you think by saying nothing, one's voice would ever be heard. So don't bother complaining here if you are not willing to complain there first (hopefully you have). And yes, I HAVE complained there myself.
>"While there are laws to regulate businesses when they call consumers, some groups argue that ringless voicemail shouldn't count.
Are you kidding me? Voicemail is even MORE annoying than calls. I will get pestered by repeating notifications and have to stop what I am doing and "log into" it just to delete them. So instead of a few second annoyance, this equates to a many seconds annoyance.
I am already pissed that I have no way of rejecting a call AND that rejects their ability to leave a voicemail (I would actually prefer it send them to an announcement-only that says something like "your call is rejected, please remove this number from any and all lists"). And in Android, Google is trying to be so helpful by labeling those incoming calls as "SPAM" and yet there is no setting to have it automatically BLOCK such calls.
Consumers have woefully little control on who annoys us. Why should we weaken what little control there already is?
>The MSM focus on it while avoiding the more serious stuff that's removing civil liberties, dragnet data programs by "security agencies", and arming enemies of the west
Not sure what "MSM" is, but you just described exactly what was happening the last several administrations before "Mr. Orange", ***including Obama****. And what would you slang him as, "Mr Grey" because he is half Black and half White??
>"it is "infeasible" to provide an estimate of how many Americans' communications have been collected"
Because there has been, is, and will still be no real accountability, so why should they expend the time/money/effort to track what they track or make methods to do so? And even if they did, would you believe it? I won't. Who will verify it?
>"the TSA may force passengers to check laptops on domestic U.S. flights"
When that day comes I can't use at least my tablet, I will just never fly again. Utterly ridiculous security theater crap. Flying and airports are already near intolerable as it is.
>" What do you think of Trump's tweets? Do you think they are getting old, or do you find them particularly useful?"
I don't have a Twitter account and don't read ANY tweets. Probably not the answer expected. Generally, I don't understand why people are attracted to that form of "communication".
>"FCC Seeks To Increase ISP Competition In Apartment Buildings"
Seriously? As if most of us even have a choice OUTSIDE apartment buildings? I don't know about you, but here there is only one choice for ISP, and it is the cable company. It doesn't matter what kind of building in which we reside.
>"Congress never ratified the Paris Agreement. In fact, Obama never sent it to Congress for ratification. there is nothing to "withdraw" from...we were never in it."
Don't try to use logic or reason here with any topic in which the word "Trump" is injected. It apparently doesn't work...
But Trump did do exactly what he promised the voters in his election campaign promises. Had he not, then the same people would be complaining that he was a liar or didn't do what he said he would do.
I don't like Trump, nor some of what he does, but the alternative was not any better (just in different ways). I think South Park put it the best- we had a choice between a turd sandwich or a giant douche.
>"I have seen this more and more since Trump took office. Trump dismantles EPA's public protections. Local governments agree to pick up the slack."
Actually, this is generally the way the country is supposed to be run. By the design of the country and explained in the Constitution, most of the power and running of the country is SUPPOSED to be at the state and local levels. In this manner, it keeps the Fed under control, gives localities more freedom to meet the specific needs of their citizens, and creates competition/exploration/choice. Of course, that doesn't work with everything, but that is why there are a few SPECIFIC powers granted to the Federal government- they are listed right in the Constitution (coining money, common defense, post office etc). Those rights NOT listed that the Fed has commandeered are numerous- things like healthcare, education, welfare, are good examples.
We are the United States of America, not the Federal State of America.
Just because she says or thinks she is harassed or paid less doesn't make that true. And to make it a media circus doesn't help the situation. No doubt there are PLENTY of people who do this now just to get what they want. It is a shame because there are legit issues that need to be addressed at places that will get overlooked when things are made-up by others and found to be unjustified.
Using fingerprints and allowing a third-party to have access to that data is unacceptable. They can be used to track what people are doing and require registration data (which will be horribly abused) .
Stand up for your rights, people... and the rights of your children. Once you give this data to the government (or big business), it will NEVER be erased or restricted, regardless of claims or laws- it will go into huge databases and shared between businesses and agencies and used however they want for as long as they want. Even worse, with every crime investigation, you will be searched without probable cause.
Fingerprints are not foolproof and not a positive ID.
