"SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T WANT TO BE CALLED! Why should they not have the right to put them on a "fuck off and leave me alone" list?"
Because this would be administered/overseen by the government, and the government should have NO input into what communication is allowed.
Me (and my kind) feel that you shouldn't be asking the government to restrict freedom of speech just so you don't have to waste a minute of your oh-so-precious time.
Re: solicitation, I should have qualified that as solicitation for money.
Regarding political participation, perhaps I should have more clearly explained that education about issues is often a prerequisite for activity. If no one knows about a problem, how are they to get involved?
Community outreach and education is vital to grassroots campaigning, and I don't believe the government should be allowed to put in place a system that limits the opportunity for this.
I feel that you are now extending your limited definition of political participation to me.
I guess, in the end, it depends on whether you consider the telephone lines to be a public or private medium.
What I'd really like to see is a means by which we can automagically deny telemarketers from reaching us. They could still try, but they'd never get patched to our personal line. I'm not sure the phone companies would be able to implement this, however.
"What did I say about government teaching anything?"
Quote: "The uneducated masses do not need special interest group propaganda, whether it is a solitication for votes or an attempt to "educate" (again, LOL) them. This also shuts out minor political parties that cannot afford telemarketing either. The whole idea is retarded anyway. This is what schools are supposed to teach, not special interest groups."
What do you think schools are? They are a government insttution.
"Who gave you the right to keep calling and harassing me at all odd hours of day and night even after I said stop calling me and putting myself on a DNC?"
No one. Most states have restrictions on when people can call. There are also federal regulations prohibiting them from contacting you when you have asked them not to -- it's not that hard to file a complaint.
"I have a problem when you think you are entitled to bother my free time or my family's time for your own selfish interests.
"
Do not assume that all others are motivated by selfish interests. Many groups out there are motivated by altruism.
"or turn it on and be forced to hear some spiel from idotic politican."
No one is forcing you to listen. Hang up.
I guess the key issue between us here is whether telephone is a public or private medium, and to what extent free speech should be limited in either case.
See, I believe the telephone, like mail, is a public communications venue. I should be able to send messages via either system, provided you have not specifically asked me not to.
You may disagree about this foundation to my argument, but that's what I believe.
I would very much rather err on the side of free speech... even if this requires extending the benefit of the doubt to some organizations.
In that case, it also only exists in the imagination of the Constitution, the various stae governments, the federal legislature, and the court system.
"Furthermore, it takes a fair bit of imagination to suggest that political pressure groups are interested in educating people, instead of pushing a view through any means possible including freely misleading people."
I'm not saying that some of these groups are not out to make a buck, or that some of them may willfully mislead people. However, I take umbrage to the suggestion that (1) they can all be labeled as 'political pressure groups' and (2) that there are not altruistic organizations that do not mislead people.
You are free to hang up on the wackos, to tell them never to call you again (and to have that enforced, btw). But, as in my original comment, solicitation for $$ were not allowed, a lot of that scaremongering would disappear.
Again though, you have the choice of listening or not listening to any particular caller. Just because you find a cause to be invalid does not mean that whoever is backing that cause doesn't have the right to contact people about it.
I think you haven't even considered my point. You are, and should be, free to tell someone who calls you not to call you again; they are bound by law to not call you again.
Political organizations should have the right to try to contact people -- it's a freedom of speech thing.
If you tell them not to call you, and they keep calling you, you have legal recourse. You are free from being harassed, if you exercise your rights.
Your point is that you don't want to get unsolicited phone calls, because you don't give a shit what they have to say. See, I understand perfectly what you mean.
I just don't believe that the correct way to go about this is by having government restrictions on who may call you. Instead, you can enforce restrictions on who may call you.
They keep "harassing" you? Hit 'em in the pocket, I'll bet they stop. Document the calls, file a complaint.
Political groups are exempt from the DNC list, which is part of why the article referred to the Canadian DNC as toothless.
