Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:they need to work the other end (Score 1) 119

I wouldn't. Most residential phones are moving to VOIP; if you have Internet it dramatically cuts your phone bill.

You don't have to. But it would be nice to have the choice.

The "Callers'" number can be blocked, and some unreputable robocallers do that. But, then I block all calls that don't identify themselves via Caller ID.

Which is close to pointless, since most robocallers just use a fake caller ID number anyway.

Comment Re:I'm sure they will fully comply (Score 1) 119

Just curious, How many times did you report the calls to the FCC?

Doing so is essentially pointless. The FCC is well aware of the extent of the whole "cardholder services" scam, so you're not giving them any information that they don't already have. Since they fake their caller ID anyway, it's not like you're able to provide any more information about who is actually originating the call.

I still submit complaints when the calls provide real identifying information that I can report, but most of the robocalls aren't that sort.

Comment Re:they need to work the other end (Score 1) 119

It seems unfair to completely block legitimate VOIP calls to cell phones, but there has to be some way to block the scammers without putting undue burdens on legitimate companies.

All you need is for the information that it's a VOIP call to be carried along with the call, and then let the user decide whether they want to drop such calls or not.

I sure would.

Comment Re:License to work (Score 1) 637

Would you apply the same standard to IBM for their mainframes?

Yes. Why wouldn't I? If you buy a doohickey and want to maintain it yourself rather than pay the manufacturer for service, you should be entitled to do so, regardless of what loss-leader pricing that you got the doohickey for. Whether the doohickey is a tractor or a mainframe doesn't matter.

Comment Re:License to work (Score 4, Insightful) 637

What I suspect is REALLY going on here is that John Deere and other manufacturers have adopted a model of selling their equipment to farmers either at a loss or at cost, with the understanding that they'll make their profit in implicit servicing contracts. And the farmers, now that they have the equipment in hand on the cheap, have decided to "alter the deal" (to quote the great Darth Vader) to save a buck.

Well then, John Deere should get a lesson on what happens when you have a stupid business model. If they want to make a profit on equipment sales, they'd better price their equipment such that they can turn a profit.

Whether or not the farmers are cheap bastards -- given human nature, they probably are -- is really irrelevant.

Comment Re:Limits of slander? None (Score 2, Insightful) 801

Maybe you should consider that to people outside your little bubble, your particular brand of insulting comments about those who disagree with you may not be particularly insightful.

Calling everyone who moderates you down a "sock puppet" account is neither a rational nor intelligent comment.

Comment Re:Wrong focus (Score 1) 298

It is not a fair comparison. Cars are driven mostly by run-of-the-mill operators. There are drunkards, drug adicts, sick persons, sleep deprived individuals, etc. among drivers of cars and among amateur mechanics.

Sure, part of the reason why cars are more dangerous than airplanes has to do with the fact that most cars are driven by non-professionals. So what? Just because you've found one of the reasons doesn't make it immaterial.

Comment Re:Label it then (Score 1) 470

No. If you want to display a label indicating that the USDA has certified your product as non-GMO

What if you don't?

Uh -- then you don't put it on your label. That's why it's called "voluntary." And if you're so scared about this scenario that you've invented, then you can refuse to buy anything that isn't appropriately certified.

Let's retrace this conversation. To start out, you said that the problem with voluntary labels is that there's no standardization -- which we've conclusively demonstrated is false. I don't even know what you're trying to argue at this point.

Comment Re:Label it then (Score 1) 470

Various? The problem of plenty, with standards? You are making my point for me.

No, I'm not. You're being ridiculous.

Even then, following those standards cannot be mandatory if the labeling itself is voluntary.

No. If you want to display a label indicating that the USDA has certified your product as non-GMO, then there is a mandatory process that you have to follow. Same if you want to use the "Non-GMO project verified" seal. Displaying one of those logos without going through the standard certification would be fraud. So if you're really concerned about somebody playing the sorts of games that you're pretending to be afraid of, then you should look specifically for items that have been independently certified by a process that you trust.

Comment Re:Missing the Point (Score 1) 470

Only one question - if GMOs are truly safe then why can't they just be labeled as such in the store? I like to know my ingredients and I'll choose. Why are big business and government trying to hide it?

So choose the products labeled "GMO-free" (or equivalent) when you're in the store. Problem solved, without your attempt to force everyone else to feed into your fear of GMOs.

Comment Re:Label it then (Score 1) 470

Well, then, that's a good thing to complain about, because truthful advertising should always be allowed. If you can't advertise something as GMO-free when it is -- which, based on what's available at the local grocery store, isn't actually a problem today -- then I'm happy to support changing that.

That doesn't have anything to do with trying to force companies to add a scary new label to convince people to stay away from GMO food, though.

Comment Re:Label it then (Score 3, Insightful) 470

If it's so safe, label it as GMO like other countries do and let people choose.

You know how I know that you don't just want to "let people choose"? Because if that was your real concern, you'd instead introduce voluntary labeling of GMO-free foods. Like, you know, what we already have. Then people who decide to go "GMO-free" could do so to their hearts content, and you aren't using the government to promote your anti-GMO agenda.

Slashdot Top Deals

1 Sagan = Billions & Billions

Working...