Anyone who purchases Microsoft software without a guarantee that it is secure should have no grounds to sue for it not being secure.
Seriously, all of these companies who are bitching about worms and viruses hitting them need to either demand a guarantee from Microsoft or just accept the costs of the damages.
If it's unconstitutional it doesn't matter how many people vote for it, that's the problem.
Saying that the unconstitutional judgement is wrong because so many Americans signed up is simply irrelevent.
Telemarketing calls ar eno different than tv commercials. The only difference is that people have bitched enough that Congress wants to disallow these signals from coming on over the lines.
Do you really want to sit here and argue semantics?
I'd say that since it manages windows and provides a virtual desktop, it most certainly is a desktop.
I don't see why dragging things from one app to another should be considered a necessary part of something called a desktop. I suppose you might call that a desktop suite because it's a desktop bundled with additional functionality.
And what I decide to do with my property is my business.
Precisely. And in this case by plugging your phone into the phone system and even paying for phone service, you've decided to accept incoming call signals from strangers. That what the phone system is; there's no way to agree to phone service without agreeing to that.
50 MILLION people just told the country that they are sick and tired of this fucken bullshit called telemarketing
And there's perhaps the worst argument you could possibly come up with.
No different from if I told him he couldn't make speeches standing on my front porch.
It really is. A lot different.
Your analogy would be correct if you had a giant sign saying "Make speeches here!" and then had the cops standing by to arrest all redheads who stood up to make a speech.
If I did that, and he persisted, I'd have him arrested. Now, thanks to Congress, I can do the same if he calls me on the phone.
If somebody calls you and you tell him not to call back, chances are you could have taken action against him without any help from this new regulation.
Your analogy with GE putting up a "do not view" web page is pathetic, by the way. If people don't want others to view their web page, they password protect it.
And if you don't want others to call your phone you can put a little keypad password thingy between your phone and the wall. There is absolutely no difference.
I don't recall signing some kind of agreement saying that anyone can call me at anytime in order to harass me until I give them money.
I do. It's called your telephone service agreement.
Did you accept phone service? Yes? Well then guess what: you accepted precisely what you stated above.
I hope you are at least consistent and believe that crank calls and death threats and bomb threats should be perfectly legal as long as they are done over the phone, since you can just turn that ringer off. It's your own fault for answering, right?
Absolutely. All of these are victimless crimes.
Freedom of Speech, right?
Wrong, freedom not to have the government tell me what I can and can't do with the telephone service I've paid for.
You wouldn't want the government fineing you for accessing cnn.com, would you? It's precisely the same thing. If you put a web server on the public internet you can expect to receive some hits. If you plug a phone into an active phone line you can expect to get some calls.
I'm sorry, but it's consent as soon as you turn on the ringer of your phone.
If you choose to use the phone service you have no grounds to complain when it works as intended. Strangers being able to call you is as it is intended.
Filing your name in a book somewhere doesn't remove that consent to be "bugged" by the phone system, it only creates a contradiction. You are in effect saying "Yeah! Anyone can use the phone system to call me! Oh, and telemarketers can't."
It's precisely the same thing as publishing a public web page and then filing suit when Jewish people access it.
No, extra services as in "Well the normal phone service allows telemarketers to call you. If you would like we'll provide an extra service to block them as best we can."
It's not extortion any more than when McDonalds charges for extra ketchup.
It's not a matter of the first amendment protecting this behavior, it's the lack of a governmental mandate to prevent it. It's your right to use your phone as you see fit because there is no rational grounds for removal of that right.
You do have every right not to listen. Nobody said you have to answer the phone call of a telemarketer or even have your phone ring when one calls. A person placing a call doesn't ring your phone; he simply sends a signal to your phone. That your phone rings and disturbs you is really your fault entirely. Buy a smarter or quieter phone and it wouldn't happen.
I'm sorry, but this is how the phone system works. The telemarketers here are doing nothing wrong: they're abiding by their agreements with the phone companies and playing entirely within the rules of the phone system. If you don't like it then you really need to stop paying for service, not go running off to the government.
This is not a simple representative democracy, this is a Constitutional democracy, and this do not call list is very much contrary to the ideals carried in the Constitution.
What a telemarketer (or a redhead, or a 50 year old) does with his telephone is between him, his phone company, and the person he's calling.
Leave the government out of it or the next step might as well be GE filing suit against you for accessing their webpage. What, you didn't know that GE had listed itself in a "do not view my webpage" list?
It's precisely the same thing, and wrong for precisely the same reason.
What you've stated is true, but the "facts" are that geologic changes take more time than you account for.