There is only one safer and practical biometric I know of- that is deep vein palm scan. That registration data cannot be readily abused. It can't be latently collected like DNA, fingerprints, and face recognition can. You have to know you are registering/enrolling when it happens. You don't leave evidence of it all over the place. When you go to use it, you know you are using it every time. And on top of all that, it is accurate, fast, reliable, unchanging, live-sensing, and cheap. If you must participate in a biometric, this is the one you should insist on using.
I would mod you up if I could. Of course, thinking that things stay "secret" on Facebook is a huge mistake, but one I am sure that the overwhelming majority of Facebook users make; not just 15-year-olds.
>"Almost 60% of US workers who don't take their allotted vacation say they fear the amount of work they'll have to return to,"
Yep, that is me. When I take off time to "rest and recover", I come back to an even more stressful mess. Not exactly restful. The only true time off I get is when others in the facility are also off at the same time... meaning holidays. Except most of the facility is still "open" 24/7/365 so even that is a shot-in-the-dark.
Does contributing $0.01 in taxes entitle one to $1 in services? $10 in services? $100? If you think that most people on public assistance paid for that service, you are sadly mistaken. Most might have paid for 0.01% of it, or 0.001% of it.
>"OK, thanks. I think I now understand what the fear is, and I think you can rest easy. One thing I don't see is politicians being unduly influenced by poor people. What I see in reality is something quite different."
Most politicians seem to simultaneously promise more services and spending to those with less money and less taxing to those with more money. Of course this is impossible to resolve, but they promise it anyway. Candidates who do not promise more or continued "free" services to those not paying much in taxes, will typically not win.
In reality, year after year, we have more spending AND more taxing, with the government growing ever and ever larger and more powerful. So many people work for it directly or indirectly it is now impossible to reign under control. Meanwhile we have a huge polarization between the poorer and the richer. A system designed to continue to support bad behavior and decisions like dropping out of school, having children out of marriage and way too young, not having to work for things, not rehabilitating law breakers AND at the same time on the other hand also rewarding the rich with overly strong and hostile patent and copyright laws, tax loopholes, and favors for money.
This is not sustainable. We need actions that will reduce government AND dependence on the government; things that require people to work, that reduce corruption and waste (like a flat tax), that honor and follow the Constitution, that seek a strong but not out-of-control military, that limits illegal immigration, that punishes actions that erode personal liberty and privacy, that keeps religion out of politics. No party does this, and no party will because we also have a horrible, primitive voting system that prevents any third-parties or innovation.
My fear is the ultimate implosion caused by all this dysfunction.
>"The concept of retirement is less clear cut in the US, as you have a multitude of concepts"
That is true, because Social Security is not just a retirement system. It is also a quasi welfare system that can and does pay out benefits for various disabilities, loss of parents, loss of spouse, and other situations. And the money is taxed as income, too. At least, unlike your Poland example, in the USA the normal age is set for everyone equally and the benefits (other than the quasi-welfare stuff I mentioned) are somewhat based on what was contributed (it is more based on one's final contribution levels, not lifetime contributions, which would make more sense and why total monies paid out of the system is always more than what was put in).
Just to put it in perspective, there are over 650,000 applications PER YEAR for "disability" alone. Right now there are almost 9 MILLION people getting "disability" benefits!!!!! An increase of 33% in just the last 10 years. And only around 100 million people actually pay income taxes/Social Security right now (out of a population of 325 million people).
>"Contributing what? Time? Blood? Money? Help me understand. What is it that people are not doing that you think they should be and why that should affect their ability to vote."
Not being on public assistance while also not paying taxes. I don't think anyone contributes time or blood to the government (except as part of a paying job). You ask why should it affect their ability to vote? That is the whole thread of conversation- because there are people who barely work or not at all, suck tons of money from the system, and contribute nothing to the payment or running of the system. And yet they can vote for more public assistance, more welfare, and more benefits for themselves (and certainly do vote that way when they bother to vote). And those monies are paid to them by guess who?...?.... The people who ARE paying taxes. I can see where it would be a slippery slope, but it is not all that far fetched. Do you think you should be able to vote as a stockholder of a corporation without paying for and owning stock? Same concept.
>"Since you asked, yes, I think felons should be allowed to vote. I might be convinced that they should lose that right while behind bars but certainly once they get out they should have all the rights of other citizens."
