Telemarketers were never able to trump an individual's freedom to chose.
I'm sorry that you chose to subscribe to a phone service and purchase a phone that interfere with your life so much, but you can't blame the callers for that.
Hey, I don't want that guy down the road using his phone to call me either. I demand that the government do something to stop him. And people whose names begin with the letter 'J', none of them should be allowed to ring my phone. And bald guys on Fridays. Nope, keep them from ringing my phone, Mr. Federal Government.
Telemarketers have just as much right to use the phone system as anyone else--that is, if the phone company agrees to it they can use it.
It's a sad, sad day when the federal government steps in to interfere with the agreements willingly forged between telemarketing companies and phone companies.
Don't like the way the phone system works? Don't buy phone service. Don't like that your phone rings when strangers call? Get a smarter phone.
Don't go whining to the government to "fix" it though; you could just as easily be the next one to be told that you can't call others.
Quasi-socialist? This guy was on the other end of the spectrum!
All of you people demanding to be paid money above that which the company agreed to pay you for the work are the ones pushing this nation towards a socialist mindset.
Oh, you worked more than the agreed number of hours and only got as per the agreement? Mind my tears of blood...
Mind that big picture. Yes company officials have to obey the laws, but these laws are just legalized theft.
Sounds like someone's forgetting that quality, technology, innovation, usefulness, and fitness for purpose have absolutely nothing to do with the software industry...
Several drugs, in double blind studies, have dramatically increased how well and the duration people can perform concentration type tasks.
Just because a drug does something doesn't mean it's fixing a problem. Caffiene dramatically increases how long someone can physically stay awake, but that doesn't mean the person has a sleeping disorder.
The guy's absolutely right. 99% of "diagnosed ADD/ADHD" cases are simply lack of discipline or something similar. And I DO know what I'm talking about.
The whole business with the phone system is so screwed up there's really no hope of fixing it.
Overregulation got us in this mess, and now we're really pretty stuck. Dropping regulations tremendously would probably be the best, but it will mean some tough times before being better in the long run. And small lessenings of regulations would only make things worse for the shortterm without making them better in the long.
The entire point of the FCC ruling was that times have changed and there is no longer a real danger of that happening, what with the Internet, TV, and overwhelmingly large number of magazines available.
It's no longer a case of the family sitting around to listen to one of a very few radio stations, it's a matter of listening to one of a great many stations... or a great many tv stations... or read the paper.... or a magazine... or read on the Internet.....
The FCC rulings of late are NOT pro-consolidation, but simply anti-regulation.
The FCC is very simply recognizing that its place in the system is changing with the times.
This is one of those VERY rare times where a governmental organization has decided to limit its own powers, and Slashdot's complaining! The experts employed at the FCC recognize that its place is changing, and it shows the integrity to reign itself in, and the uninformed morons in Congress object!
You know, I went through that whole damn article looking for something negative in the deal. There simply isn't one.
I'm so annoyed by whiney, irrational Slashdotters screaming out "No, you can't track me! You might use the data!"
But so what? I swipe my frequent buyer card at the grocery store and they track me. So what? I pay what I want to pay for groceries and if they somehow manage to lower the prices by profiting off of the information they got from me then great. Even if they simply profit and don't lower prices for me, why should I care? I don't loose anything just because the store makes more of a profit.
"Oh, but you loose privacy! The store will know what you're buying!" Right...... so?
The entire argument in these types of things is a completely irrational one that goes, basically, "We can't let them have our information because then they'll know things about us," but never in the conversation is there ever anything rationally negative. It just goes by this understanding that there's some unstated problem with people knowing things about you, even when you give your permission with like frequent buyer cards (that is, even when you know it's happening).
Partially because there was no reason to wait; the time would never be better.
Partially because further delays would only strengthen him. Waiting through the UN mess gave him a large head start, causing the battles to be more fierce than they otherwise would have been. Giving him a couple more years would have made it worse.