Actually no...
Research in the last ten years have shown instance after instance in which amazingly drastic and natural changes have occurred in very short periods of time.
You willingly plug your computer into the public internet. You therefore take the responsibility for anything that the public internet does to your computer.
It's not like these viruses are breaking the technological rules of the internet. It's not as if they're circumventing IP. They're operating within the rules that you agree to when you jack in, so you have no room to complain when bad things happen.
Telemarketers are only a problem because 1) the phone system isn't very smart at all, so signing up for phone service is normally accepting that anyone can call your line, and 2) phones themselves have never been built to be smart enough not to annoy their users.
There is a lot of inertia keeping the phone system stupid, but here is a brand new system that can still be crafted so that telemarketing isn't a problem. Additionally, since it's on a computer already the "smart phone" issue is already taken care of.
Demand that the developers of this stuff add functionality so that you can limit who bugs you with phone calls. There's no reason to involve the government; it's intrusive enough as it is.
If they inconvenience me one iota, I couldn't care less in the slightest if every last person there lost their job.
You know what else is an inconvenience? When the cops stop me from stealing cars. Someone needs to put a stop to that, and I couldn't care less if every one of those damn, dirty cops lost their jobs, because they're inconveniencing me.
The point being that just because you're inconvenienced doesn't mean jack. The cops are right to arrest criminals and the telemarketers are right to use the phone service they pay for.
They choose to call me, they choose to inconvenience me
You agrees to allow them to call you when you subscribed to a service, the phone service, that explicitly allowed incoming calls from anyone. If you don't want incoming calls from anyone, then you need to find a better phone service. But don't take it out on the telemarketers that they're using the system you subscribe to as per the agreements everyone made.
What if these were ignorant asshats sending 50 million spam messages a day? Would shutting them down be bad because its going to put some people out of work?
No, it would be bad because they paid for their internet access just like everyone else, and so they have the same right to use it as per their agreement with their ISP. If they break that agreement or steal internet access, that's something different entirely and has nothing to do with the spam, but so long as they are completely following their agreement they should be left alone.
If you make the decision to accept email or phone calls from strangers don't complain when you get some. Take some personal responsibility.
And then 10 years later, Enron and the whole deregulated power "market" has collapsed
You should have put the quotes around "deregulated", as the power industry in this country certainly isn't.
All the money got spent on speculating in the newly deregulated power markets, and its all gone.
Of course it isn't. It's not like there was some finite amount of money for energy companies that got all used up.
I don't have a bunch of people knocking on my door offering me their window electricity or biodiesel electricity or their pig shit methane electricity for that matter.
Right, because those things can't make electricity more cheaply than the current systems. However, I DO have traditional power companies knocking on my door offering me different places to purchase from.
The power industry needs to be reinvesting profits in infrastructure (powerlines), not stock dividends.
Ha, and who are you to be telling the industry what they need to be doing? The regulatory system in the United States has made it wise not to invest in infrastructure to the extent you would like, so it is reasonably in the power companies' best intrests to invest the money in other places.
The same companies should have been upgrading their command and control systems to prevent chain reaction blackouts.
The investigation so far has revealed that the C&C systems worked flawlessly, but artifical regulation prevented the systems from doing what had to be done to stop the reaction. The C&C systems couldn't shift transmission quickly because the government makes that illegal.
Oh really? If a phone company created a no call list based on consumer demand it would actually be a no call list. This list the government created has so many loopholes that you might as well not even bother.
In the end that there is no do not call list already only shows that the public doesn't care enough to demand it from the phone companies. It's just one of those thigns that everyone likes to gripe about but nobody REALLY cares that much about.
And even what you said just now doesn't wash. The no call list is not the same as a sign in your front yard, it's a registration in the courthouse. To carry the analogy back into the real world you'd have to check with the court house before you knocked on any of your neighbor's doors to borrow a cup of sugar. It's fundamentally different.
Slashdot Mirror
It could be viewed as ironic that the Queen of England had power over Canada...
The irony being in that the title isn't Queen of England and Canada.
Who's the sovereign over Canada? Why, the Queen of England, of course!
Why wouldn't you want to try it?
I wouldn't want to be responsible for getting such a monstrosity working with decent speed, but there's no harm in trying it.
And then if you try it and it does somehow, against all odds, manage to work then you can be just that much more impressed.
Anyone who purchases Microsoft software without a guarantee that it is secure should have no grounds to sue for it not being secure.
Seriously, all of these companies who are bitching about worms and viruses hitting them need to either demand a guarantee from Microsoft or just accept the costs of the damages.
