Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: quelle surprise (Score 1) 702

by rickb928 (#47396147) Attached to: When Beliefs and Facts Collide

I'm not arguing that global warming doesn't exist, nor of it is man made our not. Just asking if the premise that it began in t 30s took into account the dramatic warming of the 30s.

This is what makes this an impossible debate? If you are not lockstep with the AGW faithful, they demonize you as Luddite, ignorant, anti-science, evil.

Take that and stuff it. Reason with me or stop pretending you have science.

My disagreement with you is, in this thread, still hypothetical. At least let me make the statement, please, before you decide if I'm for or against something, k?

Comment: Unintended consequences (Score 1) 238

by rickb928 (#47372735) Attached to: Following EU Ruling, BBC Article Excluded From Google Searches

Perhaps some fine-tuning is in order. If you continue to be a public person, and being a director of a major corporation does qualify yopu as 'public', then perhaps the laws should be more strict. Challenging results for accuracy of the underlying information would be a hugely entertaining process.

Comment: Already obsolete (Score 4, Informative) 110

by rickb928 (#47364611) Attached to: FTC Says T-Mobile Made Hundreds of Millions From Bogus SMS Charges

The FTC is infamous for bring suit even years after the transgressions occurred.

Typical. Not much to see here.

Indeed, from the Complaint:

"Until at least December 2013, T-Mobile has also charged consumers for other services..."

"Until at least December 2013, in addition to charging for phone services offered
by Defendant, Defendant has charged many consumers for other services offered by third-party
merchants. These purported services have included monthly subscriptions for content such as
ringtones, wallpaper, and text messages providing horoscopes, flirting tips, celebrity gossip, and
other similar information (“Third-Party Subscriptions”). Defendant typically has charged
consumers $9.99 per month for such Third-Party Subscriptions. "

No doubt.

"9. In numerous instances, Defendant has charged consumers for Third-Party
Subscriptions that the consumers did not order or authorize, a practice known as cramming.
Defendant has continued to charge consumers for Third-Party Subscriptions even after large
numbers of consumers complained about unauthorized charges. Refund rates for the
subscriptions were high – in some cases as high as 40%. Further, Defendant has continued to
charge consumers for Third-Party Subscriptions even after industry auditor alerts, law
enforcement and other legal actions, and news articles indicated that the third-party merchants
were not obtaining valid authorization from consumers for the charges. "

FTC boilerplate for these sorts of complaints. Every carrier has done this, some repeatedly, over the past few decades.

"11. In television and other advertisements, and during its sales process, Defendant
markets its telephone and data services to consumers. Defendant’s sales representatives often
discuss these services only, and not purported third-party services, with consumers. Defendant’s
contracts make clear and prominent representations about the services it provides; information
about third-party services is buried in lengthy terms and conditions of its service contract.
12. Defendant has not obtained authorization from consumers before charging them
for Third-Party Subscriptions. Instead, the third-party merchants or billing intermediaries
purportedly have obtained authorization. In many cases, however, these third parties have failed
to obtain authorization from consumers."

And indeed, same old boilerplate. Especially the phrase "buried in lengthy terms and conditions of its service contract"

If the FTC would similarly file complaints against any number of corporations that do just this, they would be very very busy indeed.

This is PR for the FTC. You go, boyz!

Comment: Re: I lost the password (Score 1) 560

First, what do your mean by 'direct democracy? We elect our representatives now. Do you mean direct votes on specific bills or actions? That is at the last unnecessary, and risks making is a federalized nation, which at best ensures the demise of our constitution. What technology do we possess that now makes this possible? We have been able to accurately count votes nationally since the 70s, and really before. We don't need to count them instantaneously, nor do we national vote tallies unless you wish to obliterate the state's. Which I oppose without doubt or qualification.

That argument, direct democracy, is the calling card of the Left, especially the Marxist. Count me out.

Comment: Re: I lost the password (Score 1) 560

by rickb928 (#47343139) Attached to: Mass. Supreme Court Says Defendant Can Be Compelled To Decrypt Data

You are correct, Senators represent the entire state. I'm so used to my old state, Maine , traditionally electing Senators from the North and the South that I think of one as 'my' senator.

But your complaint about gerrymandering falls on deaf ears. Each party practices this, and so called 'direct elections' would change the dynamics in a massive fashion. I would expect 'direct elections' to cement the Democratic Party advantage indefinitely.

I still cling to the 'State's part of 'The United States of America' as critical to our success, and to our political stability. That stability is on jeopardy largely due to, IMHO, Federal overreach and state failures.

I find the Left is generally in favor of 'direct elections'. For what should be obvious reasons.

Comment: Re: I lost the password (Score 1) 560

Lerner was just an administrator of a department. Her bosses boss is responsible for enduring that the law is followed, that systems and processes are being employed to prevent this, and it is this administrator who should answer.

And his testimony so far has been an uninterrupted display of contempt for the law, Congress, and us.

"Be *excellent* to each other." -- Bill, or Ted, in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure