The text below is a copy and paste directly from the Federal Do Not Call List web site.

If I register my number, will ALL unwanted calls stop?

No, the Do Not Call Registry prohibits sales calls. You still may receive political calls, charitable calls, debt collection calls, informational calls, and telephone survey calls and some Types of Businesses and Individuals

Some types of businesses are not covered by the Rule even though they conduct telemarketing campaigns that may involve some interstate telephone calls to sell goods or services. These three types of entities are not subject to the FTC's jurisdiction, and not covered by the Rule:

-banks, federal credit unions, and federal savings and loans.

-common carriers — such as long-distance telephone companies and airlines — when they are

engaging in common carrier activity.

-non-profit organizations — those entities that are not organized to carry on business for their own, or

their members', profit.

These types of entities are not covered by the Rule because they are specifically exempt from the FTC's jurisdiction. Nevertheless, any other individual or company that contracts with one of these three types of entities to provide telemarketing services must comply with the Rule.

What!????????

The "no" part about "informational" or "telephone survey calls" confuses me. I guess I thought that "Do Not Call" meant exactly that. If I register my number, will ALL unwanted calls stop? Not really.

About five years ago I registered the house phone and the three cell phones we have with the Federal Do Not Call List. The unwanted phone calls were down to about two a week. About three months ago we started getting several calls during the morning and several during the afternoon. One was so persistent, a late night robocall, it called at least 15 times one right after another. We finally unplugged the phone. I reported it to the Complaint Dept. of the Federal Do Not Call Dept. Now we're getting lots of Robocalls. I stopped answering the phone in the morning and afternoon unless I recognize the phone number that shows up on the house phone.

I had someone sending me texts on my cell that said that the caller could sell me cigarettes at a real cheap price. I just deleted the calls. But they continued. My cell captured the phone number so I sent a reply text saying if you persist in texting I will report your phone number to the Complaint Dept. of the Federal Do Not Call List, and added "stop texting me." I must have lucked out as the texts stopped.

A suggestion for all of you getting unknown phone calls, don't answer. A computer does the calling - saves the phone number when the call receiver answers the call by simply pushing the "on" button. The computer stores the information about the phone number, date and time. It can probably save an accurate location of the phone from the area code. (Great, now everybody knows about where we live.) And I assume the person or persons who own this robocall service sells all of the robocall numbers to whoever wants the list. Pretty slick. Wonder how many flockos are in on this scammiss frammiss?

I had figured out a way to stop the local roofers, plumbers, gardeners, patio builders, solar roof guys and house remodelers etc. from calling me again. I recorded a high pitch noise and was prepared to place it on the talk part of the phone and burn out the ears of the person calling. Is this mean. Yeah. Do I care...no.

Haven't had a chance to use it though, as we are continuing to get robocalls.

Under American law—specifically, under the due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment (applicable under federal jurisdiction) and the Fourteenth Amendment (applicable under the jurisdiction of any of the several states of the Union)—the accused have a right to have their criminal cases proved against them beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). This is the highest standard of proof available, and it is only used in criminal cases. Moreover, the defendant is presumed innocent at the beginning of trial, and the prosecution alone has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Miles v. United States, 103 U.S. 304, 309 (1880).

So, what does this really mean? In lay terms, there is almost no room for error: The “finder of fact,” which may be a jury or a judge, must be satisfied that the defendant almost certainly committed the crime in question. Winship at 363. If there is any real question that the defendant committed the crime, the prosecution has not proved its case, and the finder of fact has a duty to not convict. Id.

What if the finder of fact just does not think in terms of whether the prosecution has a near-perfect case? Perhaps the finder is prejudiced in favor of or against one side, or persists in thinking of terms of who has the better argument rather than in terms of whether the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps no amount of persuasion or court instruction will sway such a finder to act in accordance with due process. Nevertheless, the finder of fact, as the name suggests, has the ability to determine what supposedly happened, effectively giving it great power over the fate of the accused. Id. at 363-364.

The safeguards against unreasonable convictions that trial courts might allow to stand lie in the appellate processes. A typical post-trial procedure might begin with a motion for a new trial, and may cite, as an error of the trial, something along the lines of, “No reasonable trier [i.e., ‘finder’] of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). This kind of motion is generally heard by the same judge that presided over the trial, and is often denied.

In a case that reaches an appellate court, the appellant (formerly referred to as the “defendant”) no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence. District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 68-69 (2009). Moreover, against a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the reviewing court does not inquire as to whether the appellant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt: Instead, the reviewing court inquires into whether, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson at 319. A way of looking at this in lay terms might be that, on appeal, the game has changed considerably, and the cards are stacked so that the appellant’s case has become much harder as the reviewing court will look at the prosecution’s case with favor. Effectively, appellants often have a very difficult time prevailing on appeal.

