That "prevents" them from dismissing my refusal as "oh, a druggie who didn't want to get caught"
You're assuming they'll be rational, what they'll really do is think "oh, a druggie who managed to cheat the test and is afraid we'll test him again in the future and he'll get caught then." You can't win against these people with logic, they'll just continue to believe what they want no matter what you do. (Note: Not saying we should give up, just pointing out it's going to be damned hard to get them to think differently.)
There's a sizeable segment of the population which simply can't search properly. Being able to synthesize a question into appropriate keywords is a difficult skill for many. Try watching a novice search Google on a variety of topics. Not only will they use poorly worded queries, but it's likely they will only go to the first hit. Many users give up if the first hit isn't what they want.
In other words, they want instant gratification and are too lazy to work for the solution. I don't disagree that people do this, but it's less a problem of poor search skills and more of being lazy and wanting someone else to do their work for them.
If you read the article you'll find that the dorm manager interpreted the following statements in the notice to justify evicting him:
1.) Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above; and
2.) Terminate any and all accounts that this individual has through you
I think it's a real stretch to take those to mean "evict the student from the dorm". They're only asking for his Internet (or I guess more specifically, his p2p activity) disabled and any/all accounts disabled as well. (Network logins is what most reasonable people would understand that to mean.)
What's really stupid is that they haven't actually conformed to those two statements. He mentions nothing about his network access being revoked, so he can still come to campus and use computers in the labs, or the wireless with his laptop. So he could still download more copyrighted stuff.... But he sure won't be living in a dorm any longer!
Personally I think it sounds like the dorm manager either didn't like him, or was power-tripping. I just can't get "evict the guy" out of those two statements, unless I'm trying damn hard to do so.
It seems to me that if you were really concerned about studying, you'd have done it before downloading Angels & Demons.
We don't know when his finals period started, and there's generally a lag between detection by MediaSentry/etc. and the notice being sent. This can be days to weeks, but probably more like a day or two. So, it's very possible he downloaded the movie shortly before finals started, maybe as a bit of a break before studying like mad until classes are out. Hell, I remember going to see a movie in the theater with a bunch of friends the day before exams started once while in college. (Although to be fair, none of us had an exam the next day) People do need a study break now and then, and ~2 hours to watch a movie isn't a big loss of time overall.
They are HATED, and some of the people who hate them are Lawyers; there should be volunteers coming out of the woodwork.
I think the problem here may be that Jammie Thomas' case looks like a lost cause. As I recall the RIAA has said publicly that they'll have no problem proving actual infringement (they had Media Sentry actually download some files from Thomas' alleged share on Kazaa), there was a serious possibility that Thomas may have deliberately handed over a hard drive that wasn't the original one as well. And don't forget that the jury very obviously thought she was lying, they could have awarded only $750 a song damages, but they chose $9,250 a song.
While the RIAA is evil, Thomas isn't doing those who oppose the RIAA a favor by going to trial again. She's very likely to loose, and that'll set a precedent in the RIAA's favor.
It is pretty scummy of the RIAA to oppose a continuance though, but then again, we knew they were evil already so it's not surprising.
It could also have been taken as a threat of violence. After all tackling someone isn't exactly a friendly pat, it could very well cause some significant injury. And since the guy didn't have any legal authority (and even if he did, no crime had been committed), he was opening himself up to some serious legal issues. The story would have been quite different if the guy had called the cops himself because of the threat of violence, and then insisted on pressing charges.
Then perhaps REI should be having a very serious word with Loomis for creating the whole issue. If the Loomis guards misrepresented their legal authority to REI, then REI should be mad at them, not this guy. Loomis created the situation after all.
Frankly, I had no problem with a 250GB cap, but most of the lower caps was putting the squeeze on heavy users of legitimate media.
I also don't trust these companies either, my expectation is that they won't offer an easy way to track their use, won't tell the users if they're about to go over, and tell people "tough nuts" if they go over and charge a high rate per kB.
Funny you should mention 250GB caps, since that's what Comcast has. While it's a pretty reasonable cap, Comcast doesn't provide any way to track your usage. If you go over you'll get a warning after the month's over with. Get a second warning in a 6 month period (I think, it may be 3 months) then you get cut off for a while (a year I believe).
