A common answer I've been reading in here is to never answer or block ALL calls with their number blocked (because they are cowards). My wife is a physician, and has our home number blocked - because she is a coward. When returning pages/calls from patients there are a lot of those patients that would love to have our home number, so they could call day-and-night without having to go through the switchboard to get the actual physician on call. You won't get her to return a call until you turn your blocking off.
What if only residential people could get call number blocking, or if business had it taken away after a certain threshhold for complaints. Great idea (pat self on back), but the telcos would never give up the income from number blocking. Congress is too busy taking campaign contributions from corporations to ever give consituants any consideration in a matter such as this.
I knew a gal in an apartment I lived in (in Phoenix) who once flashed er boobs to a couple of adult males (I missed 'em). The manager called the police and they charged her with a sex crime. I spoke with her about a year later, she was homeless and living on the street or with any guy that would let her stay. After the flashing and sex crime she was thrown out of the apartment. No other apartment in Phoenix would rent to her because of the crime free lease addendums.
How many other stories are there about people getting charged with a sex crime for taking a leak outside?
If this gets enforced strickly, how many people will have to log-off? Is Slashdot considered a social network site?
Dell Optiplex GX745
Core 2 Duo E6700
8GB RAM DDR2 8900
256MB ATI Radeon X1300PRO"
Link to Original Source
John Walsh of America's Most Wanted stood as the U.S. House of Representatives to overwhelmingly (409 to 2) approved a bill saying anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings or be fined up to $300,000.
This Bill is aimed at individuals, coffee shops, libraries, hotels, social-networking sites, domain name registrars, and e-mail providers (anyone who provides "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public). SAFE also holds anyone who does comply is immune from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions. Any prognostications on unintended consequences of this Bill?
Full story on CNET News"
Link to Original Source