However, in the US, political groups still have to honor your request if it is made to them specifically. Careful, though -- each of the two main parties in the US typically have at least five affiliates operating in each locality during national elections. You got the Young Republicans, the State Republicans, the national party office, the campaign office of a candidate (or three), etc.
I just don't see the need for all the regulatory BS when you can just choose to not answer the phone, or hang up on the caller.
"This is what schools are supposed to teach, not special interest groups."
No f-in way. You want government to teach political issues? LOL. Welcome to fascism.
I've worked on a number of local grassroots campaigns where telephone campaigning has been necessary to get the message out and recruit people to volunteer.
Sure, some people don't want to hear anything. But some people do. Don't generalize and assume that all groups that call people are not honestly interested in educating the public. Yes, they may have an agenda, but points of view you haven't already heard should be welcome.
"Are you really seriously telling me that telemarketing is nessecary to ensure the 'best quality of life'"
I am saying that it is not out of the question. Outreach to citizens is very important, politically, and can contribute to quality of life in myriad ways. The economy also contributes to quality of life.
Don't like it? Don't pick up the phone. Nothing is stopping you, nothing at all.
What I don't agree with, is not allowing communication about an issue just because the method annoys you.
Television ads bother the crap out of me -- but I'm not saying they should be banned.
Congratulations on the evident superiority of your political system (and I'm not really being sarcastic).
However, calling someone isn't harassing them, and I don't think any US political group feels they have the right to spend time on the phone with anyone. However, they do have the right to attempt to contact someone.
That person can still hang up or not answer the phone.
And the way current law has been in the US, for many, many years, is that if you ask an organization not to call you, and they do, they can be fined -- regardless of a universal do-not-call registry.
You are free to not give a shit. But why should everyone else be forced to not give a shit?
"I believe that any individual should have the ability to deny any organization the right to contact them. It's my phone, it's my money, it's my life and it's my time. I decide."
Sure, by not answering the call. In that manner, you are denying them the right to contact you. You have decided.
"I don't cry for them, and in a less extreme manner I certianly don't care if others are unable to make their living by harassing me at home. They don't need protectionism."
I have to laugh at this. You are arguing for protectionism by arguing against protectionism?
My comment had nothing to do with these people making a living -- it had to do with the right to contact people with information.
I could just as easily argue that I don't cry for you, a couple minutes of hassle a week is no big deal, and you don't need protectionism.
"How is being forced to hear from them going to 'make it better'? Oh please tell!"
You're not forced to listen to them.
Neither is anyone else.
"I can't make it better. It would take a revolution to do that, something I'm not really capable of doing."
Your apathy is disturbing. You can indeed make a difference, whether locally or on a state or national level.
"What good is "educating" (LOL) people via the telephone if they do not want to listen to the message?"
My point is that some people do want to hear the message, and may choose to get involved in something based upon a telephone call they receive.
You don't want to be bothered? Then don't pick uo the phone. There are plenty of autoscreening solutions out there, so you wouldn't have to lift a finger. Is it so hard to get off the couch?
"Cry me a fucking river. Do you think most people give a shit about that? And do businesses, charities, and political organizations feel they are benefitted by pissing people off?"
Well, obviously they are benefiting -- otherwise, they wouldn't continue.
And your attitude, that you don't "give a shit about that", is one of the biggest problems we face in the US.
All those people who "don't give a shit" about political issues, who are not willing to spend a measly 15 minutes of their time, are allowing other interests to rule our government.
So go ahead, play with your toys, watch your sports, listen to your music, but heaven forbid you take an interest in politics. As long as you have your little insulated world, you don't care, hmm?
How do we ensure the best quality of life possible for our citizens? How important are business interests and the economy to that quality of life?
Can we deal with a little annoyance if it helps keep the economy moving?
In principle, the do-not-call registry sounds like a great idea.
However, telephone solicitation is very important to business, to charities, and to political organizations. How do we balance their needs with citizens' wants?