So yeah, they'll definitely not tell you how to track it. I have actually talked to Comcast about this since I got one of the warnings back when it was just an undefined "you used too much" ("how much is too much?" "We won't tell you." Brilliant customer service there.) and they claim they don't know until the month's over with. I personally find it very, very hard to believe they can't track this in close to real-time. They just don't want to. And Time-Warner has already proven they're even less likely to bother helping their customers with... well, anything beyond emptying their wallets. Since this seems to be mostly a money grab they're going to be very disinclined to do so, since it'll make it easier for people to go over the limit and have to pay more money.
Let's face it, the only reason they have these crackdowns is that it makes the politicians look tough, without actually hurting a large number of voters.
But this won't work forever, eventually enough innocent people will have been hit that everyone will know someone who's life was unfairly ruined due to such accusations. Then a majority of the people will see this for what it really is, and turn on the politicians. I'm not surprised they're too short-sighted to see this however.
Any Employer who fires somone on such basis should also be forced to rehire the individual if the individual so desires as well as paying a hefty fine.
Of course a big part of the problem is that they fire them for other reasons, leaving them with legal protection in the case that the person is cleared of the crime. Maybe it would work better to add this as a form of discrimination under the law. If you're fired suddenly under this type of circumstance and are later proven to be innocent (or charges dropped), then you can sue the employer for discrimination. That still wouldn't stop it, but it would at least make employers who do such things pay a price for it.
A similar thing might work for the newspapers, if they reported on the initial accusation/arrest and don't make a major effort to spread the news of innocence they could be sued for libel/slander. I don't think that would impinge on the freedom of the press any since they don't have the freedom to impinge on others' rights. If they knew they could be hit with a libel/slander suit they couldn't win (or be faced with having to run major coverage on a non-event (in their minds)) they might cease to be so eager to publicize every accusation of child abuse/porn that comes along.
I haven't tried rdesktop since they started the p2p filtering, but I can attest that uploading files via scp is mostly impossible, even during off-peak times. (I somehow doubt that there's a lot of congestion at 3am on a Wednesday.) I needed to upload about 100MB of stuff to a server earlier this week and had to use Filezilla in SFTP mode due to bogus resets. Even then Filezilla was having to reconnect constantly due to the damn resets. (We're talking 10+ reconnects required per ~10MB file, and this was at 3am on Wednesday.) Absolutely no p2p running on my network, I don't even USE p2p anymore. (Haven't since last year when all this started.)
But going by what they've admitted, the Sandvine appliances are most likely mistakenly flagging the encrypted file uploads over ssh as p2p uploads. This fits the theory I've had all along -- Sandvine's appliances have a very, very, VERY high false positive rate. Either that or Comcast has the configured improperly, but I'm leaning towards the false positive rate being the culprit. I suspect that Sandvine and/or Comcast is assuming that all encrypted upload traffic is encrypted p2p traffic trying to hide. This is quite obviously not the case, but good luck convincing them of that.
They expect $XX per month, you expect YY gigabytes per month. What's wrong with putting that down on paper rather than "uh, yeah, use as much as we consider viable.. we'll tell you when you hit it"?
That's not quite what Comcast is doing, if you read the FAQ about this you're on your own to track your usage. They'll notify you if you go over, after the fact. Also I think the main worry is that once this is done it'll never be undone. Comcast will be reluctant to even up the limit (much less remove it) in the future because that'd cost money to add capacity. Why bother doing that when you have a monopoly in most places? So that's the real issue, not whether the cap is reasonable now or not, will it ever go up or go away in the future or will the US quickly descend into an Internet backwater so telcos and cable companies can make more money? I may by cynical but I'm pretty certain we're going full steam ahead for the backwater option.
Actually when I think of stupid lawsuit I think of the guy who set his Winnebago cruise control and then went to make a sandwich. He got a couple of million because the manual didn't say basically "cruise control is NOT autopilot,idiot."
That's not a real case, it was made up. See here, next to last entry in the table. There's plenty of legit crappy lawsuits, spreading around the fake ones isn't necessary and tends to hurt calls for doing something to prevent the bad ones.
Furthermore, at any time a person may send a letter to the collection agency asking that all telephone communications cease. Afterwards, the collection agency may only send letters to the person updating them on any actions being taken towards the debt.