Well they don't in our current system in most areas. Once a felon, they can typically never vote again, unless they go through extraordinary measures to try and get that right back again (and it is usually pretty hopeless).
>"That's a pretty fucked up view. Do you think you will never be in that situation?"
I can see myself as in that situation. And in such, I would certainly understand that since I wasn't contributing I wouldn't be able to vote, and I would be fine with that. It is not a matter of compassion but logic.
Since you think it is about compassion, do you think people convicted of felony should be able to vote? Do you think non-citizens should vote?
While I agree with you in some ways, the reality is that "disabled" is highly subjective. I see people on "disability" all the time for minor ailments.... some of which I have myself and yet I have paid taxes every year since I was 16 and starting working. Other ailments just things that people bring on themselves. The system is so horribly managed now, it is hard to believe that socializing money distribution further based on "need" will help the situation.
UBI must be de-coupled from healthcare, but I still think it would have to replace most other social welfare to work and be accepted. Although I am certainly no expert in such matters.
>"Once upon a time, only those who held property of some kind could vote. Hasn't been that way in awhile though."
True. And after that, only European American males. Neither was fair, however. In this case, those actively paying taxes (of any amount) are those contributing to the running of the country and should probably be the only ones with the power to decide where and how to spend that money. Seems reasonable.
>I'm retired. My income consists of Social Security and compensation from the VA because I'm 30% disabled. (Service connected.)
I wouldn't think retirement/SS would be considered "public assistance", since you put money into that system for just that purpose. I should think there is a large difference between retirement and someone who chooses not to work.
>>"If left unchecked, the dolists would vote themselves extra benefits"
>"So here's a solution that should be stable: unless you pay taxes or do something that will bring extra taxes in the future (education, maternity leave), you don't get to vote."
I have often thought it should be that way (or, similarly, if one is accepting public assistance, he/she can't vote). But, alas, it goes contrary to the Constitution, and that is very unlikely to be changed.
Slashdot Mirror
>"It's adorable that you think a complaint to Trump's FCC is going to have any effect."
And it is equally adorable if you think by saying nothing, one's voice would ever be heard. So don't bother complaining here if you are not willing to complain there first (hopefully you have). And yes, I HAVE complained there myself.
>"While there are laws to regulate businesses when they call consumers, some groups argue that ringless voicemail shouldn't count.
Are you kidding me? Voicemail is even MORE annoying than calls. I will get pestered by repeating notifications and have to stop what I am doing and "log into" it just to delete them. So instead of a few second annoyance, this equates to a many seconds annoyance.
I am already pissed that I have no way of rejecting a call AND that rejects their ability to leave a voicemail (I would actually prefer it send them to an announcement-only that says something like "your call is rejected, please remove this number from any and all lists"). And in Android, Google is trying to be so helpful by labeling those incoming calls as "SPAM" and yet there is no setting to have it automatically BLOCK such calls.
Consumers have woefully little control on who annoys us. Why should we weaken what little control there already is?
Well, that shows you how much I know about Twitter :)
>The MSM focus on it while avoiding the more serious stuff that's removing civil liberties, dragnet data programs by "security agencies", and arming enemies of the west
Not sure what "MSM" is, but you just described exactly what was happening the last several administrations before "Mr. Orange", ***including Obama****. And what would you slang him as, "Mr Grey" because he is half Black and half White??
>"it is "infeasible" to provide an estimate of how many Americans' communications have been collected"
Because there has been, is, and will still be no real accountability, so why should they expend the time/money/effort to track what they track or make methods to do so? And even if they did, would you believe it? I won't. Who will verify it?
>"the TSA may force passengers to check laptops on domestic U.S. flights"
When that day comes I can't use at least my tablet, I will just never fly again. Utterly ridiculous security theater crap. Flying and airports are already near intolerable as it is.
>" What do you think of Trump's tweets? Do you think they are getting old, or do you find them particularly useful?"
I don't have a Twitter account and don't read ANY tweets. Probably not the answer expected. Generally, I don't understand why people are attracted to that form of "communication".
>"FCC Seeks To Increase ISP Competition In Apartment Buildings"
Seriously? As if most of us even have a choice OUTSIDE apartment buildings? I don't know about you, but here there is only one choice for ISP, and it is the cable company. It doesn't matter what kind of building in which we reside.
How about increasing ISP competition, period.