If it's unconstitutional it doesn't matter how many people vote for it, that's the problem.
Saying that the unconstitutional judgement is wrong because so many Americans signed up is simply irrelevent.
Telemarketing calls ar eno different than tv commercials. The only difference is that people have bitched enough that Congress wants to disallow these signals from coming on over the lines.
Do you really want to sit here and argue semantics?
I'd say that since it manages windows and provides a virtual desktop, it most certainly is a desktop.
I don't see why dragging things from one app to another should be considered a necessary part of something called a desktop. I suppose you might call that a desktop suite because it's a desktop bundled with additional functionality.
And what I decide to do with my property is my business.
Precisely. And in this case by plugging your phone into the phone system and even paying for phone service, you've decided to accept incoming call signals from strangers. That what the phone system is; there's no way to agree to phone service without agreeing to that.
50 MILLION people just told the country that they are sick and tired of this fucken bullshit called telemarketing
And there's perhaps the worst argument you could possibly come up with.
No different from if I told him he couldn't make speeches standing on my front porch.
It really is.
A lot different.
Your analogy would be correct if you had a giant sign saying "Make speeches here!" and then had the cops standing by to arrest all redheads who stood up to make a speech.
If I did that, and he persisted, I'd have him arrested. Now, thanks to Congress, I can do the same if he calls me on the phone.
If somebody calls you and you tell him not to call back, chances are you could have taken action against him without any help from this new regulation.
Your analogy with GE putting up a "do not view" web page is pathetic, by the way. If people don't want others to view their web page, they password protect it.
And if you don't want others to call your phone you can put a little keypad password thingy between your phone and the wall. There is absolutely no difference.
I don't recall signing some kind of agreement saying that anyone can call me at anytime in order to harass me until I give them money.
I do. It's called your telephone service agreement.
Did you accept phone service? Yes? Well then guess what: you accepted precisely what you stated above.
I hope you are at least consistent and believe that crank calls and death threats and bomb threats should be perfectly legal as long as they are done over the phone, since you can just turn that ringer off. It's your own fault for answering, right?
Absolutely. All of these are victimless crimes.
Freedom of Speech, right?
Wrong, freedom not to have the government tell me what I can and can't do with the telephone service I've paid for.
You wouldn't want the government fineing you for accessing cnn.com, would you? It's precisely the same thing. If you put a web server on the public internet you can expect to receive some hits. If you plug a phone into an active phone line you can expect to get some calls.
Precisely.
You have to pay extra for the extra special ketchup.
Or you could, you know, enjoy your meal without ketchup and buy a phone smart enough not to bother you...
I'm sorry, but it's consent as soon as you turn on the ringer of your phone.
If you choose to use the phone service you have no grounds to complain when it works as intended. Strangers being able to call you is as it is intended.
Filing your name in a book somewhere doesn't remove that consent to be "bugged" by the phone system, it only creates a contradiction. You are in effect saying "Yeah! Anyone can use the phone system to call me! Oh, and telemarketers can't."
It's precisely the same thing as publishing a public web page and then filing suit when Jewish people access it.
No, extra services as in "Well the normal phone service allows telemarketers to call you. If you would like we'll provide an extra service to block them as best we can."
It's not extortion any more than when McDonalds charges for extra ketchup.
It's not a matter of the first amendment protecting this behavior, it's the lack of a governmental mandate to prevent it. It's your right to use your phone as you see fit because there is no rational grounds for removal of that right.
You do have every right not to listen. Nobody said you have to answer the phone call of a telemarketer or even have your phone ring when one calls. A person placing a call doesn't ring your phone; he simply sends a signal to your phone. That your phone rings and disturbs you is really your fault entirely. Buy a smarter or quieter phone and it wouldn't happen.
I'm sorry, but this is how the phone system works. The telemarketers here are doing nothing wrong: they're abiding by their agreements with the phone companies and playing entirely within the rules of the phone system. If you don't like it then you really need to stop paying for service, not go running off to the government.
Sorry, but... these guys were right.
This is not a simple representative democracy, this is a Constitutional democracy, and this do not call list is very much contrary to the ideals carried in the Constitution.
What a telemarketer (or a redhead, or a 50 year old) does with his telephone is between him, his phone company, and the person he's calling.
Leave the government out of it or the next step might as well be GE filing suit against you for accessing their webpage. What, you didn't know that GE had listed itself in a "do not view my webpage" list?
It's precisely the same thing, and wrong for precisely the same reason.
no reason to stop using massively wasteful and inefficient infernal combustion engines, or to change your behavior in any other way.
Of course there is. Generally these wasteful ways of doing things are more expensive because of their inefficiency.
