You can call the police if people violate your no solitation sign.
With the DNC list you essentially have to go to the gov't first. Or face their penalties.
Um, i don't see any other way of doing it. There has to be one central list. And there has to be penalties for violators. Otherwise, the whole thing falls apart. Self regulation doesn't work.
Really fatal is that you have to buy the list from them; I'm sure they'd have to waive that.
Should our tax dolars pay for it? Personally, i'd be pissed if they used them to pay for much of this. Why? Because there would be no need for this list if buisness didn't abuse the phone system.
Also, political speech is considerably better protected than commercial.
Why, because of the exemptions? I wouldn't want to stop charities from doing so; they are actually trying to serve a public good. As far as political exemptions...since i've never, ever been called once by a political organization, i don't really mind that. I've ONLY been called by commercial companies.
If you look at the solicitation case, the Court was intensely critical of the encumbrance on speech. An 8-1 vote means even the most conservative members crossed the line to join the more liberal.
The courts are never wrong, is that what you're saying?
Nothing is stopping people from going to a public place to advertise their crap, or try to convert people to thier religion. They are allowed to do that. However, going onto someone elses private property and distrubing them in thier home is quite another thing.
There is no problem with people expressing their preferences in advance, but have the gov't do it for them?
The gov't isn't expressing thier preference for them. The people do that by signing up on the list. The gov't is simply enforcing thier preference.
Prior restraints -- forbidding someone from speaking in advance -- are particularly suspect.
No one is stopping them from doing that; they are simply being stopped from contacting people that have expressed a desire not to be contacted.
Perhaps citizens have to do so for them selves -- "No Soliciting" -- and their are gadgets to let you do so with the telephone (caller id, the famed hang-up).
The no soliciting sign prevents someone from ringing your doorbell or coming onto your property in the first place. Caller id or hanging up do not allow this; this is equivelent to looking out the window or slamming the door shut AFTER someone has violated your preference.
It's ironic, really, you'd think the solicitors would be delighted to have a list of people who don't want to talk to them, but they must realized many of those who sign up can still be swayed.
Whats your point here? There are solicitors that didn't honor my wishes to be left alone by them. Which is really the whole problem. Do you really think that you can annoy someone to do buisness with you? Most likely you do the opposite; people will turn against you and your product or cause.
Another weakness I hadn't reflected on much is that it is somewhat unclear what statutory authorization the FCC and FTC, both of which have proposed lists, have to spend money on and enforce DNC lists. It may lie outside their mandate and require explicit authorization and appropriations from Congress.
Yes, which is why they are asking congress for the power to do so. I hope they get it. Your point again?
I'm not working up arguments for the plaintiffs, just trying to predict from experience....Personally I can deal with saying "no" and although the idea of a DNC list sounds delightful, I like the First Amendment, too.
If so, why didn't you say 'i don't think this will work because the courts...'? You didn't say that. You seem to believe that this list has something to do with free speech.
so don't bother trying to argue with me.
If you don't want people to try and counter your arguement, don't bother posting. I'm arguing with you because i think you're way off base.
I foresee problems, and it is likely that it will be a while before anyone even attempts to limit such speech and invites the fight.
Its not a limit on speech. You have the right to speak your mind, i have the right not to be forced to listen to you in my own home. Speak all you want in a public place, no one is stopping you even if they don't want to hear it.
Believe it or not, there really is a right to pester people, at least briefly.
No, there is not. Is there a right to caues minor injury to someone, like a bruise? No? Maybe you don't have the right to bother someone in thier own home either.
I have the right not to hear what you have to say too, if i choose not to.
Its perfectly acceptable to put a no soliciation sign in my lawn to indicate that i do not accept that; this is simply a way to do the same thing for your phone.
having more than one internet naming athority could potentially cause quite a bit of havoc as packets streams get split between two physical destinations.
The internet doesn't work that way. Your packet won't be 'split' because your machine replaces the name with an IP address before its sent it one final destination. The IP address that your computer uses would depend on the nameserver you're using.
Its almost there. I'm 25, and i got carded to see an R rated movie. Bleh. Seems like theaters are enforcing this as if its law. Like you can't buy a ticket for one movie and go sit in another theater.
I doubt that the RFC is broken; its pretty arrogent to think that because you don't see a reason for it there is none. You think the RFC writers just said 'lets put this thing in there that doesn't really do anything'?