Maybe you should have got out from behind the mass media and actually informed yourself about what the White House was really saying.
While the media attached itself to WMD because of its simplicity and sensationalism, the White House itself was downplaying WMD as a reason for the attack. IT was using violations of 17 UN resolutions, human rights violations, and international relations as strong justification for the ultamatim that was sent. Of course this stuff is too complicated for Joe Public to understand, so the media just stuck to "Uhh... he has bombs".
And yes, there were WMD. That's unquestionable and internationally accepted. UNSCUM physically went in an counted the barrels of anthrax. Saying there's no weapons of mass destruction is as silly as saying there was no Saddam.
He's obviously not read the regulations very carefully...
Among other places where this scheme is legally questionable, the rules explicitly prevent radio stations from doing things like allowing listeners to democratically select which songs to play.
There are also a whole list of regulations specifying what orders songs can't play in, how often they can play, etc.
And that's not even getting into the somewhat complicated setup with the actual music houses that collect royalties, which aren't the RIAA itself.
This guy needs to do a little more research and try again.
It's seriously not a bad thing for the dollar to be slightly down against other currancies. It doesn't really mean the economy is in trouble or not moving in an upwards direction, it only means the rules are slightly tweaked for a bit.
Try the superior justification for control over private property. Most of the time the "profiteering" is simply one man executing his (supposed) right to do what he wants with what he himself owns.
Slashdot Mirror
Telemarketers were never able to trump an individual's freedom to chose.
I'm sorry that you chose to subscribe to a phone service and purchase a phone that interfere with your life so much, but you can't blame the callers for that.
You don't have to answer your phone or subscribe to the service.
No telemarketing company is forcing their speech on you.
Hey, I don't want that guy down the road using his phone to call me either. I demand that the government do something to stop him. And people whose names begin with the letter 'J', none of them should be allowed to ring my phone. And bald guys on Fridays. Nope, keep them from ringing my phone, Mr. Federal Government.
Telemarketers have just as much right to use the phone system as anyone else--that is, if the phone company agrees to it they can use it.
It's a sad, sad day when the federal government steps in to interfere with the agreements willingly forged between telemarketing companies and phone companies.
Don't like the way the phone system works? Don't buy phone service. Don't like that your phone rings when strangers call? Get a smarter phone.
Don't go whining to the government to "fix" it though; you could just as easily be the next one to be told that you can't call others.
So it sounds like the system works without the need for all of this crap.
You were treated badly, so you moved on to another job.
Tadaa! Yay capitalism!
Now leave your crappy former employer alone.
Quasi-socialist? This guy was on the other end of the spectrum!
All of you people demanding to be paid money above that which the company agreed to pay you for the work are the ones pushing this nation towards a socialist mindset.
Oh, you worked more than the agreed number of hours and only got as per the agreement? Mind my tears of blood...
Mind that big picture. Yes company officials have to obey the laws, but these laws are just legalized theft.
Because in the real world people will say precisely what you're saying but end up sometimes buying products anyway.
Who else's laws would govern? The US has excluded the UN at every stage so far,
Umm... that's complete nonsense...
You'd have a point if your premises were valid.
Unfortunately...
If I hang up on you, I do not want to buy your product, nor will I ever.
This is simply not true in the real world.
Ha.
There IS no power deregulation.
All of these people are screaming about how it's failed when the instances they point to were not deregulated in the first place.
Sounds like someone's forgetting that quality, technology, innovation, usefulness, and fitness for purpose have absolutely nothing to do with the software industry...
Damn straight.
Let's keep the government out of service contracts negotiated by willing participants.
Telemarketers buy their phone service and pay their employees fair and square, just like the rest of us.
Several drugs, in double blind studies, have dramatically increased how well and the duration people can perform concentration type tasks.
Just because a drug does something doesn't mean it's fixing a problem. Caffiene dramatically increases how long someone can physically stay awake, but that doesn't mean the person has a sleeping disorder.