Once convicted, the accused are placed in very precarious positions. Thus, the finders of fact, plain and simple, play a pivotal role in the fates of the accused, and the function of American criminal justice systems relies heavily on the finders’ abilities to properly apply the legal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Triggered mainly by circumstances resulting from Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676, in 1705, Virginia Colony’s House of Burgesses enacted “Slave Codes” that established a mind-set which, 70 years in the future would allow the founders of a republic blatantly to ignore the high-minded sentiments that they had expressed in a document intended to free themselves from what they quite cynically considered to be stifling oppression! That same mind-set, which soon after its birth developed into the psychological norm, almost a century later required close to a million mortal sacrifices to sustain the murky, ill-conceived compact agreed upon by the colonists. That skewed, psychological inset dragged us along for another hundred years. Today, although progressively dealing with the fallout, the remnants of that artificially created, psychological disorder are difficult to dislodge.

In my piece on the Ken Burns’ treatment of the Jackie Robinson story, I mentioned an endless chain and infected blood vessel. What is obvious, but not often mentioned, is that both White and Black are attached to those infernal appendages, which were locked onto us by that 1705 legislation. We need only consider those grieving, post-bellum mothers, wives and sisters. Here is a brief chronicle of the period that led to the “Slave Codes”:

· In 1607, Jamestown became the first, permanent English settlement in North America.

· In 1619, the first Africans arrived at Jamestown. They were discovered aboard a captive Dutch slave ship. In the settlement, they were treated, essentially, the same as the indentured servants who came from England.

· In 1676, Nathaniel Bacon led a rebellion against Governor James Berkeley, who, among his ineffectiveness in protecting the colony against the Algonquin Indians, he also disrespected Bacon and excluded him from fur-trading.

· Eventually, the whole colony rose up against Berkeley, who was forced to flee.

· When order was restored, it was noted by the aristocracy that the White and Black servants had fought together against the establishment. It was those concerns that ultimately culminated in the enactment of the Slave Codes of 1705.

· A permanent, dividing line was drawn between Black and White. Blacks were “property;” Whites were “people.”

Today, there are reports of increased drug addiction, suicide, insecurity and general discontent among the White middle class. We pretend not to know why, and blame it on the advancement of technology and the disappearance of manufacturing. Well, partially, but have we forgotten those hysterical and violent assemblages – both North and South – in defiance of Civil Rights’ enforcement? And, more currently, are we discarding the psychological effect motivated by the fact that the majority population is decreasing and minorities are increasing? Well, of course we are ignoring those salient facts – in the same way we have ignored the fact that we have been living a lie since 1776! It is all part of a psychosis. The derangement began when, quite pointedly, in 1705, it was definitively resolved and adjudicated that we would, “live in a house, half-slave and half-free.”

No need, here, for social scientists or psychiatrists – or is there?!

***** ***** *****

Ancient of Days, thou hast us failed!

Oft have we ‘gainst thy judgement wailed.

Tears mend not our plight.

Long gone is the fight.

Act thee, now, ere our ship hath sailed!

Privately operated laser and drone interference with commercial aircraft is increasing in the number of incidents and the danger these violations could cause.

LASER is an acronym: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.

Laser can be green, red, blue or yellow in color. Green is, by far, the most potent light ray. Laser generates an intense beam of coherent monochromatic light or other electromagnetic radiation, by stimulated emission of photons from excited atoms or molecules. The usage of laser is varied: drilling and cutting; alignment and guidance; surgery; optical properties are exploited in holography; reading bar codes; recording and playing compact discs.

A drone is also known as an, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). It is an aircraft without a human passenger aboard.

Laser interference with aircraft in flight is malicious. It may be that the perpetrators of these acts may consider it a game, to see how annoying they can be to aircraft pilots. It is very annoying – and very dangerous, and illegal! The laser fills the cockpit with a green light that distracts pilots, could cause eye damage, and could lead to fatal disorientation.

Under general laws dealing with the operation of aircraft and corresponding personnel, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) levies a fine of $11,000 for each aircraft-laser incident. Incredibly, there is no federal law covering this specific offense. Legislation was introduced in the Congress in 2011, but it has not been seen since then. The National Rifle Association (NRA)...? – Naw, they wouldn't...

The offenses of the UAV or drone aloft seems to be considerably less ill-intentioned than those done by laser. There have been several close-calls with commercial aircraft. One big fear of pilots, is that a drone might be sucked into an engine. Large birds are bad enough, but the construction of a drone could cause disaster.

In a recent field fire, in Southern California, that breached an interstate highway, drones in the area, at first, prevented the delivery of water by aircraft. Fortunately, they quickly were withdrawn.

There seems not to be a federal law covering drones. It may be presumed that drone interference with other aircraft would come under the appropriate FAA statutes. In the absence of federal strictures, many states are rushing to cover this burgeoning phenomenon with their own legislation.

As usual, government control of new technology is lagging. It is hoped that government will avail itself of the latest technology in dealing with these two sky-related phenomena. In both cases, it should require a traceable, digital identification.

Laser guns capable of reaching aircraft should be required to register an identification number, or whatever, capable of being detected by a corresponding receptor, strategically placed on the body of the craft being lit up by the laser.

To disable drones in the air would be dangerous; however, their individual identification should be able to be detected by air- of ground-initiated signal.

***** ***** *****

All a-buzz with laser and drone,

Pilots hark to their planes' smooth tone.

While "feds" hem and haw,

They could get lockjaw.

They're thinking, "Please, throw us a bone?"