|
|
The Telecom Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 95 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: California's upcoming 1-2-punch against distracted driving (Sam Spade)
Re: California's upcoming 1-2-punch against distracted driving (Steven)
Re: California's upcoming 1-2-punch against distracted driving (Thad Floryan)
Re: California's upcoming 1-2-punch against distracted driving (Steven)
Re: Data security law sparks concerns (SVU)
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 01:08:52 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: California's upcoming 1-2-punch against distracted driving
Message-ID: <oUgun.37282$Ht4.32003@newsfe20.iad>
Steven wrote:
>>
> The only way to stop usage of cell phones by drivers while holding them
> is to increase the fines to a few thousand dollars, anything under that
> will have no effect. I see hundreds of people each day using phones as
> I drive around. I stay as far as I can from them.
>
> --
> The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
> (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
>
Why not take their car away from them, revoke their license, and give
them 10 years in prison?
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 10:12:58 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: California's upcoming 1-2-punch against distracted driving
Message-ID: <hpd5mt$p3t$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Steven wrote:
>
>>>
>> The only way to stop usage of cell phones by drivers while holding them
>> is to increase the fines to a few thousand dollars, anything under that
>> will have no effect. I see hundreds of people each day using phones as
>> I drive around. I stay as far as I can from them.
>>
>> --
>> The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
>> (c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
>>
>
> Why not take their car away from them, revoke their license, and give
> them 10 years in prison?
>
Give the police more reasons to take cars and you will have some
agencies setting up road blocks and taking every car that comes through
with a cell phone on board even if it not in use. And I spend 2o plus
years as a Reserve Sheriff. Revoking the drivers license is fine with
me, 10 years in Prison would have to make it a Felony.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:20:22 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: California's upcoming 1-2-punch against distracted driving
Message-ID: <4BBA37F6.80209@thadlabs.com>
On 4/5/2010 10:12 AM, Steven wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>> Steven wrote:
>>
>>> The only way to stop usage of cell phones by drivers while holding them
>>> is to increase the fines to a few thousand dollars, anything under that
>>> will have no effect. I see hundreds of people each day using phones as
>>> I drive around. I stay as far as I can from them.
>>
>> Why not take their car away from them, revoke their license, and give
>> them 10 years in prison?
>
> Give the police more reasons to take cars and you will have some
> agencies setting up road blocks and taking every car that comes through
> with a cell phone on board even if it not in use. And I spend 2o plus
> years as a Reserve Sheriff. Revoking the drivers license is fine with
> me, 10 years in Prison would have to make it a Felony.
Dunno about 10 years, but treating it ("it" = distracted driving texting or
using a cellphone) as a felony makes perfect sense given the studies which
show such distracted driving exhibiting properties akin to DUI (alcohol or
drugs).
What bothers me more is how DUI is frequently handed here in California as
hardly more than a speeding violation in that repeat offenders (recividists)
are allowed to continue driving after the arrest and conviction -- it's just
a matter of time before their luck runs out and *B*A*M* a fatal accident. I
see far too often in the local papers where some DUIers are reported to have
had 10+ prior DUI convictions. It's been awhile so my memory is fuzzy on this,
but when I drove in Europe (mostly Germany and France) there was only one
chance: get caught DUI and never, ever be able to drive again. We need that
level of enforcement and sentencing everywhere.
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:39:35 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: California's upcoming 1-2-punch against distracted driving
Message-ID: <hpe6t7$prc$1@news.eternal-september.org>
> Dunno about 10 years, but treating it ("it" = distracted driving texting or
> using a cellphone) as a felony makes perfect sense given the studies which
> show such distracted driving exhibiting properties akin to DUI (alcohol or
> drugs).
>
> What bothers me more is how DUI is frequently handed here in California as
> hardly more than a speeding violation in that repeat offenders (recividists)
> are allowed to continue driving after the arrest and conviction -- it's just
> a matter of time before their luck runs out and *B*A*M* a fatal accident. I
> see far too often in the local papers where some DUIers are reported to have
> had 10+ prior DUI convictions. It's been awhile so my memory is fuzzy on this,
> but when I drove in Europe (mostly Germany and France) there was only one
> chance: get caught DUI and never, ever be able to drive again. We need that
> level of enforcement and sentencing everywhere.
This is getting way off subject now.
I have a car hands free, but don't use it while driving.
I agree is should be treated the same as a DUI, that is if it cause
injury; a few years ago a driver was convicted because he ran into a van
full of kids, he did get 10 years.
Some 40 years ago a girl friend was killed by a drunk driver who had at
least 10 DUIs', he kept on getting slapped on the hand for it. I got
involved because she was had my service card in her purse, responding
units thought she was a wife of a police officer. This guy still got
off with just under a year in jail, by the way, the judge who heard the
case had a bright red nose, one guess what his problem was? I did
everything I could to get him off the bench, he died a couple of years
later.
We don't need more laws we need for them to be inforced.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 07:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: SVU <brad.houser@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Data security law sparks concerns
Message-ID: <c2c478fc-ba24-4193-a4a3-45bf0c89d7e7@g30g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
> ***** Moderaotor's Note *****
>
> My new employer has given me a new laptop, which has a built in
> provision to encrypt the entire hard disk. The encryption is done by
> the laptop's hardware, not the Operating System, and I've been assured
> that the hard drive is unreadable in any other machine.
>
> The point is that I don't think protecting data is that hard to do.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
Yes, but there are still ways to get at any data if the user has not
powered down or locked the screensaver. What I don't understand is why
so many business people walk around with their customer records on
their laptop, including credit card numbers and SSNs. How many times
have you heard about data being taken from stolen laptops?
Folks, if they can keep just any employee from viewing my salary and
SSN, then they can keep customer information private too.
Brad Houser
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom Digest (5 messages)
|
or 