I think it's very important that political groups especially are allowed to reach out to people in the community. Unfortunately, most people here in the US are ridiculously undereducated about political issues. What I'd like to see is a proscription against soliciting over the phone, so that information could still be passed along.
This would help reduce how much certain subsets of the population are taken advantage of by telemarketers.
It's not that hard to hang up the phone, or to screen calls. I've set my phone to ring silently if the call is from someone not in my caller ID. I erase telemarketer numbers every couple days.
At this point, at least here in the US, I am very against any action that would limit political participation -- it's low enough already. Polling and grassroots campaigning are vital to how our political system operates today, and should not be abrogated.
However, I think any individual should have the ability to deny a specific organiztion the right to contact them. If the NRA contacts me, I only want to tell them once to go to hell. Instead, I find myself telling them weekly.
What I've got to do now is advise them I am recording the call, and record myself telling them not to ever call me again -- both the NRA and the telemarketing firm doing the calling. Then follow up with a fax repeating my instructions.
Then, when they call again, record that conversation also. Write them a letter stating that I will take them to court unless they wish to settle for, say, $250. I bet they'd settle, since lawyers are too expensive.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
I've read accounts of people making thousands by bleeding the beast in this manner.
"On Thursday, Obey explained the decision to ultimately refuse the low-power FM station request.
'With limited resources, you err on the side of FEMA and the Red Cross over entertainment.' "
First, the station was going to be providing more than entertainment.
Second, who from the Red Cross opposed to the station? Why?
Third, who from FEMA opposed the station? Why?
If it cost FEMA and the Red Cross nothing, they have no reson to oppose. If either believes it will cost them something, I'd like to hear it explained.
My guess is, they are worried that unhappy people can be incited to riot.
"Of course, it says "PC" not "Windows" but really, everybody knows what it means.
"
Ands that's a problem for Microsoft. It's a detachment from brand awareness that they would prefer not to happen. They want game players to remember that they're using Windows every time they take the CD out of the box.
On the plus side, maybe this means games developed for Linux (my glass is half-full, by the way) will say "Games for Linux" and "PC" on them.
After all, 'PC' can include Linux installad machines...
I don't know anything about current models, and largely it will depend upon your sister's needs, budget, and limitations.
Here are a couple of sites to get you started:
http://www.viewz.com/shoppingguide/scanner.shtml (not my favorite, but it's alright as far as learning the very basics. You just have to realize the site is aimed towards mom-and-pop).
"And the publishing community is also throwing its weight behind the push, with the major publishers even redesigning their PC boxes to flag up Games for Windows in a similar way to console format branding. "
I imagine something along the lines of:
MS: I understand you want to have the words "Microsoft Windows" on your packaging.
Publisher: Well, yes, we've got to tell our market what platform the game runs on.
MS: Use "Games for Windows" or don't use "Windows" on your packaging at all. Have you met our litigation department?
Publisher: Well, since you put it so nicely...
Not to troll too much here, but to say the publishing industry is putting its weight behind the rebranding, without any more information... well, I get a little suspicious.
Slashdot Mirror
"you do not have a right to force your speech on an unwilling recipient. period."
Which is why you can hang up. Or not pick up. You are not being forced to listen.
I don't see how your right to avoid the communication is restricted at all. You can avoid it by hanging up or by not picking up.
I think we fundamentally disagree about the right of people to attempt to contact other people with information.
I'll ignore the stupid personal attack.
"SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T WANT TO BE CALLED! Why should they not have the right to put them on a "fuck off and leave me alone" list?"
Because this would be administered/overseen by the government, and the government should have NO input into what communication is allowed.
Me (and my kind) feel that you shouldn't be asking the government to restrict freedom of speech just so you don't have to waste a minute of your oh-so-precious time.
You raise a lot of good points.
Re: solicitation, I should have qualified that as solicitation for money.
Regarding political participation, perhaps I should have more clearly explained that education about issues is often a prerequisite for activity. If no one knows about a problem, how are they to get involved?
Community outreach and education is vital to grassroots campaigning, and I don't believe the government should be allowed to put in place a system that limits the opportunity for this.