I suspect its to get sequence numbers going, but i'm not an expert so i can't be sure what its for. From the RFCs i've read, there has always been a good reason for everything.
This is why even after we watched September 11 on TV we lined up to see The Sum Of All Fears and we didn't pull Armageddon from stores.
I didn't really want to see Sum of All Fears when it came out, but a friend of mine did, so we went. I didn't enjoy it, and it made me rather sad. I don't think i'll ever like that movie.
Until I babysat some kids and showed them Terminator II, I didn't see a connection between a violent movie and violent behavior, but now I am certain there is one.
How old were these kids? 6? If they are young enough to still need a babysitter, they are probably too young to see that movie.
Young children shouldn't be exposed to certain games or movies; at what age they can be depends on the child.
I really hope you're not a babysitter anymore; you obviously don't know that young children often imitate everything they see.
The problem with prevention is that usually you end up punishing someone that really hasn't done anything wrong, or to have proper prevent you need to take away people's rights. I don't really find either acceptable.
As an adult who can drive, I find myself getting urges to just ram idiots who get in my way off the road, or to drive up on the sidewalk to get around them and mow people down if they happen to be walking there.
You should have your license taken away, and probably be placed into a mental hospital. You have problems if you can't seperate reality from fiction.
Um, did you stop to think that maybe you're having good luck, and that your results are atypical?
Not having a hotmail account i can't tell either way, but simply stating that you don't have the problem doesn't mean its not a problem for the majority of users. This works in reverse also.
I think another big problem is that the RIAA is saying that the copied works in Europe are still piracy, even thought its perfectly legal to do so in the EU.
Same as freedom of speech or being offensive, they are mutually exclusive.
I don't think they are. If you find something offense, don't listen / watch. OTOH, if you restrict speech because something is offensive, you end up with very little speech left.
Which begets the question: is the a legal recourse for punishing those who publish confidential documents, but never did sign a confidentiality agreement in order to get them?
I wouldn't think so. To argue that a person should be held to a contract they didn't sign (or see) most likely wouldn't hold up. Maybe there's something else that they could be guilty of, but i wouldn't know.
Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution...
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 1
Yes, i know what the law says. yes, i know the same tired arguement you made previously is the same one used by corporations to be considered 'people.' I know the basics on incorporating.
That said, it doesn't really matter how much i know about incorporating to decide that a law stating corporations have rights is an invalid law. For that all you need is an understanding of rights.
Human beings have rights. Thats it. A group of ten people do not have more rights then an individual, nor do other things have rights.
Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution...
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 1
That's a common misconception. In a free society, you're allowed to do whatever you like as long as you don't violate the law. You can violate another person's "rights"* all you want as long as you don't break any laws.
That describes every society. Therefore, every society is a free society, including the former USSR, China, and Iran. Because there too you're allowed to do what you want without violating the law.
As far as your footnote on rights go, you seem to be confused. Read the philosophy of Jefferson, Locke and Keyes, since this is the philosophy that our nation is founded on. Its pretty clear what a right is.
When some says "i have the right to do whatever i want to my body", it means exactly that. That person is free to do anything to his or her body, and any law to the contrary is invalid. Laws against suicide are also wrong; if you truely have the right to live, you must be able to decide you do not want to live any longer. Its pretty clear what people mean when they say they have a right, and its pretty clear when they are misusing the term.
Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution...
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 1
That's not the only point.
Actually, it is.
I'm not making an argument. I'm telling you what the facts are. As far as the law is concerned, a corporation is a person, and it does have rights.
The law is wrong. It certainly sounded like an arguement to me, with your giving reasons and all without meantioning that its the law. Otherwise wouldn't you have just said 'hey this is the law' without going into the reasoning?
Slashdot Mirror
Data CDs in the U.S. are still RIAA taxed, but at a lower rate than music CDs.
Proof? I've seen articles to the contrary.
If you're in the US, you pay nothing to the RIAA for blank cdrs, unless they are blank Audio cdrs.
Or the US?
What about people with cable taps that never signed up for service at all? by your logic, that is allowable for them.
Not sure if that matters anymore, since they do sell those black, blank cd-rs. I have some now...they look pretty cool.
The only down side is tat you can't see if data has been burned to one if you forgot to label it.
You can call the police if people violate your no solitation sign.