The guy's absolutely right. 99% of "diagnosed ADD/ADHD" cases are simply lack of discipline or something similar. And I DO know what I'm talking about.
Because the house is wrong.
Easy.
We're talking about radio spectrum here.
The whole business with the phone system is so screwed up there's really no hope of fixing it.
Overregulation got us in this mess, and now we're really pretty stuck. Dropping regulations tremendously would probably be the best, but it will mean some tough times before being better in the long run. And small lessenings of regulations would only make things worse for the shortterm without making them better in the long.
Yes, the FCC agrees with you completely.
The entire point of the FCC ruling was that times have changed and there is no longer a real danger of that happening, what with the Internet, TV, and overwhelmingly large number of magazines available.
It's no longer a case of the family sitting around to listen to one of a very few radio stations, it's a matter of listening to one of a great many stations... or a great many tv stations... or read the paper.... or a magazine... or read on the Internet.....
Stupid Slashdot...
The FCC rulings of late are NOT pro-consolidation, but simply anti-regulation.
The FCC is very simply recognizing that its place in the system is changing with the times.
This is one of those VERY rare times where a governmental organization has decided to limit its own powers, and Slashdot's complaining! The experts employed at the FCC recognize that its place is changing, and it shows the integrity to reign itself in, and the uninformed morons in Congress object!
You know, I went through that whole damn article looking for something negative in the deal. There simply isn't one.
I'm so annoyed by whiney, irrational Slashdotters screaming out "No, you can't track me! You might use the data!"
But so what? I swipe my frequent buyer card at the grocery store and they track me. So what? I pay what I want to pay for groceries and if they somehow manage to lower the prices by profiting off of the information they got from me then great. Even if they simply profit and don't lower prices for me, why should I care? I don't loose anything just because the store makes more of a profit.
"Oh, but you loose privacy! The store will know what you're buying!" Right...... so?
The entire argument in these types of things is a completely irrational one that goes, basically, "We can't let them have our information because then they'll know things about us," but never in the conversation is there ever anything rationally negative. It just goes by this understanding that there's some unstated problem with people knowing things about you, even when you give your permission with like frequent buyer cards (that is, even when you know it's happening).
GOD Slashdotters piss me off.
Partially because there was no reason to wait; the time would never be better.
Partially because further delays would only strengthen him. Waiting through the UN mess gave him a large head start, causing the battles to be more fierce than they otherwise would have been. Giving him a couple more years would have made it worse.
...and yet it's completely lacking in insight...
It says nothing concrete, yet you declare it insightful?
Maybe you should have got out from behind the mass media and actually informed yourself about what the White House was really saying.
While the media attached itself to WMD because of its simplicity and sensationalism, the White House itself was downplaying WMD as a reason for the attack. IT was using violations of 17 UN resolutions, human rights violations, and international relations as strong justification for the ultamatim that was sent. Of course this stuff is too complicated for Joe Public to understand, so the media just stuck to "Uhh... he has bombs".
And yes, there were WMD. That's unquestionable and internationally accepted. UNSCUM physically went in an counted the barrels of anthrax. Saying there's no weapons of mass destruction is as silly as saying there was no Saddam.
He's obviously not read the regulations very carefully...
Among other places where this scheme is legally questionable, the rules explicitly prevent radio stations from doing things like allowing listeners to democratically select which songs to play.
There are also a whole list of regulations specifying what orders songs can't play in, how often they can play, etc.
And that's not even getting into the somewhat complicated setup with the actual music houses that collect royalties, which aren't the RIAA itself.
This guy needs to do a little more research and try again.
It's seriously not a bad thing for the dollar to be slightly down against other currancies. It doesn't really mean the economy is in trouble or not moving in an upwards direction, it only means the rules are slightly tweaked for a bit.
Ha!
NONE of those things indicate ANYTHING good about the state of the economy.
Try the superior justification for control over private property. Most of the time the "profiteering" is simply one man executing his (supposed) right to do what he wants with what he himself owns.