I feel that you are now extending your limited definition of political participation to me.
I guess, in the end, it depends on whether you consider the telephone lines to be a public or private medium.
What I'd really like to see is a means by which we can automagically deny telemarketers from reaching us. They could still try, but they'd never get patched to our personal line. I'm not sure the phone companies would be able to implement this, however.
"What did I say about government teaching anything?"
Quote: "The uneducated masses do not need special interest group propaganda, whether it is a solitication for votes or an attempt to "educate" (again, LOL) them. This also shuts out minor political parties that cannot afford telemarketing either. The whole idea is retarded anyway. This is what schools are supposed to teach, not special interest groups."
What do you think schools are? They are a government insttution.
"Who gave you the right to keep calling and harassing me at all odd hours of day and night even after I said stop calling me and putting myself on a DNC?"
No one. Most states have restrictions on when people can call. There are also federal regulations prohibiting them from contacting you when you have asked them not to -- it's not that hard to file a complaint.
"I have a problem when you think you are entitled to bother my free time or my family's time for your own selfish interests. "
Do not assume that all others are motivated by selfish interests. Many groups out there are motivated by altruism.
"or turn it on and be forced to hear some spiel from idotic politican."
No one is forcing you to listen. Hang up.
I guess the key issue between us here is whether telephone is a public or private medium, and to what extent free speech should be limited in either case.
See, I believe the telephone, like mail, is a public communications venue. I should be able to send messages via either system, provided you have not specifically asked me not to.
You may disagree about this foundation to my argument, but that's what I believe.
I would very much rather err on the side of free speech... even if this requires extending the benefit of the doubt to some organizations.
"Such a "right" exists only in your imagination"
In that case, it also only exists in the imagination of the Constitution, the various stae governments, the federal legislature, and the court system.
"Furthermore, it takes a fair bit of imagination to suggest that political pressure groups are interested in educating people, instead of pushing a view through any means possible including freely misleading people."
I'm not saying that some of these groups are not out to make a buck, or that some of them may willfully mislead people. However, I take umbrage to the suggestion that (1) they can all be labeled as 'political pressure groups' and (2) that there are not altruistic organizations that do not mislead people.
You are free to hang up on the wackos, to tell them never to call you again (and to have that enforced, btw). But, as in my original comment, solicitation for $$ were not allowed, a lot of that scaremongering would disappear.
Again though, you have the choice of listening or not listening to any particular caller. Just because you find a cause to be invalid does not mean that whoever is backing that cause doesn't have the right to contact people about it.
I think you haven't even considered my point. You are, and should be, free to tell someone who calls you not to call you again; they are bound by law to not call you again.
Political organizations should have the right to try to contact people -- it's a freedom of speech thing.
If you tell them not to call you, and they keep calling you, you have legal recourse. You are free from being harassed, if you exercise your rights.
Your point is that you don't want to get unsolicited phone calls, because you don't give a shit what they have to say. See, I understand perfectly what you mean.
I just don't believe that the correct way to go about this is by having government restrictions on who may call you. Instead, you can enforce restrictions on who may call you.
They keep "harassing" you? Hit 'em in the pocket, I'll bet they stop. Document the calls, file a complaint.
Political groups are exempt from the DNC list, which is part of why the article referred to the Canadian DNC as toothless.
However, in the US, political groups still have to honor your request if it is made to them specifically. Careful, though -- each of the two main parties in the US typically have at least five affiliates operating in each locality during national elections. You got the Young Republicans, the State Republicans, the national party office, the campaign office of a candidate (or three), etc.
I just don't see the need for all the regulatory BS when you can just choose to not answer the phone, or hang up on the caller.
"This is what schools are supposed to teach, not special interest groups."
No f-in way. You want government to teach political issues? LOL. Welcome to fascism.
I've worked on a number of local grassroots campaigns where telephone campaigning has been necessary to get the message out and recruit people to volunteer.
