You got the wrong number. This is 91...2
May. 30th, 2003 04:11 pmFrom the
risks_digest
OPT IN OR DIE.
This is what we call today a "public-private partnership". This is why I flinch whenever people talk about database integration and homeland security and using various Wackenhuts and Pinkertons to guard us.
God help us, they're using the direct marketers to decide who shall be saved now.
OPT IN OR DIE.
This is what we call today a "public-private partnership". This is why I flinch whenever people talk about database integration and homeland security and using various Wackenhuts and Pinkertons to guard us.
God help us, they're using the direct marketers to decide who shall be saved now.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-30 05:24 pm (UTC)I don't want to get that crap either! So I'm glad that having an unlisted number will result in that.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-30 05:26 pm (UTC)What a messed-up way to broadcast emergency info!
Date: 2003-05-31 04:00 pm (UTC)It seems to me that the whole issue would be moot if they were able to work out a better system for informing people than a phone call. What do they do if nobody is home and has no answering machine? A number of single broadcasts--whether via EBN, the news, or air-raid klaxons--would seem to be more efficient than a number of one-on-one directed broadcasts. Imagine the traffic if all local area network broadcasts were TCP instead of UDP.
If we were to rely on phone calls, my cellphone is not on any lists and our home phone (not yet on any opt-out lists) has the ringer turned down and an answering machine that answers on the first ring. We check the answering machine about once a week. I guess if it were just up to the phone calls, we would be choking on toxic gasses.