If user fees go into effect I'm done

Matt Whiting wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Thomas Borchert writes:


When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it
can be, yes.




There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.

But the concept is difficult enough to get across to Americans.
People in
countries with a history of far less freedom of speech find it all
the more
difficult to understand.


Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st
Amendment) provides protected speech only from the government. It
does not apply between citizens, corporations (or similar entities),
or between citizens and corporations (or similar entities.


And you are like most Americans and don't understand either.

Matt
Ok, help me.

On Feb 10, 5:41 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Thomas Borchert writes:
When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
be, yes.

There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.

Actually freedom of speech presumes that everyone does pass judgement
on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech they
encounter - otherwise one my believe everything they heard or read,
for example on the internet.

Sam Spade writes:

Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment)
provides protected speech only from the government. It does not apply
between citizens, corporations (or similar entities), or between
citizens and corporations (or similar entities.

That's because only the government has enforcement power. Corporations and
individuals cannot enforce prior restraint; the government can. Therefore
freedom of speech restricts the ability of the government to do these things.
Other entities have only tort to resort to, or sometimes they can file
criminal complaints, but the government remains the agent of enforcement in
both cases.

It doesn't matter whether or not a corporation approves of what you say,
because the corporation does not control the whole of society. You can still
say what you want independently of the corporation. But government censorship
is different, because there are no alternative venues. Therefore freedom of
speech acts mainly to restrain governments.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Bob Crawford writes:

Actually freedom of speech presumes that everyone does pass judgement
on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech they
encounter - otherwise one my believe everything they heard or read,
for example on the internet.

Freedom of speech doesn't care what people think of what they hear or read, it
only requires that they not attempt to prevent others from writing or
speaking.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes:


Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment)
provides protected speech only from the government. It does not apply
between citizens, corporations (or similar entities), or between
citizens and corporations (or similar entities.


That's because only the government has enforcement power. Corporations and
individuals cannot enforce prior restraint; the government can. Therefore
freedom of speech restricts the ability of the government to do these things.
Other entities have only tort to resort to, or sometimes they can file
criminal complaints, but the government remains the agent of enforcement in
both cases.

It doesn't matter whether or not a corporation approves of what you say,
because the corporation does not control the whole of society. You can still
say what you want independently of the corporation. But government censorship
is different, because there are no alternative venues. Therefore freedom of
speech acts mainly to restrain governments.


I think we are saying essentially the same thing.

Grumman-581 wrote in
:

Having dealt with quite a few of the various voice response systems over
the years, I would have to say that such a system would pretty much
ensure that I never called for a briefing again... When you have the
repeat the same damn think 10 times and the ****in' system *still*
doesn't recognize what you're trying to say, they're basically ****in'
useless... The menu systems that require touchtone responses are quite a
bit better since they are working with fairly discrete responses that
all phones need to be able to generate in order to even dial a number...

I agree with you - the system should use touch-tone dialing for selection.
IVR as a category predates the voice recognition capability that exists
today. It implies responses by callers to voice prompts, not necessarily
voice responses, though.

My biggest problem with the ones that try to do voice recognition is that
they only seem to work if there is absolutely no background noise, which is
unrealistic to happen in a car or plane (or even at home with the kids)...

That being said, our FSS currently offers callers the ability to hear any
of about 2 dozen weather reports for popular routes and areas. It also
allows callers to file a flight plan as a recording.

I believe the evolution of the system is to voice prompts that allow you to
easily get you the information you need, along with a small group of
national customer support reps who help people who are having trouble from
a single location.

On 2007-02-10, Matt Whiting wrote:
Man you are clueless.

Touched a nerve there. Sounds like you're in denial.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

I agree with you - the system should use touch-tone dialing for selection.

That's the least of it. I find the robots way too chatty.

"Thank you for calling the New England Flight Service Station, one of
twelve FAA superstations covering the country. We hope you are having a
good day, and are eagerly waiting to help you file your flight plan,
plan your flight, get weather briefings, and find out about TFRs and
other flight restrictions. Lets get going! To begin with, I'll have to
ask you a few questions. Are you calling from your home phone number as
registered with the FAA? You can say yes, no, or I don't know. Or, you
can use the touch tone keypad. For yes, press nine, or "y". For no,
press six, or "n". If you don't know whether this number is registesred
with the FAA as your primary phone number, press 4, or "i".

(tweep)

Thank you for your response. You have indicated that this is your home
phone. Remember, to go back, at any time, you can say "go back", or you
can press the two key, or "b". (wakawakawaka) I've located your
record. I see you usually fly a cessna cardinal, November three four
seven Lima Charlie. Is this the aircraft you will be using today? You
can You can say yes, or no. Or, you can use the touch tone keypad. For
yes, press nine, or "y". For no, press six, or "n".

(tweep)

Thank you for your response. I'm so happy to help you. Now, would you
like a weather briefing? If so, press the nine key (or "w"). IF you
would just like to hear about TFRs, press the eight key, or "t". If
you would.......

(click)

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Have I missed the wisecracks about outsourcing briefings to Bangalore?

Don

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
"Blueskies" wrote

So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service,
and replace it with a privatized service for a fee. Yes, that is the
problem...

Flight Watch is not a free service, there are no free services. You
consider Flight Watch to be a "free service" only because you don't pay for
it directly, it's paid with taxes. I would much rather let Flight Watch die
and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each use
of Flight Watch.

Just how much competition do you expect there would be to
provide Flight Watch service? Would there be even be one
company willing to provide it?

The incremental cost to the government to provide Flight
Watch is minimal -- the facilities and personnel are
already in place. The cost to replicate the facilities
and staff the operation for a private company would be
quite high as would be the fees necessary for the provider
to make a profit.