Sure, some people don't want to hear anything. But some people do. Don't generalize and assume that all groups that call people are not honestly interested in educating the public. Yes, they may have an agenda, but points of view you haven't already heard should be welcome.
"Are you really seriously telling me that telemarketing is nessecary to ensure the 'best quality of life'"
I am saying that it is not out of the question. Outreach to citizens is very important, politically, and can contribute to quality of life in myriad ways. The economy also contributes to quality of life.
Don't like it? Don't pick up the phone. Nothing is stopping you, nothing at all.
What I don't agree with, is not allowing communication about an issue just because the method annoys you.
Television ads bother the crap out of me -- but I'm not saying they should be banned.
Congratulations on the evident superiority of your political system (and I'm not really being sarcastic).
However, calling someone isn't harassing them, and I don't think any US political group feels they have the right to spend time on the phone with anyone. However, they do have the right to attempt to contact someone.
That person can still hang up or not answer the phone.
And the way current law has been in the US, for many, many years, is that if you ask an organization not to call you, and they do, they can be fined -- regardless of a universal do-not-call registry.
You are free to not give a shit. But why should everyone else be forced to not give a shit?
I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Seriously, I agree with you here. The only question is, will telemarketing ever become unprofitable?
I'm not so sure that it will, given the cheap cost of telephone calls and call center labor.
"I believe that any individual should have the ability to deny any organization the right to contact them. It's my phone, it's my money, it's my life and it's my time. I decide."
Sure, by not answering the call. In that manner, you are denying them the right to contact you. You have decided.
"I don't cry for them, and in a less extreme manner I certianly don't care if others are unable to make their living by harassing me at home. They don't need protectionism."
I have to laugh at this. You are arguing for protectionism by arguing against protectionism?
My comment had nothing to do with these people making a living -- it had to do with the right to contact people with information.
I could just as easily argue that I don't cry for you, a couple minutes of hassle a week is no big deal, and you don't need protectionism.
Which is exactly my point.
"How is being forced to hear from them going to 'make it better'? Oh please tell!"
You're not forced to listen to them.
Neither is anyone else.
"I can't make it better. It would take a revolution to do that, something I'm not really capable of doing."
Your apathy is disturbing. You can indeed make a difference, whether locally or on a state or national level.
"What good is "educating" (LOL) people via the telephone if they do not want to listen to the message?"
My point is that some people do want to hear the message, and may choose to get involved in something based upon a telephone call they receive.
You don't want to be bothered? Then don't pick uo the phone. There are plenty of autoscreening solutions out there, so you wouldn't have to lift a finger. Is it so hard to get off the couch?
"Cry me a fucking river. Do you think most people give a shit about that? And do businesses, charities, and political organizations feel they are benefitted by pissing people off?"
Well, obviously they are benefiting -- otherwise, they wouldn't continue.
And your attitude, that you don't "give a shit about that", is one of the biggest problems we face in the US.
All those people who "don't give a shit" about political issues, who are not willing to spend a measly 15 minutes of their time, are allowing other interests to rule our government.
So go ahead, play with your toys, watch your sports, listen to your music, but heaven forbid you take an interest in politics. As long as you have your little insulated world, you don't care, hmm?
How do we ensure the best quality of life possible for our citizens? How important are business interests and the economy to that quality of life?
Can we deal with a little annoyance if it helps keep the economy moving?
"I already know enough about our political system to know that our form of democracy is badly broken. I don't need their 'information'.
Is it really too much to ask to be left alone?"
Ignoring our broken political system is not going to make it better.
That said, how hard is it to hang up the phone? Or to screen your calls?
In principle, the do-not-call registry sounds like a great idea.
However, telephone solicitation is very important to business, to charities, and to political organizations. How do we balance their needs with citizens' wants?
I think it's very important that political groups especially are allowed to reach out to people in the community. Unfortunately, most people here in the US are ridiculously undereducated about political issues. What I'd like to see is a proscription against soliciting over the phone, so that information could still be passed along.
This would help reduce how much certain subsets of the population are taken advantage of by telemarketers.