There's a hole in this section however, if you aren't the actual party to the debt the collection agency will ignore it as you're not listed on their accounts. If you try to get creative and send it claiming you're the person they're looking for then you've just confirmed (in their minds) that you're really lying and they have the right place. So what do you do if you're in a situation like the parent? I've got the same thing happening (lived here 32 years, same phone number for at least 20, we have no clue who the person they're seeking is) and we can't get them to stop.
Bullshit. I have a perfect credit record and I regularly get calls from debt collection agencies looking for people that I've never heard of. I've had the same phone number for more than 10 years, so it isn't like I have a recently recycled telephone number.
We've recently started getting mail (they appear to be bills) and phone calls from debt collectors for someone we've never heard of, and we've lived here for 32 years, had the same phone number for at least 20. This isn't a case of identity theft (that was the first thing I checked), just apparently some low-life used our address and phone number then vanished on their creditors. I'm glad it's not identity theft, but it's beyond annoying to be getting calls from debt collectors that refuse to believe that they're calling the wrong place. Getting them to stop is proving impossible. Since we aren't the actual person listed for the debt, we can't even properly request they stop contacting us. This appears to be a case where we really do need new laws to address the situation, and it doesn't help that debt collectors tend to be abusive when they think they're being lied to. I'm sure they do get lied to a lot, but being abusive isn't the answer (and is in fact illegal), especially when you will hit innocents now and then, which is becoming more likely by the day as identity theft increases.
I realize you're trying to be funny, but I wanted to point out, no, but she did get treatment for her son's Leukemia in exchange for representing Germany. When he came down with it Russia basically told her tough shit, she called up a German coach and they were happy to help her get treatment for her son and she competed for them in exchange. All around I think everyone (except perhaps Russia) won in this situation, I was glad to see her get a medal.
Don't RSS feeds accomplish this because people can subscribe and unsubscribe at will?
Most well run mailing lists accomplish this as well, This is True (and indeed all of Randy's mailing lists) make this quite simple. Unsubscribing is easier than subscribing in fact. You have to confirm that you requested to subscribe to actually get on the list in the first place.
I guess the only disadvantage of RSS feeds is that one has to be reasonably technologically savvy to even know what they are, let alone use them.
The big disadvantage of RSS feeds to me is it's another application to run if you want to manage them well (built in browser support is nice, but doesn't really cut it for checking them regularly, much less tracking stuff that drops off the feed before you have a chance to read it). Even if you use something like Google Reader it's still an additional thing to do to get the content. I check my E-mail multiple times a day, mailing lists are more convenient to me as I'm already going to be using my E-mail client.
Besides, This is True predated RSS by a rather lengthy amount of time, and RSS isn't suitable for the premium/free versions that This is True has.
Because TIT is indicative of every single unsubscribe method, amirite?
Why no, it's not, in fact most of the legit mailing lists make it harder. But this is also irrelevant as the list in question here IS This is True, and its unsubscribe method is as easy (and often easier) than marking it as spam. That was the point.
As others have pointed out, it's easier to unsubscribe from all of Randy's lists than it is to subscribe to them. Subscribing requires the user to confirm that they indeed submitted their address to be subscribed, and it's always been that way.
There should really be a standardized way to unsubscribe from mailing lists, so that every mail client automatically shows an "unsubscribe" button inside any mailing list email.
There is, and This is True uses it, it's called the "List-Unsubscribe:" header.
An unsubscribe process takes more clicks then hitting 'mark as spam'. That's all the reason people need to use the spam button.
BULLSHIT
I get This is True, I have for over a decade now, and on my latest issue there's this tidbit available from one keypress (enter) at the bottom:
Message 4,496 has information associated with it that explains how to participate in an email list. An email list is represented by a single email address that users sharing a common interest can send messages to (known as posting)
which are then redistributed to all members of the list (sometimes after review by a moderator).
List participation commands in this message include:
* A method to remove yourself from the list (Unsubscribe).
Select HERE to UNsubscribe.
One more keypress and I'd be unsubscribed. In fact it's easier than reporting it as spam is. People just don't CARE. Or they're just stupid, or perhaps both.
Can you honestly say you've never done it?
Yes I can, I'm not an idiot nor am a lazy asshole. If I can't get a list to unsubscribe me I'll report it, but at that point it IS spam. (And violating the toothless CAN-SPAM act to boot.)
Just because you're lazy and/or stupid doesn't mean most of us are.
Cuil has only just opened. Already, it is pretty decent.