With the DNC list you essentially have to go to the gov't first. Or face their penalties.
Um, i don't see any other way of doing it. There has to be one central list. And there has to be penalties for violators. Otherwise, the whole thing falls apart. Self regulation doesn't work.
Really fatal is that you have to buy the list from them; I'm sure they'd have to waive that.
Should our tax dolars pay for it? Personally, i'd be pissed if they used them to pay for much of this. Why? Because there would be no need for this list if buisness didn't abuse the phone system.
Also, political speech is considerably better protected than commercial.
Why, because of the exemptions? I wouldn't want to stop charities from doing so; they are actually trying to serve a public good. As far as political exemptions...since i've never, ever been called once by a political organization, i don't really mind that. I've ONLY been called by commercial companies.
If you look at the solicitation case, the Court was intensely critical of the encumbrance on speech. An 8-1 vote means even the most conservative members crossed the line to join the more liberal.
The courts are never wrong, is that what you're saying?
Nothing is stopping people from going to a public place to advertise their crap, or try to convert people to thier religion. They are allowed to do that. However, going onto someone elses private property and distrubing them in thier home is quite another thing.
There is no problem with people expressing their preferences in advance, but have the gov't do it for them?
The gov't isn't expressing thier preference for them. The people do that by signing up on the list. The gov't is simply enforcing thier preference.
Prior restraints -- forbidding someone from speaking in advance -- are particularly suspect.
No one is stopping them from doing that; they are simply being stopped from contacting people that have expressed a desire not to be contacted.
Perhaps citizens have to do so for them selves -- "No Soliciting" -- and their are gadgets to let you do so with the telephone (caller id, the famed hang-up).
The no soliciting sign prevents someone from ringing your doorbell or coming onto your property in the first place. Caller id or hanging up do not allow this; this is equivelent to looking out the window or slamming the door shut AFTER someone has violated your preference.
It's ironic, really, you'd think the solicitors would be delighted to have a list of people who don't want to talk to them, but they must realized many of those who sign up can still be swayed.
Whats your point here? There are solicitors that didn't honor my wishes to be left alone by them. Which is really the whole problem. Do you really think that you can annoy someone to do buisness with you? Most likely you do the opposite; people will turn against you and your product or cause.
Another weakness I hadn't reflected on much is that it is somewhat unclear what statutory authorization the FCC and FTC, both of which have proposed lists, have to spend money on and enforce DNC lists. It may lie outside their mandate and require explicit authorization and appropriations from Congress.
Yes, which is why they are asking congress for the power to do so. I hope they get it. Your point again?
I'm not working up arguments for the plaintiffs, just trying to predict from experience....Personally I can deal with saying "no" and although the idea of a DNC list sounds delightful, I like the First Amendment, too.
If so, why didn't you say 'i don't think this will work because the courts...'? You didn't say that. You seem to believe that this list has something to do with free speech.
so don't bother trying to argue with me.
If you don't want people to try and counter your arguement, don't bother posting. I'm arguing with you because i think you're way off base.
I foresee problems, and it is likely that it will be a while before anyone even attempts to limit such speech and invites the fight.
Its not a limit on speech. You have the right to speak your mind, i have the right not to be forced to listen to you in my own home. Speak all you want in a public place, no one is stopping you even if they don't want to hear it.
Believe it or not, there really is a right to pester people, at least briefly.
No, there is not. Is there a right to caues minor injury to someone, like a bruise? No? Maybe you don't have the right to bother someone in thier own home either.
I have the right not to hear what you have to say too, if i choose not to.
Its perfectly acceptable to put a no soliciation sign in my lawn to indicate that i do not accept that; this is simply a way to do the same thing for your phone.
having more than one internet naming athority could potentially cause quite a bit of havoc as packets streams get split between two physical destinations.
The internet doesn't work that way. Your packet won't be 'split' because your machine replaces the name with an IP address before its sent it one final destination. The IP address that your computer uses would depend on the nameserver you're using.
Doh, i reread it, and i think you're right.
I thought he was trying to imply the RFC was broken because he said the RFC process failed just before that.
Its almost there. I'm 25, and i got carded to see an R rated movie. Bleh. Seems like theaters are enforcing this as if its law. Like you can't buy a ticket for one movie and go sit in another theater.
That may be it, but more likely, the kid gets joked on or has problems with his parents.