>"Congress never ratified the Paris Agreement. In fact, Obama never sent it to Congress for ratification. there is nothing to "withdraw" from...we were never in it."
Don't try to use logic or reason here with any topic in which the word "Trump" is injected. It apparently doesn't work...
But Trump did do exactly what he promised the voters in his election campaign promises. Had he not, then the same people would be complaining that he was a liar or didn't do what he said he would do.
I don't like Trump, nor some of what he does, but the alternative was not any better (just in different ways). I think South Park put it the best- we had a choice between a turd sandwich or a giant douche.
>"I have seen this more and more since Trump took office. Trump dismantles EPA's public protections. Local governments agree to pick up the slack."
Actually, this is generally the way the country is supposed to be run. By the design of the country and explained in the Constitution, most of the power and running of the country is SUPPOSED to be at the state and local levels. In this manner, it keeps the Fed under control, gives localities more freedom to meet the specific needs of their citizens, and creates competition/exploration/choice. Of course, that doesn't work with everything, but that is why there are a few SPECIFIC powers granted to the Federal government- they are listed right in the Constitution (coining money, common defense, post office etc). Those rights NOT listed that the Fed has commandeered are numerous- things like healthcare, education, welfare, are good examples.
We are the United States of America, not the Federal State of America.
+1 Bingo
Just because she says or thinks she is harassed or paid less doesn't make that true. And to make it a media circus doesn't help the situation. No doubt there are PLENTY of people who do this now just to get what they want. It is a shame because there are legit issues that need to be addressed at places that will get overlooked when things are made-up by others and found to be unjustified.
Using fingerprints and allowing a third-party to have access to that data is unacceptable. They can be used to track what people are doing and require registration data (which will be horribly abused) .
Stand up for your rights, people... and the rights of your children. Once you give this data to the government (or big business), it will NEVER be erased or restricted, regardless of claims or laws- it will go into huge databases and shared between businesses and agencies and used however they want for as long as they want. Even worse, with every crime investigation, you will be searched without probable cause.
Fingerprints are not foolproof and not a positive ID.
There is only one safer and practical biometric I know of- that is deep vein palm scan. That registration data cannot be readily abused. It can't be latently collected like DNA, fingerprints, and face recognition can. You have to know you are registering/enrolling when it happens. You don't leave evidence of it all over the place. When you go to use it, you know you are using it every time. And on top of all that, it is accurate, fast, reliable, unchanging, live-sensing, and cheap. If you must participate in a biometric, this is the one you should insist on using.
Example: http://www.m2sys.com/palm-vein...
More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The first step in securing freedom is privacy. When you are tracked, you are losing your freedom, whether you realize it or not.
^ +1 insightful
I would mod you up if I could. Of course, thinking that things stay "secret" on Facebook is a huge mistake, but one I am sure that the overwhelming majority of Facebook users make; not just 15-year-olds.
And in this case, the girl didn't tell anyone or apparently write down her password. So it WAS a secret; except to Facebook.
>"Almost 60% of US workers who don't take their allotted vacation say they fear the amount of work they'll have to return to,"
Yep, that is me. When I take off time to "rest and recover", I come back to an even more stressful mess. Not exactly restful. The only true time off I get is when others in the facility are also off at the same time... meaning holidays. Except most of the facility is still "open" 24/7/365 so even that is a shot-in-the-dark.
Does contributing $0.01 in taxes entitle one to $1 in services? $10 in services? $100? If you think that most people on public assistance paid for that service, you are sadly mistaken. Most might have paid for 0.01% of it, or 0.001% of it.
>"OK, thanks. I think I now understand what the fear is, and I think you can rest easy. One thing I don't see is politicians being unduly influenced by poor people. What I see in reality is something quite different."
Most politicians seem to simultaneously promise more services and spending to those with less money and less taxing to those with more money. Of course this is impossible to resolve, but they promise it anyway. Candidates who do not promise more or continued "free" services to those not paying much in taxes, will typically not win.
In reality, year after year, we have more spending AND more taxing, with the government growing ever and ever larger and more powerful. So many people work for it directly or indirectly it is now impossible to reign under control. Meanwhile we have a huge polarization between the poorer and the richer. A system designed to continue to support bad behavior and decisions like dropping out of school, having children out of marriage and way too young, not having to work for things, not rehabilitating law breakers AND at the same time on the other hand also rewarding the rich with overly strong and hostile patent and copyright laws, tax loopholes, and favors for money.