No it's not. Maybe it's the load but it's totally screwed up. Results return with images that have nothing at all to do with the actual result. (Someone posted a screenshot of a result about Giant Squid, the image with it was two WWE wrestlers). Some queries come back and say no results. I personally tried anime blogger and got nothing. Google returns 3,910,000 results for the same query. Bizarrely searching for anime blog got results, however nearly every single image was wrong, most coming from sites not even remotely connected to the site of the actual result. Google was never this bad. I can't remember any search engine performing so horribly.
And I'm sure someone will say that it's just cause of the increased load and it'll be better later. There might not be a later for them. This is their public unveiling, there's even an article on CNN.com about them. And what are they doing? Totally blowing their time in the spotlight. Irrelevant results, no results, slow responses, etc. Many people won't come back. Even if they get reminded months from now they'll probably remember their bad experience and not bother. Cuil's going to have a VERY steep slope to climb to overcome this, much more than just competing against the behemoth Google. They've basically shot themselves in both feet and broken an arm.
What else would they do? Do a test where it was going to fail??
No, but don't expect technically inclined people (like those who read Slashdot) to view a test with the deck so obviously stacked in Microsoft's favor as anything other than a PR stunt that proves nothing.
The upcoming SP1? If you're going to bash something, at least have a clue first.
I recommend you take your own advice, SP1 has been out since February 21st, and was apparently fully released via automatic updates in May. (That's when it showed up for me anyway.)
Install the OS themselves? How many normal people are really going to do that?
This is fair, most users wouldn't do this, however...
More than likely, they're buying a new computer and it will come with Vista. Which, by the way, will probably be well tested so that there are no driver issues.
It might not have driver issues but it's almost guaranteed to come with a ton of crap installed in addition to the OS that slows things down and makes the experience worse. So it's still not a fair comparison. If MS had taken off-the-shelf systems and just patched Vista to remove the branding only it'd have been a fair test and not just a PR stunt. But we all know (you've even admitted it already), that MS wasn't going to do a test where they'd fail, so this was simply a PR stunt. There's not really anything wrong with that but don't expect those of us who understand to consider it proof of Vista being a great OS.
Is selling a computer with working Windows also considered stacking the deck in your world?
MS wasn't selling these PCs, so I doubt the parent feels that way, but no, it's not. But we aren't talking about PCs as sold on the regular market, we're talking about ones setup by MS to ensure the users had a great experience. That is stacking the deck and proves nothing about how good or bad Vista is.
I hate going on the offensive, but some of the Vista talk is just... stupid.
Some of it is but the parent wasn't being stupid. This wasn't a fair test of Vista, it was a purposely designed event to generate positive PR for Vista, that's all. Vista certainly has its problems (and I say this as someone who's been using it since January, SP1 hasn't fixed the major issues I have and I really do hate it for legit reasons), and there are certainly some really stupid things given as reasons to hate it, but the parent's criticisms of this event are fair mostly. The part about suggesting people install the OS themselves wasn't, but suggesting they should have used stock installs from OEMs IS.
Do you people really expect MS to just roll over on this? If you do, you're more than just a little naive.
Do you expect us to just ignore everything MS does and not point out flaws in it? If you do you're very naive.
But they _are_ already working on Windows 7 and on the SP1 for Vista
SP1 has been out for months now, it went live as an automatic update in May even. I can say with certainty now that it did not fix most of my major problems with Vista, and I've more or less given up hope that they'll be fixed prior to Windows 7.
(with each driver being run having been fully audited by microsoft, and everything tested beforehand to make sure it works)
So kind of like an Apple? Do something that everyone raves about, but get put down for it. Sounds fair to me.
Why isn't this fair? In the real world Microsoft cannot control the PC hardware that Vista will be installed on. By doing so in this little PR stunt they created an environment that has no basis in reality. Would those people have felt the same way given stock PCs from OEMs with Vista on them (unmodified except to remove the Vista branding)? Probably not. Apple is able to control the hardware and software because of their business model, Microsoft can't, and that's why it's fair to criticize this.
You know, if people wouldn't take out loans they can't afford, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
You know, if banks and Wall Street hadn't packaged sub-prime loans into insanely complex investment packages that no one fully understood maybe we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
There's plenty of blame to go 'round, don't try just blaming folks who wanted a home and took out loans they couldn't afford. So far those folks aren't getting much (if any) help, yet banks and Wall Street, who were equally guilty in this mess, have.