Having been picked on when i switched to public school, i think this is far more likely the cause then video games.
You feel trapped, and get desperate for a way out. Fortunatly, i found non-destructive ways to deal with it. I'm not sure everyone can though.
I've heard of teens doing far worse, like throwing a newborne in a dumpster, or beating an infant.
A hyperbole is an exaggeration, for effect. What's being exaggerated here, since its probably a perfectly reasonable possibility?
I doubt that the RFC is broken; its pretty arrogent to think that because you don't see a reason for it there is none. You think the RFC writers just said 'lets put this thing in there that doesn't really do anything'?
I suspect its to get sequence numbers going, but i'm not an expert so i can't be sure what its for. From the RFCs i've read, there has always been a good reason for everything.
This is why even after we watched September 11 on TV we lined up to see The Sum Of All Fears and we didn't pull Armageddon from stores.
I didn't really want to see Sum of All Fears when it came out, but a friend of mine did, so we went. I didn't enjoy it, and it made me rather sad. I don't think i'll ever like that movie.
Until I babysat some kids and showed them Terminator II, I didn't see a connection between a violent movie and violent behavior, but now I am certain there is one.
How old were these kids? 6? If they are young enough to still need a babysitter, they are probably too young to see that movie.
Young children shouldn't be exposed to certain games or movies; at what age they can be depends on the child.
I really hope you're not a babysitter anymore; you obviously don't know that young children often imitate everything they see.
The problem with prevention is that usually you end up punishing someone that really hasn't done anything wrong, or to have proper prevent you need to take away people's rights. I don't really find either acceptable.
As an adult who can drive, I find myself getting urges to just ram idiots who get in my way off the road, or to drive up on the sidewalk to get around them and mow people down if they happen to be walking there.
You should have your license taken away, and probably be placed into a mental hospital. You have problems if you can't seperate reality from fiction.
I typically get about 5-10 spam messages per day - not a lot.
Not alot? I'd consider that alot. With my isp provided address, i get maybe one per week.
Um, did you stop to think that maybe you're having good luck, and that your results are atypical?
Not having a hotmail account i can't tell either way, but simply stating that you don't have the problem doesn't mean its not a problem for the majority of users. This works in reverse also.
I think another big problem is that the RIAA is saying that the copied works in Europe are still piracy, even thought its perfectly legal to do so in the EU.
Same as freedom of speech or being offensive, they are mutually exclusive.
I don't think they are. If you find something offense, don't listen / watch. OTOH, if you restrict speech because something is offensive, you end up with very little speech left.
Which begets the question: is the a legal recourse for punishing those who publish confidential documents, but never did sign a confidentiality agreement in order to get them?
I wouldn't think so. To argue that a person should be held to a contract they didn't sign (or see) most likely wouldn't hold up. Maybe there's something else that they could be guilty of, but i wouldn't know.
Yes, i know what the law says. yes, i know the same tired arguement you made previously is the same one used by corporations to be considered 'people.' I know the basics on incorporating.
That said, it doesn't really matter how much i know about incorporating to decide that a law stating corporations have rights is an invalid law. For that all you need is an understanding of rights.
Human beings have rights. Thats it. A group of ten people do not have more rights then an individual, nor do other things have rights.
That's a common misconception. In a free society, you're allowed to do whatever you like as long as you don't violate the law. You can violate another person's "rights"* all you want as long as you don't break any laws.
That describes every society. Therefore, every society is a free society, including the former USSR, China, and Iran. Because there too you're allowed to do what you want without violating the law.
As far as your footnote on rights go, you seem to be confused. Read the philosophy of Jefferson, Locke and Keyes, since this is the philosophy that our nation is founded on. Its pretty clear what a right is.
When some says "i have the right to do whatever i want to my body", it means exactly that. That person is free to do anything to his or her body, and any law to the contrary is invalid. Laws against suicide are also wrong; if you truely have the right to live, you must be able to decide you do not want to live any longer. Its pretty clear what people mean when they say they have a right, and its pretty clear when they are misusing the term.
That's not the only point.
Actually, it is.
I'm not making an argument. I'm telling you what the facts are. As far as the law is concerned, a corporation is a person, and it does have rights.
The law is wrong. It certainly sounded like an arguement to me, with your giving reasons and all without meantioning that its the law. Otherwise wouldn't you have just said 'hey this is the law' without going into the reasoning?