This is not sustainable. We need actions that will reduce government AND dependence on the government; things that require people to work, that reduce corruption and waste (like a flat tax), that honor and follow the Constitution, that seek a strong but not out-of-control military, that limits illegal immigration, that punishes actions that erode personal liberty and privacy, that keeps religion out of politics. No party does this, and no party will because we also have a horrible, primitive voting system that prevents any third-parties or innovation.
My fear is the ultimate implosion caused by all this dysfunction.
>"The concept of retirement is less clear cut in the US, as you have a multitude of concepts"
That is true, because Social Security is not just a retirement system. It is also a quasi welfare system that can and does pay out benefits for various disabilities, loss of parents, loss of spouse, and other situations. And the money is taxed as income, too. At least, unlike your Poland example, in the USA the normal age is set for everyone equally and the benefits (other than the quasi-welfare stuff I mentioned) are somewhat based on what was contributed (it is more based on one's final contribution levels, not lifetime contributions, which would make more sense and why total monies paid out of the system is always more than what was put in).
Just to put it in perspective, there are over 650,000 applications PER YEAR for "disability" alone. Right now there are almost 9 MILLION people getting "disability" benefits!!!!! An increase of 33% in just the last 10 years. And only around 100 million people actually pay income taxes/Social Security right now (out of a population of 325 million people).
>"Contributing what? Time? Blood? Money? Help me understand. What is it that people are not doing that you think they should be and why that should affect their ability to vote."
Not being on public assistance while also not paying taxes. I don't think anyone contributes time or blood to the government (except as part of a paying job). You ask why should it affect their ability to vote? That is the whole thread of conversation- because there are people who barely work or not at all, suck tons of money from the system, and contribute nothing to the payment or running of the system. And yet they can vote for more public assistance, more welfare, and more benefits for themselves (and certainly do vote that way when they bother to vote). And those monies are paid to them by guess who?...?.... The people who ARE paying taxes. I can see where it would be a slippery slope, but it is not all that far fetched. Do you think you should be able to vote as a stockholder of a corporation without paying for and owning stock? Same concept.
>"Since you asked, yes, I think felons should be allowed to vote. I might be convinced that they should lose that right while behind bars but certainly once they get out they should have all the rights of other citizens."
Well they don't in our current system in most areas. Once a felon, they can typically never vote again, unless they go through extraordinary measures to try and get that right back again (and it is usually pretty hopeless).
Was taxation without representation. That was revolution. Now it is representation without taxation!
>"That's a pretty fucked up view. Do you think you will never be in that situation?"
I can see myself as in that situation. And in such, I would certainly understand that since I wasn't contributing I wouldn't be able to vote, and I would be fine with that. It is not a matter of compassion but logic.
Since you think it is about compassion, do you think people convicted of felony should be able to vote? Do you think non-citizens should vote?
While I agree with you in some ways, the reality is that "disabled" is highly subjective. I see people on "disability" all the time for minor ailments.... some of which I have myself and yet I have paid taxes every year since I was 16 and starting working. Other ailments just things that people bring on themselves. The system is so horribly managed now, it is hard to believe that socializing money distribution further based on "need" will help the situation.
UBI must be de-coupled from healthcare, but I still think it would have to replace most other social welfare to work and be accepted. Although I am certainly no expert in such matters.
>"Once upon a time, only those who held property of some kind could vote. Hasn't been that way in awhile though."
True. And after that, only European American males. Neither was fair, however. In this case, those actively paying taxes (of any amount) are those contributing to the running of the country and should probably be the only ones with the power to decide where and how to spend that money. Seems reasonable.
>I'm retired. My income consists of Social Security and compensation from the VA because I'm 30% disabled. (Service connected.)
I wouldn't think retirement/SS would be considered "public assistance", since you put money into that system for just that purpose. I should think there is a large difference between retirement and someone who chooses not to work.
>>"If left unchecked, the dolists would vote themselves extra benefits"
>"So here's a solution that should be stable: unless you pay taxes or do something that will bring extra taxes in the future (education, maternity leave), you don't get to vote."
I have often thought it should be that way (or, similarly, if one is accepting public assistance, he/she can't vote). But, alas, it goes contrary to the Constitution, and that is very unlikely to be changed.