Slashdot Mirror
That "prevents" them from dismissing my refusal as "oh, a druggie who didn't want to get caught"
You're assuming they'll be rational, what they'll really do is think "oh, a druggie who managed to cheat the test and is afraid we'll test him again in the future and he'll get caught then." You can't win against these people with logic, they'll just continue to believe what they want no matter what you do. (Note: Not saying we should give up, just pointing out it's going to be damned hard to get them to think differently.)
There's a sizeable segment of the population which simply can't search properly. Being able to synthesize a question into appropriate keywords is a difficult skill for many. Try watching a novice search Google on a variety of topics. Not only will they use poorly worded queries, but it's likely they will only go to the first hit. Many users give up if the first hit isn't what they want.
In other words, they want instant gratification and are too lazy to work for the solution. I don't disagree that people do this, but it's less a problem of poor search skills and more of being lazy and wanting someone else to do their work for them.
If you read the article you'll find that the dorm manager interpreted the following statements in the notice to justify evicting him:
1.) Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above; and
2.) Terminate any and all accounts that this individual has through you
I think it's a real stretch to take those to mean "evict the student from the dorm". They're only asking for his Internet (or I guess more specifically, his p2p activity) disabled and any/all accounts disabled as well. (Network logins is what most reasonable people would understand that to mean.)
What's really stupid is that they haven't actually conformed to those two statements. He mentions nothing about his network access being revoked, so he can still come to campus and use computers in the labs, or the wireless with his laptop. So he could still download more copyrighted stuff.... But he sure won't be living in a dorm any longer!
Personally I think it sounds like the dorm manager either didn't like him, or was power-tripping. I just can't get "evict the guy" out of those two statements, unless I'm trying damn hard to do so.
It seems to me that if you were really concerned about studying, you'd have done it before downloading Angels & Demons.
We don't know when his finals period started, and there's generally a lag between detection by MediaSentry/etc. and the notice being sent. This can be days to weeks, but probably more like a day or two. So, it's very possible he downloaded the movie shortly before finals started, maybe as a bit of a break before studying like mad until classes are out. Hell, I remember going to see a movie in the theater with a bunch of friends the day before exams started once while in college. (Although to be fair, none of us had an exam the next day) People do need a study break now and then, and ~2 hours to watch a movie isn't a big loss of time overall.
They are HATED, and some of the people who hate them are Lawyers; there should be volunteers coming out of the woodwork.
I think the problem here may be that Jammie Thomas' case looks like a lost cause. As I recall the RIAA has said publicly that they'll have no problem proving actual infringement (they had Media Sentry actually download some files from Thomas' alleged share on Kazaa), there was a serious possibility that Thomas may have deliberately handed over a hard drive that wasn't the original one as well. And don't forget that the jury very obviously thought she was lying, they could have awarded only $750 a song damages, but they chose $9,250 a song.
While the RIAA is evil, Thomas isn't doing those who oppose the RIAA a favor by going to trial again. She's very likely to loose, and that'll set a precedent in the RIAA's favor.
It is pretty scummy of the RIAA to oppose a continuance though, but then again, we knew they were evil already so it's not surprising.
It could also have been taken as a threat of violence. After all tackling someone isn't exactly a friendly pat, it could very well cause some significant injury. And since the guy didn't have any legal authority (and even if he did, no crime had been committed), he was opening himself up to some serious legal issues. The story would have been quite different if the guy had called the cops himself because of the threat of violence, and then insisted on pressing charges.
Then perhaps REI should be having a very serious word with Loomis for creating the whole issue. If the Loomis guards misrepresented their legal authority to REI, then REI should be mad at them, not this guy. Loomis created the situation after all.
Frankly, I had no problem with a 250GB cap, but most of the lower caps was putting the squeeze on heavy users of legitimate media.
I also don't trust these companies either, my expectation is that they won't offer an easy way to track their use, won't tell the users if they're about to go over, and tell people "tough nuts" if they go over and charge a high rate per kB.
Funny you should mention 250GB caps, since that's what Comcast has. While it's a pretty reasonable cap, Comcast doesn't provide any way to track your usage. If you go over you'll get a warning after the month's over with. Get a second warning in a 6 month period (I think, it may be 3 months) then you get cut off for a while (a year I believe).