Every company has the motivation to clean up just so they can increase profitability, and consumers so thay can buy more other stuff.
Damn straight
What you've stated is true, but the "facts" are that geologic changes take more time than you account for.
Actually no...
Research in the last ten years have shown instance after instance in which amazingly drastic and natural changes have occurred in very short periods of time.
Here's a thought:
You willingly plug your computer into the public internet. You therefore take the responsibility for anything that the public internet does to your computer.
It's not like these viruses are breaking the technological rules of the internet. It's not as if they're circumventing IP. They're operating within the rules that you agree to when you jack in, so you have no room to complain when bad things happen.
Why do you need regulations?
Telemarketers are only a problem because 1) the phone system isn't very smart at all, so signing up for phone service is normally accepting that anyone can call your line, and 2) phones themselves have never been built to be smart enough not to annoy their users.
There is a lot of inertia keeping the phone system stupid, but here is a brand new system that can still be crafted so that telemarketing isn't a problem. Additionally, since it's on a computer already the "smart phone" issue is already taken care of.
Demand that the developers of this stuff add functionality so that you can limit who bugs you with phone calls. There's no reason to involve the government; it's intrusive enough as it is.
If they inconvenience me one iota, I couldn't care less in the slightest if every last person there lost their job.
You know what else is an inconvenience? When the cops stop me from stealing cars. Someone needs to put a stop to that, and I couldn't care less if every one of those damn, dirty cops lost their jobs, because they're inconveniencing me.
The point being that just because you're inconvenienced doesn't mean jack. The cops are right to arrest criminals and the telemarketers are right to use the phone service they pay for.
They choose to call me, they choose to inconvenience me
You agrees to allow them to call you when you subscribed to a service, the phone service, that explicitly allowed incoming calls from anyone. If you don't want incoming calls from anyone, then you need to find a better phone service. But don't take it out on the telemarketers that they're using the system you subscribe to as per the agreements everyone made.
What if these were ignorant asshats sending 50 million spam messages a day? Would shutting them down be bad because its going to put some people out of work?
No, it would be bad because they paid for their internet access just like everyone else, and so they have the same right to use it as per their agreement with their ISP. If they break that agreement or steal internet access, that's something different entirely and has nothing to do with the spam, but so long as they are completely following their agreement they should be left alone.
If you make the decision to accept email or phone calls from strangers don't complain when you get some. Take some personal responsibility.
A sum that would have been significantly less had the last administration (or, heaven forbid, the UN) done its job...
Second, along the same lines, there's the potential that the system could be used to issue things like speeding tickets and other traffic citations.
Wait, wait, wait a second!
Enforce traffic laws?
Are you mad?!
And then 10 years later, Enron and the whole deregulated power "market" has collapsed
You should have put the quotes around "deregulated", as the power industry in this country certainly isn't.
All the money got spent on speculating in the newly deregulated power markets, and its all gone.
Of course it isn't. It's not like there was some finite amount of money for energy companies that got all used up.
I don't have a bunch of people knocking on my door offering me their window electricity or biodiesel electricity or their pig shit methane electricity for that matter.
Right, because those things can't make electricity more cheaply than the current systems. However, I DO have traditional power companies knocking on my door offering me different places to purchase from.
The power industry needs to be reinvesting profits in infrastructure (powerlines), not stock dividends.
Ha, and who are you to be telling the industry what they need to be doing? The regulatory system in the United States has made it wise not to invest in infrastructure to the extent you would like, so it is reasonably in the power companies' best intrests to invest the money in other places.
The same companies should have been upgrading their command and control systems to prevent chain reaction blackouts.
The investigation so far has revealed that the C&C systems worked flawlessly, but artifical regulation prevented the systems from doing what had to be done to stop the reaction. The C&C systems couldn't shift transmission quickly because the government makes that illegal.
Oh really?
If a phone company created a no call list based on consumer demand it would actually be a no call list. This list the government created has so many loopholes that you might as well not even bother.
In the end that there is no do not call list already only shows that the public doesn't care enough to demand it from the phone companies. It's just one of those thigns that everyone likes to gripe about but nobody REALLY cares that much about.
And even what you said just now doesn't wash. The no call list is not the same as a sign in your front yard, it's a registration in the courthouse. To carry the analogy back into the real world you'd have to check with the court house before you knocked on any of your neighbor's doors to borrow a cup of sugar. It's fundamentally different.
The product that you subscribe to, the telephone service, doesn't allow you to post signs.
I'm sorry you're subscribing to a service that doesn't give you what you need, but that's no reason for the government to get involved.