It's not that hard to hang up the phone, or to screen calls. I've set my phone to ring silently if the call is from someone not in my caller ID. I erase telemarketer numbers every couple days.
At this point, at least here in the US, I am very against any action that would limit political participation -- it's low enough already. Polling and grassroots campaigning are vital to how our political system operates today, and should not be abrogated.
However, I think any individual should have the ability to deny a specific organiztion the right to contact them. If the NRA contacts me, I only want to tell them once to go to hell. Instead, I find myself telling them weekly.
What I've got to do now is advise them I am recording the call, and record myself telling them not to ever call me again -- both the NRA and the telemarketing firm doing the calling. Then follow up with a fax repeating my instructions.
Then, when they call again, record that conversation also. Write them a letter stating that I will take them to court unless they wish to settle for, say, $250. I bet they'd settle, since lawyers are too expensive.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
I've read accounts of people making thousands by bleeding the beast in this manner.
I nevered doubted the motivation of the govt to shut down possibly dissenting points-of-view...
But I want accountablility: names, etc.
"Curiously, the DNA in the mitochondria use a slightly different genetic code than our nuclear DNA does"
Actually, Mitochondrial DNA is very, very different from nuclear DNA.
In addition, mDNA is almost always passed down from the female only -- male mDNA is destroyed in the fertilized ovum.
Here's the wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA
Of interest (maybe only to me) is that bananas pass down mDNA from the father. There's a nsaty joke in that fact somewhere...
"On Thursday, Obey explained the decision to ultimately refuse the low-power FM station request.
'With limited resources, you err on the side of FEMA and the Red Cross over entertainment.' "
First, the station was going to be providing more than entertainment.
Second, who from the Red Cross opposed to the station? Why?
Third, who from FEMA opposed the station? Why?
If it cost FEMA and the Red Cross nothing, they have no reson to oppose. If either believes it will cost them something, I'd like to hear it explained.
My guess is, they are worried that unhappy people can be incited to riot.
"Haven't got a clue. Can't even imagine what more I'll want to do on a computer that I can't already do now. "
640K ought to be enough for anybody. -- Bill Gates, 1981
Just for some perspective.
Now I'll get off your lawn.
"Of course, it says "PC" not "Windows" but really, everybody knows what it means. "
Ands that's a problem for Microsoft. It's a detachment from brand awareness that they would prefer not to happen. They want game players to remember that they're using Windows every time they take the CD out of the box.
On the plus side, maybe this means games developed for Linux (my glass is half-full, by the way) will say "Games for Linux" and "PC" on them.
After all, 'PC' can include Linux installad machines...
"Read on for my impressions of what it's like to step into Hulk's very big shoes. "
I would imagine that stepping into Hulk's very big shoes would be something like one of the following:
Trying on the Headless Horseman's hat for size
Seeing eye-to-eye with the Invisible Woman
Walking in the footsteps of Professor Xavier
Get the picture?
I don't know anything about current models, and largely it will depend upon your sister's needs, budget, and limitations.
Here are a couple of sites to get you started: http://www.viewz.com/shoppingguide/scanner.shtml (not my favorite, but it's alright as far as learning the very basics. You just have to realize the site is aimed towards mom-and-pop).
here's the wikipedia entry:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_scanner
Not any info on specific scanners in either of these, but should be a good jumping-off point to understanding the benchmarks.
"And the publishing community is also throwing its weight behind the push, with the major publishers even redesigning their PC boxes to flag up Games for Windows in a similar way to console format branding. "
I imagine something along the lines of:
MS: I understand you want to have the words "Microsoft Windows" on your packaging.
Publisher: Well, yes, we've got to tell our market what platform the game runs on.
MS: Use "Games for Windows" or don't use "Windows" on your packaging at all. Have you met our litigation department?
Publisher: Well, since you put it so nicely...
Not to troll too much here, but to say the publishing industry is putting its weight behind the rebranding, without any more information... well, I get a little suspicious.