So yeah, they'll definitely not tell you how to track it. I have actually talked to Comcast about this since I got one of the warnings back when it was just an undefined "you used too much" ("how much is too much?" "We won't tell you." Brilliant customer service there.) and they claim they don't know until the month's over with. I personally find it very, very hard to believe they can't track this in close to real-time. They just don't want to. And Time-Warner has already proven they're even less likely to bother helping their customers with... well, anything beyond emptying their wallets. Since this seems to be mostly a money grab they're going to be very disinclined to do so, since it'll make it easier for people to go over the limit and have to pay more money.
Let's face it, the only reason they have these crackdowns is that it makes the politicians look tough, without actually hurting a large number of voters.
But this won't work forever, eventually enough innocent people will have been hit that everyone will know someone who's life was unfairly ruined due to such accusations. Then a majority of the people will see this for what it really is, and turn on the politicians. I'm not surprised they're too short-sighted to see this however.
Any Employer who fires somone on such basis should also be forced to rehire the individual if the individual so desires as well as paying a hefty fine.
Of course a big part of the problem is that they fire them for other reasons, leaving them with legal protection in the case that the person is cleared of the crime. Maybe it would work better to add this as a form of discrimination under the law. If you're fired suddenly under this type of circumstance and are later proven to be innocent (or charges dropped), then you can sue the employer for discrimination. That still wouldn't stop it, but it would at least make employers who do such things pay a price for it.
A similar thing might work for the newspapers, if they reported on the initial accusation/arrest and don't make a major effort to spread the news of innocence they could be sued for libel/slander. I don't think that would impinge on the freedom of the press any since they don't have the freedom to impinge on others' rights. If they knew they could be hit with a libel/slander suit they couldn't win (or be faced with having to run major coverage on a non-event (in their minds)) they might cease to be so eager to publicize every accusation of child abuse/porn that comes along.
I haven't tried rdesktop since they started the p2p filtering, but I can attest that uploading files via scp is mostly impossible, even during off-peak times. (I somehow doubt that there's a lot of congestion at 3am on a Wednesday.) I needed to upload about 100MB of stuff to a server earlier this week and had to use Filezilla in SFTP mode due to bogus resets. Even then Filezilla was having to reconnect constantly due to the damn resets. (We're talking 10+ reconnects required per ~10MB file, and this was at 3am on Wednesday.) Absolutely no p2p running on my network, I don't even USE p2p anymore. (Haven't since last year when all this started.)
But going by what they've admitted, the Sandvine appliances are most likely mistakenly flagging the encrypted file uploads over ssh as p2p uploads. This fits the theory I've had all along -- Sandvine's appliances have a very, very, VERY high false positive rate. Either that or Comcast has the configured improperly, but I'm leaning towards the false positive rate being the culprit. I suspect that Sandvine and/or Comcast is assuming that all encrypted upload traffic is encrypted p2p traffic trying to hide. This is quite obviously not the case, but good luck convincing them of that.
They expect $XX per month, you expect YY gigabytes per month. What's wrong with putting that down on paper rather than "uh, yeah, use as much as we consider viable.. we'll tell you when you hit it"?
That's not quite what Comcast is doing, if you read the FAQ about this you're on your own to track your usage. They'll notify you if you go over, after the fact. Also I think the main worry is that once this is done it'll never be undone. Comcast will be reluctant to even up the limit (much less remove it) in the future because that'd cost money to add capacity. Why bother doing that when you have a monopoly in most places? So that's the real issue, not whether the cap is reasonable now or not, will it ever go up or go away in the future or will the US quickly descend into an Internet backwater so telcos and cable companies can make more money? I may by cynical but I'm pretty certain we're going full steam ahead for the backwater option.
Actually when I think of stupid lawsuit I think of the guy who set his Winnebago cruise control and then went to make a sandwich. He got a couple of million because the manual didn't say basically "cruise control is NOT autopilot,idiot."
That's not a real case, it was made up. See here, next to last entry in the table. There's plenty of legit crappy lawsuits, spreading around the fake ones isn't necessary and tends to hurt calls for doing something to prevent the bad ones.
Furthermore, at any time a person may send a letter to the collection agency asking that all telephone communications cease. Afterwards, the collection agency may only send letters to the person updating them on any actions being taken towards the debt.
There's a hole in this section however, if you aren't the actual party to the debt the collection agency will ignore it as you're not listed on their accounts. If you try to get creative and send it claiming you're the person they're looking for then you've just confirmed (in their minds) that you're really lying and they have the right place. So what do you do if you're in a situation like the parent? I've got the same thing happening (lived here 32 years, same phone number for at least 20, we have no clue who the person they're seeking is) and we can't get them to stop.
Bullshit. I have a perfect credit record and I regularly get calls from debt collection agencies looking for people that I've never heard of. I've had the same phone number for more than 10 years, so it isn't like I have a recently recycled telephone number.
We've recently started getting mail (they appear to be bills) and phone calls from debt collectors for someone we've never heard of, and we've lived here for 32 years, had the same phone number for at least 20. This isn't a case of identity theft (that was the first thing I checked), just apparently some low-life used our address and phone number then vanished on their creditors. I'm glad it's not identity theft, but it's beyond annoying to be getting calls from debt collectors that refuse to believe that they're calling the wrong place. Getting them to stop is proving impossible. Since we aren't the actual person listed for the debt, we can't even properly request they stop contacting us. This appears to be a case where we really do need new laws to address the situation, and it doesn't help that debt collectors tend to be abusive when they think they're being lied to. I'm sure they do get lied to a lot, but being abusive isn't the answer (and is in fact illegal), especially when you will hit innocents now and then, which is becoming more likely by the day as identity theft increases.
I realize you're trying to be funny, but I wanted to point out, no, but she did get treatment for her son's Leukemia in exchange for representing Germany. When he came down with it Russia basically told her tough shit, she called up a German coach and they were happy to help her get treatment for her son and she competed for them in exchange. All around I think everyone (except perhaps Russia) won in this situation, I was glad to see her get a medal.
Don't RSS feeds accomplish this because people can subscribe and unsubscribe at will?
Most well run mailing lists accomplish this as well, This is True (and indeed all of Randy's mailing lists) make this quite simple. Unsubscribing is easier than subscribing in fact. You have to confirm that you requested to subscribe to actually get on the list in the first place.
I guess the only disadvantage of RSS feeds is that one has to be reasonably technologically savvy to even know what they are, let alone use them.
The big disadvantage of RSS feeds to me is it's another application to run if you want to manage them well (built in browser support is nice, but doesn't really cut it for checking them regularly, much less tracking stuff that drops off the feed before you have a chance to read it). Even if you use something like Google Reader it's still an additional thing to do to get the content. I check my E-mail multiple times a day, mailing lists are more convenient to me as I'm already going to be using my E-mail client.
Besides, This is True predated RSS by a rather lengthy amount of time, and RSS isn't suitable for the premium/free versions that This is True has.
Because TIT is indicative of every single unsubscribe method, amirite?
Why no, it's not, in fact most of the legit mailing lists make it harder. But this is also irrelevant as the list in question here IS This is True, and its unsubscribe method is as easy (and often easier) than marking it as spam. That was the point.
As others have pointed out, it's easier to unsubscribe from all of Randy's lists than it is to subscribe to them. Subscribing requires the user to confirm that they indeed submitted their address to be subscribed, and it's always been that way.
There should really be a standardized way to unsubscribe from mailing lists, so that every mail client automatically shows an "unsubscribe" button inside any mailing list email.
There is, and This is True uses it, it's called the "List-Unsubscribe:" header.
An unsubscribe process takes more clicks then hitting 'mark as spam'. That's all the reason people need to use the spam button.
BULLSHIT
I get This is True, I have for over a decade now, and on my latest issue there's this tidbit available from one keypress (enter) at the bottom:
Message 4,496 has information associated with it that explains how to participate in an email list. An email list is represented by a single email address that users sharing a common interest can send messages to (known as posting) which are then redistributed to all members of the list (sometimes after review by a moderator).
List participation commands in this message include:
* A method to remove yourself from the list (Unsubscribe).
Select HERE to UNsubscribe.
One more keypress and I'd be unsubscribed. In fact it's easier than reporting it as spam is. People just don't CARE. Or they're just stupid, or perhaps both.
Can you honestly say you've never done it?
Yes I can, I'm not an idiot nor am a lazy asshole. If I can't get a list to unsubscribe me I'll report it, but at that point it IS spam. (And violating the toothless CAN-SPAM act to boot.)
Just because you're lazy and/or stupid doesn't mean most of us are.
Cuil has only just opened. Already, it is pretty decent.
No it's not. Maybe it's the load but it's totally screwed up. Results return with images that have nothing at all to do with the actual result. (Someone posted a screenshot of a result about Giant Squid, the image with it was two WWE wrestlers). Some queries come back and say no results. I personally tried anime blogger and got nothing. Google returns 3,910,000 results for the same query. Bizarrely searching for anime blog got results, however nearly every single image was wrong, most coming from sites not even remotely connected to the site of the actual result. Google was never this bad. I can't remember any search engine performing so horribly.
And I'm sure someone will say that it's just cause of the increased load and it'll be better later. There might not be a later for them. This is their public unveiling, there's even an article on CNN.com about them. And what are they doing? Totally blowing their time in the spotlight. Irrelevant results, no results, slow responses, etc. Many people won't come back. Even if they get reminded months from now they'll probably remember their bad experience and not bother. Cuil's going to have a VERY steep slope to climb to overcome this, much more than just competing against the behemoth Google. They've basically shot themselves in both feet and broken an arm.
What else would they do? Do a test where it was going to fail??
No, but don't expect technically inclined people (like those who read Slashdot) to view a test with the deck so obviously stacked in Microsoft's favor as anything other than a PR stunt that proves nothing.
The upcoming SP1? If you're going to bash something, at least have a clue first.
I recommend you take your own advice, SP1 has been out since February 21st, and was apparently fully released via automatic updates in May. (That's when it showed up for me anyway.)
Install the OS themselves? How many normal people are really going to do that?
This is fair, most users wouldn't do this, however...
More than likely, they're buying a new computer and it will come with Vista. Which, by the way, will probably be well tested so that there are no driver issues.
It might not have driver issues but it's almost guaranteed to come with a ton of crap installed in addition to the OS that slows things down and makes the experience worse. So it's still not a fair comparison. If MS had taken off-the-shelf systems and just patched Vista to remove the branding only it'd have been a fair test and not just a PR stunt. But we all know (you've even admitted it already), that MS wasn't going to do a test where they'd fail, so this was simply a PR stunt. There's not really anything wrong with that but don't expect those of us who understand to consider it proof of Vista being a great OS.
Is selling a computer with working Windows also considered stacking the deck in your world?
MS wasn't selling these PCs, so I doubt the parent feels that way, but no, it's not. But we aren't talking about PCs as sold on the regular market, we're talking about ones setup by MS to ensure the users had a great experience. That is stacking the deck and proves nothing about how good or bad Vista is.
I hate going on the offensive, but some of the Vista talk is just... stupid.
Some of it is but the parent wasn't being stupid. This wasn't a fair test of Vista, it was a purposely designed event to generate positive PR for Vista, that's all. Vista certainly has its problems (and I say this as someone who's been using it since January, SP1 hasn't fixed the major issues I have and I really do hate it for legit reasons), and there are certainly some really stupid things given as reasons to hate it, but the parent's criticisms of this event are fair mostly. The part about suggesting people install the OS themselves wasn't, but suggesting they should have used stock installs from OEMs IS.
Do you people really expect MS to just roll over on this? If you do, you're more than just a little naive.
Do you expect us to just ignore everything MS does and not point out flaws in it? If you do you're very naive.
But they _are_ already working on Windows 7 and on the SP1 for Vista
SP1 has been out for months now, it went live as an automatic update in May even. I can say with certainty now that it did not fix most of my major problems with Vista, and I've more or less given up hope that they'll be fixed prior to Windows 7.
(with each driver being run having been fully audited by microsoft, and everything tested beforehand to make sure it works)
So kind of like an Apple? Do something that everyone raves about, but get put down for it. Sounds fair to me.
Why isn't this fair? In the real world Microsoft cannot control the PC hardware that Vista will be installed on. By doing so in this little PR stunt they created an environment that has no basis in reality. Would those people have felt the same way given stock PCs from OEMs with Vista on them (unmodified except to remove the Vista branding)? Probably not. Apple is able to control the hardware and software because of their business model, Microsoft can't, and that's why it's fair to criticize this.
You know, if people wouldn't take out loans they can't afford, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
You know, if banks and Wall Street hadn't packaged sub-prime loans into insanely complex investment packages that no one fully understood maybe we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
There's plenty of blame to go 'round, don't try just blaming folks who wanted a home and took out loans they couldn't afford. So far those folks aren't getting much (if any) help, yet banks and Wall Street, who were equally guilty in this mess, have.